A SYSTEMS

PERSPECTIVE

Bureau of 

Justice Assistance
This document was prepared by Pretrial Services Resource Center, under grant number 97–

DD–BX–0016, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.

Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the

official position or policies of the U.S.Department of Justice.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno

Attorney General

Daniel Marcus

Acting Associate Attorney General

Mary Lou Leary

Acting Assistant Attorney General

Nancy E. Gist

Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance

Office of Justice Programs

World Wide Web Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Bureau of Justice Assistance

World Wide Web Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

For grant and funding information contact

U.S. Department of Justice Response Center

1–800–421–6770

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.
Bureau of Justice Assistance

A Second Look at

AlleviatingJailCrowding

A Systems Perspective

October 2000 Monograph NCJ 182507
Cover image © 2000 PhotoDisc, Inc.
iii

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

Foreword

The 1985 monograph Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective highlighted the range of options, innovative at that time, that key system actors

were successfully using to reduce jail populations. Despite the many successes that have been achieved in a decade and a half, many jurisdictions

around the country are still confronted with crowded jails. Although many

of the approaches outlined in that first monograph are still useful, criminal

justice officials today are facing different challenges than those that existed

15 years ago—challenges that require new approaches. Greater numbers of

mentally ill persons, drug users, drunk drivers, and persons charged with

or convicted of domestic violence are now held in local jails. Addressing

the needs of these populations has required creativity and collaboration

with other system and extra-system actors. Other developments such as

mandatory sentencing laws, victims’ rights, the prosecution of juveniles as

adults, and the emphasis on community safety have forced officials to

make the most efficient use of limited jail space.

This document describes how system officials have responded to the challenges of the past 15 years to minimize jail crowding. As in the first edition, this monograph discusses each individual actor—including law

enforcement, jail administration, prosecution, pretrial services, judiciary,

defense, probation and parole, and extra-system actors—and the role each

has been playing in alleviating crowding. The final chapter of the document describes how these actors should work together to develop a

systemwide plan for alleviating jail crowding.

The first edition of this document has been used extensively by system officials over the past 15 years as they have grappled with the difficult problems associated with jail crowding. This new, updated version is intended

to provide those same system officials with more current examples of

practices and programs that their peers have found to be successful in reducing unnecessary and expensive jail usage, while rigidly maintaining

community safety and the integrity of the justice process.

Nancy E. Gist

Director

Bureau of Justice Assistance
v

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the many criminal justice officials from throughout the

country who shared their experiences and successes in addressing effective

jail population management. Without their generous efforts this document

could not have been produced. Thanks are also due to Bureau of Justice

Assistance Program Manager Richard Sutton who guided the development

of this project.

Finally, we thank the team at the Pretrial Services Resource Center who

surveyed systems, interviewed practitioners, documented their findings,

and did all the work necessary to produce this reference piece for the field.

Particular recognition is due to Deputy Directors Jolanta Juszkiewicz and

John Clark, who oversaw the project, and to former Center staff Robert

Gibson, Theresa Lewis, and Dani Jahn for their valuable contributions during the process.
vii

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................... 1

Then and Now............................................................................ 1

Changes Since 1985.................................................................... 2

Need for a Systemwide Approach .......................................... 3

Survey Method ........................................................................... 4

Overview ..................................................................................... 4

Chapter 2 Anatomy of a Criminal Justice System................................ 7

Two Dimensions of Jail Use:

Admissions and Length of Confinement ............................... 7

Criminal Justice Decision Points and Options .................... 13

Chapter 3 Information Needs for a Systemwide Strategy ............... 19

Case-Processing Information ................................................. 19

Jail Population Information.................................................... 20

Methods for Gathering Information ..................................... 23

Information Analysis .............................................................. 26

A Cautionary Note .................................................................. 29

Chapter 4 Systemwide Approach: How Individual Actors

Can Affect Jail Population ................................................... 31

Law Enforcement ..................................................................... 31

Jail Administration .................................................................. 35

Prosecution ............................................................................... 41

Pretrial Services........................................................................ 46

Judiciary .................................................................................... 53

Defense ...................................................................................... 61

Probation and Parole ............................................................... 65

Bail Bondsmen.......................................................................... 70

Extra-system Services.............................................................. 71

External Factors........................................................................ 71

Chapter 5 Systemwide Planning To Alleviate and Prevent

Jail Crowding .......................................................................... 75

Process Changes....................................................................... 75

Program Changes .................................................................... 76

Key Actor Participation .......................................................... 77

Strategy Implementation Checklist ...................................... 80

Final Caveats ............................................................................ 81

Contents
viii

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Appendix A Case-Processing Questionnaire .................................. 83

Appendix B–1 Sample Detention Form ............................................... 89

Appendix B–2 Sample Jail Release Form ............................................ 91

Appendix C Contacts ............................................................................ 93

Notes ............................................................................................................. 103

Sources for Further Information ............................................................. 111

Contents (continued)
1

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

Headlines Then (1985)

“County jail turned away 400 prisoners”

“27 inmates die in jail fire”

“17-year-old youth beaten to death in local jail”

“State hospital releasee sets jail fire”

“Trial of jailing drunks opens”

“Youth kills self in jail”

“Jail inmates awarded $2 million settlement”

Chapter 1

Introduction

Then and Now

The 1999 headlines in our nation’s newspapers mirrored those in 1985,

when the first edition of this monograph was published1—jail crowding

continues to be a nationwide problem. This is somewhat surprising because in the intervening years there was a boom in the construction of correctional facilities in many parts of the country and a decline in crime

throughout the entire United States. In the 1-year period ending June 30,

1998, the nation’s jails operated at 97-percent capacity, despite the addition

of 26,216 beds during the preceding 12-month period and some 250,000

beds during the preceding 10 years.2

 Jails with the largest average daily

populations—1,000 or more inmates—reported operating at 103 percent of

rated capacity.3 In 1983, the condition of jail crowding was described as

“the most pressing problem” facing criminal justice systems across the nation.4 Today local government and criminal justice officials face no less of a

struggle dealing with crowded jails than they did in 1985.

Jail crowding may become a community issue as the result of events such

as litigation initiated on behalf of jail inmates, a citizens campaign, a state

agency citation for violation of capacity standards, or a sheriff’s plea for jail

expansion due to an increasing inmate population. The extent of jail crowding may be measured in different ways, by square footage or inmates per

cell. State regulations may measure crowding by staff efficiency criteria. A

judge may define it based on the pronouncement of other courts or professional organizations. A county may measure crowding by the number of

inmates forced to sleep on the floor or in areas intended for programs or

recreation. Whatever the context or standard, the combination of sharp

population increases and the tightening of local purse strings is bringing

hundreds of communities face-to-face with an unwelcome problem.

As in 1985, cities and counties still often respond to jail crowding and resultant litigation precipitously, without careful study or planning and

without the participation of all justice system agencies. Such approaches

generally produce only costly symptomatic relief, such as building more

Headlines Now (1999)

“Overcrowding in county’s jail still a dilemma”

“County seeks way to keep mental patients out of jail”

“Jail crowding expensive to county”

“Residents protest jail expansion”

“Mentally disabled languish behind bars”

“No equality in numbers behind bars”

“New jail; same old problem”
2

Bureau of Justice Assistance

jail beds, and leave unaddressed the underlying causes of crowding. Responsible local officials who are considering community safety and the

possibility of litigation, as well as the interests of those living and working

within the jail, are under growing pressure to respond to crowded jail conditions. In a crisis atmosphere, these concerns are often simply translated

into a need for building larger jails. Construction and operation of local

jails are extremely expensive propositions. Over the years, the view that a

jurisdiction can solve its jail crowding problem through building has

proved to be wrong.

Even if a jurisdiction can afford the cost of new construction, the operating

costs may present a formidable obstacle for local governments. One of the

largest jails in the nation—the 4,100-bed, $373 million Twin Towers in Los

Angeles County, California—was left vacant for 16 months due to a lack of

operating funds.5 Some jurisdictions build jails larger than their current or

even future projections demand in the belief that rental of extra beds can

generate revenues. This strategy rarely meets with success.6 Local jail expenditures in the United States in mid-1993 amounted to $9.6 billion, compared with the $2.7 billion spent in 1983.7

 An official estimate of the

expenditures on jail construction over the next 10 years for California

alone is $2.4 billion, and this amount is “simply to maintain the current

level of overcrowding.”8

Changes Since 1985

Several factors have contributed to the need for a second look at jail overcrowding. Foremost, the problem of jail crowding has not abated since the

1985 publication of the first monograph studying this problem.9 Jails are

still crowded but often with a different mixture of inmates and for different underlying reasons than in 1985. Changes in the type of inmate being

housed10 and the length of confinement are due largely to changing arrest

policies at the front end and sentencing policies at the back end. The war

on drugs, which was at its beginning stages in the early 1980s, has become

routine. Mandatory arrest policies for domestic violence offenses and

drunk driving have become institutionalized. Deinstitutionalization of the

mentally ill and their resultant involvement in the criminal justice system,

although not new phenomena, have aroused renewed interest. Truth-insentencing laws, three-strikes-and-you’re-out laws, and mandatory minimum sentencing laws have changed the proportion of jail inmates in

pretrial status.11 The demand for jail beds has changed since the spate of

laws facilitating the transfer of cases involving juveniles to adult criminal

courts and in many instances juvenile offenders to adult jails.12 Technological advances have had an ambiguous impact on jail populations and

lengths of stays. Other developments such as the onset of and growth in

specialized courts, the extension of victims’ rights, and the emphasis on

community safety have influenced who goes to jail and how long they are

confined.
3

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

Another development was passage of the Prison Reform Litigation Act

(PRLA).13 Signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, PRLA restricts the

role of federal courts in correcting violations of federal rights of inmates in

jails and prisons and requires that any relief, including consent decrees, be

“narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm,

and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.” The law’s

effect on jail crowding litigation is as yet undetermined.14

Despite expenditure of substantial resources in this area, including the

construction of additional jail beds and technical assistance offered by the

National Institute of Corrections15 and other organizations, jurisdictions

need an up-to-date guide to provide a structured format for jail population

management planning.16 This monograph is designed to assist local officials by providing a framework for analysis and planning. It offers new

insights based on lessons learned, descriptions of new challenges, and information and resources available to jurisdictions dealing with jail crowding. It is also intended to serve as a resource to preempt crisis management

by preventing conditions in a jail that lead to overcrowding.

Need for a Systemwide Approach

A systemwide and long-term approach to dealing with jail crowding has

been espoused for the past several decades.17 A similar approach was detailed in a 1998 report that ensued from a meeting between the Attorney

General and the American Bar Association, Bar Information Program. The

report recommended “practical attempts to make the best use of limited

justice system resources by implementing projects that depend on collaborative, interagency planning.”18 Justice officials may have different reasons

for seeking long-term resolution of crowding crises. Judges, prosecutors,

probation/parole officers, and others often find that crowding acts as a severe constraint in dealing with individual cases in which jailing appears

necessary, but space is unavailable. Public defenders and pretrial services

officers are among those whose functions are likely to be impaired by delayed access to inmates caused by overcrowded facilities and overworked

jail staff. Court functions may suffer from an inability to move inmates to

and from scheduled court appearances in a timely manner. Indeed, the

ramifications of jail crowding—in lowered productivity, diminished employee morale, and increased operating expenses—affect all agencies involved in handling criminal cases. Most affected is the jail administrator,19

who must deal with matters such as the increased likelihood of inmate and

staff tension, damage to facility and equipment, inability to meet program

and service standards, and budgetary problems resulting from overtime

staffing.

An increasing number of jurisdictions, faced with dangerously crowded

jails and strained local finances, have begun looking for ways to curb jail

population growth and increase space. Their objectives have been to divert
4

Bureau of Justice Assistance

persons from jail and shorten the custody period of those who remain. Jurisdictions have also sought to ensure that neither premature nor inappropriate releases occur that could endanger public safety. According to those

surveyed for this publication, the systemwide approach has proved highly

effective. They and others have concluded that jail crowding, whether periodic or chronic, is a sign that an examination of criminal justice policies

and procedures is warranted.

Many jurisdictions have succeeded in curbing jail population growth and

avoiding the need for larger facilities without compromising community

safety or the integrity of the justice system. They have done so by using

combinations of system efficiency measures and carefully considered alternatives. The need to focus on these system efficiency measures emerged

from several factors. The first was a realization that the local crime rate is

only one of the factors determining jail population. The second was a recognition that there is joint responsibility for jail population levels among

agencies involved in criminal case handling. The third was an understanding that functions overlap and interdependence exists among all justice

system components. Finally, it was understood that careful planning involving all components of the local criminal justice system is required.

Survey Method

Pretrial Services Resource Center project staff gathered information for this

monograph by contacting a series of individuals. Initially, experts with

knowledge of programs nationwide were contacted to provide references

of local criminal justice and other officials. Then, referred local officials

and those who contributed to the earlier monograph were contacted and

asked about their efforts to achieve more effective use of jail space. Telephone and in-person interviews were conducted from mid-1997 to early

1999. In addition, project staff reviewed relevant reports, documents, and

other materials.

Overview

Jail crowding must be recognized as a local problem and solutions developed in accordance with the unique circumstances of individual communities. While new construction to increase the number of jail beds may be

one component of a set of proposed solutions to the problem, this document emphasizes other activities that can help to ensure the effective use

of existing bed space. This monograph provides information to help jurisdictions study case processing and plan systemwide strategies. Emphasis

is placed on the role that local criminal justice agencies can play, alone and

with others, to determine the best use of jail space to prevent crime and

maintain public safety.
5

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

Summarized briefly, this monograph contains the following chapters:

❑ Chapter 2 presents a flowchart of a typical adult criminal justice system.

This is accompanied by a brief narrative of the decision points and

options that are displayed in the chart. The importance of length of

confinement in determining jail population levels is also discussed.

❑ Chapter 3 asks, “When is a jail crowded?” and identifies types of

information needed to answer the question.

❑ Chapter 4 describes the policies and practices of criminal justice officials

and extra-system actors that affect who is jailed and for how long and

that influence the size of jail populations.

❑ Chapter 5 discusses systemwide mechanisms, including factors to

consider when implementing strategies to address jail population

pressures.
7

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

Anatomy of a Criminal

JusticeSystem

Chapter 2

Jurisdictions can better understand local justice system operations and

identify workable improvements by charting the stages of the criminal justice process at which custody or release decisions occur. Exhibit 1 depicts

the flow of cases through a typical criminal justice system. The flowchart

identifies the actors at each decision point and the options each can use to

conserve jail space. The 14 decision points depicted in this composite represent the stages at which custody status may be affected. The diagram

may include features not found in some communities, and it may be missing decision points and options that other jurisdictions use in handling

criminal cases. Moreover, certain decision points in exhibit 1, such as the

prosecutor’s screening/charging decision, may occur earlier or later in the

course of events. Others, such as bail review, may occur a number of times

in a jurisdiction’s system of processing cases.

The criminal justice process begins when a victim, witness, or law enforcement officer decides to seek or apply a formal crime response. Subsequent

decisions represent potential points of incarceration—that is, times at

which various system and extra-system actors have discretion to determine whether an individual will be jailed. A detailed understanding of the

operation of the criminal justice system’s case-handling process, from the

system’s initial contact with potential arrestees to the final disposition of

convicted offenders, is a prerequisite to a jurisdiction’s development of effective jail crowding strategies.

This chapter is intended to help the reader obtain the following:

❑ An understanding of the local criminal justice system as a series of

screening mechanisms that can be modified to achieve optimal use of

jail space.

❑ A recognition of the effects of day-to-day decisions and agency policies

on the size of the jail population.

❑ An understanding of the role that each criminal justice actor plays in

determining jail-use patterns and devising measures to control the size

of the jail population.

Two Dimensions of Jail Use:

Admissionsand Length of Confinement

Jail population is driven by two factors: the number of inmates admitted

and how long they stay. Jails have little control over admissions, but the
8

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Decision not

to intervene

Refer to extrasystem services,

family, friends

Discharge case

and release

Refer to extrasystem services

Law 

enforcemtent

decision

Magistrate

 decision

Report or

observation

of offense

Summons

Arrest

and take

into custody

Issue arrest

warrant

Jail or

station house

decision

Detain on

financial bail

schedule

amount or

without bail

Citation

release

Citation

release

Release on

bail schedule

amount

Note: Victim or witness

must first decide how to 

respond to offense and may

opt not to report to the criminal

justice system.

System decision point

Direction of case/person movement

Case action affecting subsequent

placement decisions

Extra-system placement

or disposition

Placement under court supervision

Exhibit 1 Flowchart of Criminal Justice Decision Points and Options
9

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

Decline to

file charge

Dismiss

charge

Prosecute on original or

reduced charge—charge

reduction may result in 

pretrial release, early

case disposition, or both.

detention

Initial court

appearance

Detain

for trial

or financial

bail or

without bail

Bail

review

Continued

detention

Prosecutor

screening/charging

decision

Detain for Continued

court

appearance

Place in

diversion program,

suspend

prosecution

Release on 

recognizance,

nonfinancial 

conditions, or 

financial bail

Accept guilty plea

and sentence

Release on 

recognizance,

nonfinancial 

conditions, or 

financial bail

Non-jail

sanction Jail

Bail magistrate

or pretrial services

decision

Release on

recognizance,

nonfinancial 

conditions, or

financial bail

Exhibit 1 Flowchart of Criminal Justice Decision Points and Options (continued)
10

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Dismiss

charge

Dismiss

charge

Dismiss

charge Acquit

Note: Adjudication of guilt or

violation of pretrial release,

diversion, or non-jail sentence

conditions may result in

revocation and confinement.

[indict]

[file charge(s)]

Detain on

financial bail

or without bail

Grand

jury

review

Preliminary

hearing and bail

review

Release on 

recognizance,

nonfinancial 

conditions, 

or financial bail

Accept guilty

plea and

sentence

Non-jail

sanction Jail

Release on 

recognizance,

nonfinancial 

conditions, 

or financial bail

Arraignment

Detain

pending trial

on financial

bail or

without bail

Trial/

adjudication

Convict and

detain for

sentencing

Convict or

accept guilty plea

Release prior to

sentencing on 

recognizance,

nonfinancial 

conditions, or 

financial bail

Sentence

immediately

Non-jail

sanction

Jail or

prison

Accept

plea and

sentence

Non-jail

sanction

Jail or

prison

Exhibit 1 Flowchart of Criminal Justice Decision Points and Options (continued)
11

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

Sentencing

decision

Jail

sentence

Release for

time served

Early release

decision

Completion

of sentence

Note: Appeal may be

filed immediately after

adjudication.

Release on

conditions

Release pending

appeal on recognizance, 

nonfinancial conditions,

or financial bail

Appeal of

conviction?

Detain pending

outcome

Prison Non-jail

sanction

Exhibit 1 Flowchart of Criminal Justice Decision Points and Options (continued)
12

Bureau of Justice Assistance

policies and practices of others may contribute to unnecessary use of jail

space. For example, inmates such as public inebriates and the mentally ill

may be better handled by community mental health or substance abuse

centers rather than jails. Maximum use of citation release by police and

sentencing alternatives by the courts can also reduce jail admissions.

Length of confinement (LOC) may be extended due to unnecessary delays

in carrying out certain functions. Delays may occur when conducting the

presentence investigation, processing persons for release following dismissal of charges, carrying out revocation hearings, or preparing a file for

the next step at any point in the process. Other delays may arise from the

unavailability of release options or the timing of events. If a pretrial system

official such as a police officer, pretrial services officer, prosecutor, or

judge is able to consider and choose a release option at the earliest stages

of custody, LOC may be shortened considerably. For instance, in many jurisdictions, the prosecutor’s charging decision takes place prior to the

defendant’s initial appearance, rather than days or weeks afterward, and

can reduce or eliminate jail-bed use of persons whose cases are dropped or

charges downgraded. LOC is also affected by bail practices. Higher bails

generally result in longer pretrial confinement. Indigents and others unable to furnish bail represent a substantial proportion of the jail population. Average LOC may increase further if meaningful bail review does not

take place or if private sureties are unwilling to offer services. As for other

determinants of LOC, bail practices could be improved without sizable financial expenditures.

To identify events that cause delay, jurisdictions should construct a system

flowchart for misdemeanor and felony cases. Such a chart allows the jurisdiction to follow cases as they proceed through the court process. The

chart also quickly identifies “catch points” that may extend LOC for persons who should be released.

For several reasons, reducing LOC is often the first focal point of jail population reduction efforts. First, efficiency measures are less costly than creating or expanding alternatives to incarceration. Second, many jurisdictions

encounter much less resistance to the idea of accelerating the speed and

improving the efficiency of system operations than to the alternative of diverting substantial numbers of persons currently admitted. Third, local

analysis often reveals that excessive LOC is the most serious underlying

cause of crowding.

Local systems can be modified to divert many arrested and convicted persons from jail to more appropriate dispositions or to reduce periods of

confinement, without threatening community safety. The first step to

improved system performance is recognizing decision points, potential

non-jail placements, and the determinants of LOC. Moreover, reviewing

the number of actors involved at each decision point can reveal the interdependency of justice system agencies and motivate them to participate in

efforts to reduce jail crowding. The objective of a detailed case flow model
13

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

is to reveal the opportunities that exist for resolving the jail crowding situation, not to show the system’s complexities.

Criminal Justice Decision Points

andOptions

Decision Point 1: Law Enforcement or Magistrate

Following the report or observation of an offense,20 a law enforcement

officer has several choices.

❑ The officer may issue a citation ordering the suspect to appear in

court.21

❑ The officer may decide that the behavior in question does not justify

formal intervention but should be dealt with through informal

channels. Prearrest diversion may be appropriate in certain circumstances, such as those involving public inebriates, the mentally ill,

juveniles, vagrants, trespassers, or others involved in minor disputes or

nuisance charges.

❑ The officers may make an arrest and directly transport the arrestee to a

temporary holding facility22 or jail.

If a law enforcement officer or private citizen requests a warrant for arrest,

the judicial officer or magistrate usually has several options.

❑ Sign the warrant and authorize the arrest of the named individual.

❑ Issue a summons requiring the defendant to appear in court to respond

to the charge.

❑ Refer the complainant to appropriate extra-system services, or decline

to intervene.

Decision Point 2: Jail or Station House

Once a suspect is taken into custody and transported to the station house

or jail, the law enforcement or corrections staff at the facility become the

principal gatekeepers of the system, with several options available to them.

❑ The case may be diverted to extra-system services. Diversion occurs

particularly when an underlying physical or mental health problem was

the reason for the arrest.

❑ Citation release may be an available course of action at the station

house and in the field. A station house citation, also known as a

“desk-appearance ticket,” may be issued before or after the booking

procedure. Law enforcement and pretrial services agencies often

cooperate to conduct “prebooking release” at the station house in some

jurisdictions (see Pretrial Services discussion, chapter 4). The defendant
14

Bureau of Justice Assistance

receiving a citation would be released without supervision and

required to appear at the next session of the court to answer to the

charge.

❑ After arrest and before an initial court appearance, bail may be set

according to a schedule determined by local court rules. Some local

courts authorize release at this point without a bond for traffic or

misdemeanor charges, but most bail schedules require the posting of

some money as security against the possibility of failing to appear in

court. Bail option in many jurisdictions is private surety. Bail bonding

agents guarantee payment of the full bail amount in the event of a

defendant’s nonappearance.

Decision Point 3: Bail Magistrate or Pretrial Services

In many jurisdictions, lower court magistrates or bail commissioners review law enforcement charges, gather basic information on an arrestee’s

background, and establish required bail conditions. The bail magistrates

may act alone or use pretrial services agency staff to obtain background

data for an informed bail decision. Law enforcement or detention staff may

also provide information and, if the defendant has obtained legal counsel,

the attorney may also offer relevant information.

Decision Point 4: Prosecutor Screening/Charging

The timing of the charging decision varies by jurisdiction. Prosecutors may

review charges for the first time prior to a defendant’s initial court appearance. Some prosecutors perform prearrest or onscene review. The prosecutor takes information from law enforcement officials and, in some

instances, from the arrestee, victims, or witnesses to determine whether

prosecution should proceed on the original charge, proceed on a reduced

charge, or be declined. Because charge reduction often leads to bail reduction and release and because a significant percentage of cases eventually

may not be prosecuted, expeditious screening can yield substantial reductions in average LOC for those who are detained.

Diversion is an option that many prosecutors and courts consider at the

early stages of case processing. Diversion programs generally identify first

offenders facing misdemeanor charges. Defendants are offered participation in treatment, education, or job training programs with the agreement

that charges will be dropped upon successful completion of the programs.

Because few clients are likely to be drawn from the jail population, diversion programs have a less direct effect on reducing jail populations than

other programs.

Decision Point 5: Initial Court Appearance

The initial court appearance is the most critical event in determining detention or release during the pretrial stage. It is at this point that bail is
15

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

considered for most defendants. In addition to the judiciary, participants

in the initial court appearance generally include prosecution and defense

attorneys (though counsel for indigent defendants may not yet be appointed), pretrial services staff, and probation staff, if sentencing is

contemplated.

Generally available forms of release include the following:

❑ Release on Recognizance (ROR): Requires no financial deposit and

involves no conditions other than appearance for court and no

additional criminal charges.

❑ Conditional, Supervised, or Third-Party Release: Requires no financial

deposit but sets conditions such as regularly reporting to the court or

pretrial services agency, continuing employment or educational status,

staying away from the victim, and travel or other restrictions.

❑ Unsecured Bail: Similar to ROR but requires the court to set a dollar

amount for which the defendant will become liable in case of failure to

appear (FTA).

❑ Deposit Bail: Requires posting a percentage, usually 10 percent, of the

full money bail amount. This money is refunded, sometimes excluding

a small administrative fee, if court appearances are made.

❑ Full Deposit or Cash Bail: Requires the posting of the full amount of the

bail bond, to be refunded if the defendant appears as required.

❑ Property Bail: Requires posting of property or other assets in lieu of full

cash bail with the court.

❑ Surety Bail: Requires posting a nonrefundable percentage, usually

between 8 and 15 percent, of the full bond amount with a licensed

private surety agent who agrees to pay the full amount of the bond if

the accused fails to appear as required.23

The court has other options at this point in the proceedings. It can dismiss

the case or accept a plea, perhaps after receiving a recommendation from

the prosecutor. As previously mentioned, prosecution may be suspended

while the defendant participates in a diversion program.

If denied or unable to post bail, the defendant remains in custody pending

disposition (see discussion of Decision Point 8 for listing of sentencing

options).

Decision Point 6: Bail Review at Hearings Between

Initial Court Appearance and Trial/Adjudication

Between a defendant’s initial appearance and final disposition of the case,

various hearings may occur including a preliminary hearing and an arraignment. Review of bail conditions is an informal part of every hearing,

but reconsideration may also take place at a specific court proceeding. In
16

Bureau of Justice Assistance

many jurisdictions, review of bail conditions within a certain time period

following initial appearance is required by legislation or by state or local

court rules. In Kentucky, bail review must be conducted within 24 hours of

initial court bail setting. A defendant may request reconsideration at any

time. Bail review necessarily involves court officials, the defendant, defense counsel, and the prosecutor. Some pretrial services agencies also participate, providing further background on the defendant or suggesting

possible pretrial release options.

Court options include reducing financial requirements and imposing any

combination of financial or nonfinancial conditions to enable a defendant

to secure release while ensuring court appearance. Bail may also be increased if a court determines that the likelihood of violation of a release

condition has increased.

Decision Point 7: Trial/Adjudication

The court, jury members, prosecutor, defense attorney and defendant, victim, witnesses, and special interest advocacy organizations may all participate in the trial determining the adjudication outcome. If postconviction

release is authorized, the bail surety agent again may play a role in the release decision.

Decision Point 8: Sentencing

A court’s sentence depends on information from a variety of sources, including prosecution and defense representatives. If a presentence investigation (PSI) or other examination is required, those responsible for the

report, most likely probation staff, will influence the outcome. If an offender is released before trial, pretrial services or other supervisory staff

will report on pretrial release behavior directly or through the PSI report.

If non-jail penalties or programs are being considered, appropriate program staff will appear in court or forward their recommendations. Also,

the victim and/or offense witness might present a statement in court or

through the prosecutor, PSI staff, or a victim assistance agency.

Among its sentencing options, a court may decide to suspend statutorily

prescribed jail or prison dispositions. Suspension of a jail sentence, however, is likely to bring with it other sanctions, such as supervised probation, a fine, restitution, or a combination of community controls. As for

pretrial release options, some courts combine alternative sentences (e.g.,

ordering community service hours with a suspended sentence or strict

probation supervision). Finally, the court may choose to incarcerate a

defendant.24

The court may choose from a number of penalties other than incarceration:

❑ Probation Supervision: Requiring the offender to report to the probation

agency for a specified period of time, during which limitations on
17

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

association or movement, treatment, or restitution to the victim may be

required.

❑ Suspended Sentence: Holding a more severe penalty in abeyance for a

specified time on the condition of no further criminal activity and

possibly requiring supervision, treatment, limitations on mobility, or

restitution.

❑ Fine: Requiring cash payment, usually in installments, based on the

damage incurred and the offender’s ability to pay.

❑ Community Service: Requiring unpaid service for a certain number of

hours to a local government agency or sponsoring private organization,

sometimes as substitution for a fine. Hours of service required is

calculated by dividing the fine by the established minimum wage.

❑ Restitution: Requiring cash payment by the offender of an amount

calculated to offset the loss incurred by the victim or the community.

Services are sometimes substituted for cash payment if the offender has

little or no earning capacity.

❑ Treatment: Requiring the offender to undergo a regimen, on an in- or

outpatient basis, that is designed to address a particular problem, such

as alcohol or drug dependency or mental illness, associated with his or

her criminal behavior.

❑ Halfway House: Requiring the offender to be confined in a residential

setting apart from the jail, where programs may address treatment

needs or offer specialized services, such as work/study programs or

employment counseling.

❑ Boot Camps: Requiring the offender to be confined in a residential

facility that follows a militarylike regimen of exercise, classes, and

demeanor.

❑ Electronic Monitoring: Requiring the offender to wear an electronic

device (transmitter) and follow set restrictions regarding curfews,

activities, and communications under custodial authority.

Decision Point 9: Appeal

If the conviction is appealed, the defendant may be released via any one of

the methods discussed in Decision Point 5.

Decision Point 10: Early Release

Many offenders can be released early from jail for accumulating good time

credits. In jurisdictions with a jail cap, procedures are put in place to identify sentenced offenders who can be released so that the jail population

will remain within its cap.
19

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

Information Needs for a

Systemwide Strategy

Chapter 3

Determining a jurisdiction’s level of jail crowding and identifying its potential causes require two types of information: case-processing information and jail population information. The former is information on a case

and person processing through the criminal justice system. The latter is information beyond the charges on which individuals go to jail, how long

they stay, and what factors determine their admission and LOC. Both

types of information are important in providing a complete picture of the

ebb and flow of the jail population. They identify delays at various stages

in the system that may contribute to LOC and categories of detainees who

could be diverted from jail without jeopardizing community safety.

Experience has shown that information on jail populations is not readily

available. Jurisdictions must institute special efforts to gather it. Caseprocessing information, on the other hand, although not usually available

from a single agency, can usually be pieced together using information

compiled by various components of the criminal justice system.25 Because

different approaches are used to gather the two types of information, each

is discussed separately in this monograph.

Case-Processing Information

As described in chapter 2, decisions concerning the routing of cases and

persons in and out of the court and jail systems occur at numerous points

in the criminal justice process. The case flow diagram in exhibit 1 can help

local decisionmakers assess the timeliness of various decisions and the

availability of non-jail options for certain types of individuals at each point

in the process. Appendix A provides a list of agency-specific questions to

use when acquiring case-processing information.26

Standard case-processing information that most agencies are required to

keep include the following:

❑ Law enforcement data on arrests and citation releases.

❑ Jail administration data on admissions and length of confinement.

❑ Pretrial release data on referrals, interviews, and recommendations and

the timeframe used.

❑ Prosecution data on cases received for screening, charging decisions,

and the time elapsing between arrest and the charging decision.

❑ Defense/public defender data on cases assigned by the court and the

time elapsing between arrest and contact with the arrestee.
20

Bureau of Justice Assistance

❑ Data on the number of cases heard in initial appearance courts.

❑ Outcome of release/detention decisions.

❑ Time interval between arrest and the initial appearance hearing.

❑ Court data on cases adjudicated and the arrest-to-adjudication

timeframe.

❑ Probation/parole data on detainers, revocations, and the length of time

elapsing from detainer filing to decision on revocation.

By gathering and analyzing data on case volume, time intervals between

events, and decision outcomes, officials can see how their actions affect the

jail population level and whether the system is efficiently using jail space.

Jail Population Information

Local officials, including the sheriff or jail administrator, often have little

information on the composition of the jail population beyond that needed

for jail operations and security. Even the most accurate jail “housekeeping”

information (e.g., individuals being held, their location, security classifications, and movements to and from court) fails to provide the data needed

to answer fundamental questions about jail use, such as who are being

held and why? Certain defendants may remain in jail because they are unable to pay a small amount of money to obtain release. Others remain because of unnecessary delays in the court system. A jail may house many

chronic public inebriates, substance abusers, mentally ill persons, or juveniles. Significant jail-bed days may be expended on persons sentenced to

or held for other local, state, or federal agencies. Administrators may be

unaware of the frequency of admissions, the size, or the variation of segments of the jail population or of indicators of slow case processing. Many

detainees could be diverted from the jail or dealt with more expeditiously,

conserving jail space. Without appropriate data to define such aspects of

jail use, efforts to identify appropriate processes or programs for jail population reduction will be hampered.

Several sampling techniques, with varying levels of complexity, can be

used to gather jail-use information. This section describes two types of information local officials should collect, and the following section discusses

three methods they can use to gather data, depending on the resources and

time available.

Jail Information

This subsection presents a general overview of data needed for jail population analysis. Local officials should supplement these items according to

the unique structure of their own criminal justice system and any specific

research questions being explored. To decide what information will be
21

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

needed to supplement the standard items provided here, and before beginning any data collection effort, officials familiar with the processing of

cases and persons through the local system should construct a system case

flow model as suggested in chapter 2. Such a model can serve not only as a

framework for case flow study but also as an aid in a jail population analysis. Using the model, officials can formulate questions to identify the reasons for jail crowding in their jurisdiction.

Key questions include the following:

❑ Are defendants being admitted and released within hours instead of

being diverted from the criminal justice system through early case

screening or the development of extra-system services?

❑ Are there specific categories of inmates such as alcoholics, drug

abusers, and mentally ill/developmentally disabled persons for whom

out-of-jail placements may be a more effective use of resources than

incarceration?

❑ Are low bail defendants or defendants with unverified background

information being unintentionally detained before trial?

❑ Are persons being held in the jail longer than necessary because of

administrative inefficiencies?

❑ Are defendants spending more time in jail awaiting trial than they are

likely to receive as punishment?

❑ Are prisoners being held who should be transferred to a state facility?

To tailor the jail population study to local practices, key actors should be

asked to help construct the model and propose the research questions.

Inmate Background Information

Individual background information—including sociodemographic factors,

prior criminal justice system involvement, pretrial release history, and history of escape—will aid in identifying categories of inmates who may be

detained inappropriately. It may also alert administrators to the need for

improved intake classification procedures and other services. Moreover,

when matched with admission and release data, it will reveal how quickly

certain categories of persons are processed through the system. Information on individual inmates may include the following:

❑ Age.

❑ Gender.

❑ Racial identity.

❑ Residence.

❑ Dependence on alcohol and/or other drugs.
22

Bureau of Justice Assistance

❑ Mental health impairments.

❑ Number of felony convictions.

❑ Number of misdemeanor convictions.

❑ Relationship to criminal justice system at time of arrest.

❑ Pretrial release history (e.g., number of failures to appear or

rearrests).

❑ Escape history.

When tabulated, this information can provide an accurate picture of a jail’s

population. Information collected on a sample of jail inmates can allow officials to examine the relationship between two or more factors. For example, officials can examine inmates’ residence and drug abuse records to

assess the need for treatment services in the jurisdiction. A more detailed

discussion on analyzing inmate information is provided at the end of this

chapter.

As previously noted, two factors determine the average daily jail population: the number of admissions and their LOC. LOC data are crucial to

identifying system operations that cause delays in routine case processing.

Other admission and release information will help jurisdictions identify

the points at which alternatives to incarceration are or can be used. Such

information may include the following:

❑ Arresting agency.

❑ Charge.

❑ Detention status.

❑ Release method.

❑ Bail amount.

❑ Arraignment judge.

❑ Trial judge.

❑ Length of confinement.

❑ Last court action.

❑ Number of days since last court action.

❑ Other detainers.

Analysis of these items, particularly when combined with inmate background information, can provide a basis for analyzing local incarceration

practices—for example, the size of the pretrial and sentenced populations;

the percentage of felons versus misdemeanants; the percentage of defendants held on less than $500 (or $1,000 or $1,500) bail; and the proportion

of the sample population held on detainers.
23

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

This information can be used to examine the relationship between two or

more factors. For example, officials learn a great deal about incarceration

practices by analyzing the relationship between length of confinement and

bail amount. They may find that persons with higher bail amounts stay in

pretrial detention longer than persons with lower bail amounts. Similarly,

analyzing the relationship between type of release, LOC, and existence of a

detainer may alert officials to delays in the processing of probation or parole holds or other detainers.

Methods for Gathering Information

If collecting detailed information on each jail admission is prohibitively expensive, a number of methods can be used to gather data on a sample of

inmates from which projections can be made for the entire population.

Sampling methods vary in terms of accuracy, reliability, timeliness, and

cost. Many statistical sampling methods exist. Three have been used successfully by jurisdictions faced with jail crowding: the snapshot method,

the exit survey method, and the admission cohort method.

Although the methods differ, they all require the collection of similar information, including background, jail admission, and release information

of inmates selected for the sample. Jurisdictions using the admission cohort method collect information on a larger number of factors than those

using the other methods and gather that information from jail records and

other criminal justice agencies. Jurisdictions using the snapshot or exit survey methods rely exclusively on information available from jail records.

Snapshot Method

As the term implies, the snapshot method focuses on information on inmates captured on a typical day in jail. This sampling method is designed

to reflect the population on a typical day, so the timing of the snapshot

should be carefully considered. A snapshot should not be taken when an

unusual event, such as a sting operation, has occurred and populated the

jail with inmates who are not typical of the average population. Also, a jail

snapshot should not be taken when courts are not in session on weekends

and holidays unless these periods are the subject of separate analysis. The

season during which a snapshot is taken is also important. For example, in

Phoenix, Arizona, where an influx of transients during the winter months

might result in a substantial increase in the jail population, a snapshot

taken in July could be markedly different from one taken in February.

There are two different types of snapshots—the in-jail snapshot and the

released-from-jail snapshot.27 The in-jail snapshot identifies inmates incarcerated at a particular time and provides information on LOC. The

released-from-jail snapshot is a picture of inmates released from jail on

aparticular day.
24

Bureau of Justice Assistance

The advantage of the snapshot method lies in the ease, by using one-timeonly figures, of identifying the types of inmates in a local jail. The disadvantage is that it portrays local jail populations at only a single point in time.

An in-jail snapshot is taken at a specific time, such as 6 a.m., on a specific

weekday. Inmates in jail at that particular time constitute the sample, those

admitted after 6:01 a.m. that day are not included. An advantage of the injail snapshot is that it can be used to compute percentages of different

types of prisoners (e.g., male/female, pretrial/sentenced/other) in the jail

population. The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice uses this method in its 5-year census of jail inmates and in its annual

survey of jail inmates. The disadvantage of the in-jail snapshot is that it is

statistically biased toward pretrial and sentenced inmates who spend

longer periods of time in jail.

A released-from-jail snapshot might be taken during the 24-hour period

from 12 midnight to 11:59 p.m. on a weekday. All inmates released from jail

within that time span would constitute the sample. The released-from-jail

snapshot provides LOC data for different types of inmates. Its advantage is

that it can be used to estimate LOC for these different types of inmates. The

disadvantage is that it may underestimate LOC if the sample contains a disproportionately high number of short-term pretrial defendants.

To overcome disadvantages of the snapshot approaches, jurisdictions can

couple an in-jail snapshot with a released-from-jail snapshot or conduct a

series of each. Either of the two snapshots provides officials with information on defendants who go to jail, how long they remain, and factors that

may determine their LOC.

Exit Survey Method

The exit survey sampling method requires officials to collect information

on all inmates released from jail over consecutive days. It is a series of 1-

day released-from-jail snapshots. The exact number of days required for

the sample depends on the number of persons needed for an acceptable

sample size. Generally, an exit survey sample must include at least 10 percent of the entire relevant population—in this case, the number of individuals released from jail per year—or 500 persons, whichever is smaller.

Given this sampling rule of thumb, if a county releases 25 inmates from jail

on a typical day, about 9,000 inmates per year, an acceptable minimum

sample size would be 500, since 10 percent of 9,000 is 900. To obtain the

sample at a given starting point such as January 1, a jurisdiction would select every person released from the facility over a period of consecutive

days until 500 individuals were selected, in this case approximately a 20-

day period. As each inmate is chosen for the sample, his or her background, jail admission, and release data are gathered.
25

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

The advantage of using the exit survey method is that the data are collected

over a longer period of time and provide more reliable LOC information

than data obtained from the 1-day in-jail snapshot, though a series of biweekly or monthly snapshots may provide a suitable alternative. Also, because the sample is selected over consecutive days, the exit survey more

accurately identifies the number of defendants admitted to jail who remain

in custody only a short period prior to pretrial release. A disadvantage of

this method is that sentenced offenders tend to be underrepresented in the

sample because they are released less frequently than pretrial detainees.

Admission Cohort Method

Although more complicated and costly than either the snapshot or the exit

survey, the admission cohort sampling method gathers the most reliable

and comprehensive information. It requires officials to track a systematic

random or stratified sample of jail bookings through final case disposition

for a designated period of time, perhaps a year. Regardless of the source of

the sample, whether the jail’s booking/intake log or release log, the total

number of jail bookings or releases first must be determined.

Jurisdictions using this method generally have the resources and time to

identify and draw a systematic random sample, collect a larger amount of

information on sample inmates than jurisdictions using the other methods,

and gather this information from a variety of sources. Because of the additional work involved, some jurisdictions have made the admission cohort

method a special project of a county planning agency or have contracted it

out to independent consultants.

For a 10-percent systematic random sample of 10,000 jail bookings, approximately 1,000 cases will be selected by using a random number chart

or an automatically generated random selection process. For a stratified

sample, every 10th booking or release (after random selection of the 1st

booking) would be included in the sample. To randomly select the first

booking, the numbers between 1 and 10 could be placed in a box and the

number drawn would be the start of the sample. If 7 was drawn, the 7th

booking would begin the sampling and every 10th booking thereafter (i.e.,

17, 27, 37, 47) would be selected until the entire population (e.g., all bookings during 1985) had been sampled.

The advantage of the admission cohort sampling method lies in the accuracy and reliability of the information gathered. Local officials may feel

more secure knowing that the information obtained reflects, with a statistically calculated degree of accuracy, a wide array of jail population characteristics that can be studied to determine how the jail is being used by

various criminal justice agencies.

A disadvantage of the admission cohort sampling method is its cost. Data

collection, including training (and possibly hiring) data collectors, completing computer coding, and analyzing data, requires sizable budgets.
26

Bureau of Justice Assistance

However, for jurisdictions that can afford it and those that can obtain lowcost assistance, perhaps from a local university, this method offers the

most reliable information upon which to base the examination of local incarceration practices.

Information Analysis

A jail population analysis, no matter how methodologically rigorous, can

identify only the symptoms and not the causes of jail crowding. Knowing

about the symptoms, however, greatly enhances officials’ ability to identify

the causes of jail crowding and, in turn, devise appropriate modifications

insystem procedures or create or expand specific programs. Whichever

method of information gathering a jurisdiction uses, once the information

has been collected, statistical measures will be needed to conduct analysis.

Initial analysis of jail population data should consist of frequency distributions on all the factors (such as age, gender, charge level, LOC, and bail

amount). Exhibit 2 provides a sample frequency distribution of a variety of

factors collected on a sample of inmates. A frequency distribution includes

both the number of inmates in the sample and the percentage of the total

sample they represent.

Frequency distributions of single factors (e.g., gender, age, detention

status, charge, release category, and LOC provide useful but limited information. Examining relationships of two or more factors (called joint distributions or cross-tabulations) offers local officials a better understanding of

why inmates remain in jail for a specific length of time. Exhibit 3 is a crosstabulation table that uses two factors, LOC and type of release.

Exhibit 3 shows that the majority of inmates released on recognizance, 53.3

percent, were released within 48 hours. Ninety percent of supervised releases occurred in 3–5 days. Also, no inmates on property bail were released before 6 days.

Based on these data, policymakers may question why pretrial release does

not occur more quickly, (i.e., why a greater percentage of defendants are

not released at pretrial status in the 0–2-day range). Such a finding may

point to delays in pretrial release screening or indicate that the jurisdiction

would benefit from allowing deposit bail, which could reduce the time defendants need to secure financial release. In addition, the dismissed category suggests that the prosecutor may not be making a charging decision

until a week to 10 days after arrest or booking. Earlier prosecutorial

screening, conducted by experienced prosecutors who can determine the

most appropriate charges, might substantially reduce confinement time for

this group.
27

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

 Characteristics Number Percentage

 Total Population 300 100*

Sex

Male 266 88.7

Female 34 11.3

Age

17–21 76 25.3

22–25 90 30.0

26–30 57 19.0

31–35 52 17.3

36–40 19 6.3

>40 6 2.0

Detention Status

Pretrial 144 48.0

Serving jail sentence 108 36.0

Awaiting transfer to state 38 12.7

Detainers only 10 3.3

Charge

Traffic 55 18.3

Misdemeanor 129 43.0

Felony 116 38.7

Release Category

Dismiss 10 3.3

ROR 90 30.0

Supervised 10 3.3

Surety 150 50.0

Cash 30 10.0

Property 10 3.3

Days in Confinement

0–2 77 25.7

3–5 167 55.7

6–10 36 12.0

>10 20 6.7

Exhibit 2 Charateristics of Jail Population

* Within each category, total may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
28

Bureau of Justice Assistance

 Release Type 0–2 Days 3–5 Days 6–10 Days >10 Days Row Total

 Dismissed

Number 1 1 8 0 10

Row % 10.0% 10.0% 80.0% 0% 3.3%

Column % 1.3% 0.6% 22.2% 0%

 ROR

Number 48 36 3 3 90

Row % 53.3% 40.0% 3.5% 3.5% 30.0%

Column % 62.3% 21.6% 8.3% 15.0%

 Supervised

Number 0 9 1 0 10

Row % 0% 90.0% 10.0% 0% 3.3%

Column % 0% 5.4% 2.8% 0%

 Surety Bail

Number 25 100 10 15 150

Row % 16.7% 66.7% 6.7% 10.0% 50.0%

Column % 32.5% 59.9% 27.8% 75.0%

 Cash Bail

Number 3 21 4 2 30

Row % 10.0% 70.0% 13.3% 6.7% 10.0%

Column % 3.9% 12.6% 11.1% 10.0%

 Property Bail

Number 0 0 10 0 10

Row % 0% 0% 100.0% 0% 3.3%

Column % 0% 0% 27.8% 0%

 Column total 77 167 36 20 300

25.7% 55.7% 12.0% 6.7% 100%

Exhibit 3 Length of Confinement by Type of Release
29

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

Questions involving more than two factors, such as the relationship between bail amount, length of time in jail, and charge level for pretrial

defendants, can provide an even more detailed understanding of incarceration practices.28 For example, if the relationship between length of pretrial confinement and type of pretrial release were examined separately for

those charged with felonies and those with misdemeanors, officials might

recognize a need to modify misdemeanor pretrial release policies (e.g., by

expanding eligibility for citation release). If charge level (felony/misdemeanor) were broken down further into individual charge categories, the

analysis could point out the utility (in jail-bed day savings) of establishing

alternative procedures for handling certain categories of defendants (e.g.,

public inebriates, shoplifters, individuals passing bad checks).

A Cautionary Note

An information-gathering effort focused on jail population data, to the

exclusion of case-processing information, assumes that a criminal justice

system is operating at or near peak effectiveness, which is often not the

case. To formulate well-informed policies concerning jail use, a criminal

justice system cannot rely solely on either a jail population analysis or a

case-processing analysis. Both are necessary. Solutions based only on jail

population data may address the symptoms of jail crowding without identifying the causes. For instance, without information describing the flow of

cases, jail data showing a large number of inmates convicted of first-time

property offenses might suggest a need for an alternative sentencing program directed at that group. Case-flow information showing only a small

percentage of first-time property offenders receiving jail sentences, however, would suggest that, unless strict criteria were formulated, the clientele for a new program would most likely be drawn from those receiving

less restrictive sanctions, rather than from the intended jail-bound group.

Similarly, analysis of jail population data might show that most pretrial

detainees obtain release after only 7 to 10 days in custody. Taken alone,

this finding could be interpreted as a justification for expanding a pretrial

services program to expedite screening and bail review. However, information on case flow within system agencies might reveal inefficient case

processing in a number of areas (e.g., court, prosecution, defense) that, if

corrected, could reduce the jail population without requiring additional

resources.
31

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

Systemwide Approach: How

Individual Actors Can Affect

Jail Population

Chapter 4

This chapter is premised on the belief that each player in the criminal justice system, acting unilaterally or in concert with others, can affect jail

population size. The case flow diagram in exhibit 1 summarizes the decision points at which justice system officials can directly affect how many

persons are held in a jail system and their LOC. The actor-by-actor discussion in this chapter highlights some of the practical and often less costly

ways to affect jail crowding. The chapter also provides examples of how

officials in certain jurisdictions are using such practices. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion of state legislation, court rules, executive orders, and other external factors that affect jail populations and local jail-use

planning efforts. As with the case flow diagram, the examples offered in

this chapter should be considered in light of local statutes and practices.29

Law Enforcement

Many law enforcement agencies are collaborating with other criminal justice agencies to alleviate jail overcrowding. Law enforcement personnel are

the initial gatekeepers to the criminal justice system. Their actions in the

field and at the station house dominate the initial decision of who is admitted into the county jail. They determine whether to make an arrest and

whether to transport someone to the jail or the station house. They determine whether to book someone, await bail setting by a judicial officer, or

cite and release.

Two developments since the 1980s have changed the role of the police.

One development is the restriction of law enforcement officers’ discretion

resulting from implementation in numerous jurisdictions of mandatory arrest policies for certain offenses, most notably domestic violence and driving under the influence. The second development has been the rise of

community policing.

Community Policing Programs

The public and the media support many features of community policing,

which is now a widespread phenomenon.30 Police operations have become

more visible, increasing police accountability to the public. Operations

have been decentralized to respond to the needs of various neighborhoods

and constituencies. Citizens are being encouraged to take the initiative in

preventing crimes and to become partners with police, thereby improving
32

Bureau of Justice Assistance

relations between them.31 Many community policing advocates encourage

officers to seek alternatives to arrest that may more effectively or efficiently solve the immediate problem. Studies over the past two decades

have shown that community policing encourages even more officer discretion—police leniency with minor crimes and disorders—to achieve longterm problem reduction.32

A study of Virginia’s Richmond Police Department’s community policing

efforts found that arrests of suspects routinely encountered by patrol officers were rare. Although these encounters involved “suspected criminal activity,” in many instances, officers found little evidentiary basis for arrest

after interviewing the suspect and victim, if present. Officers used a variety of nonarrest dispositions with suspects routinely encountered, including warnings and referrals to other agencies. Researchers noted that 50

percent of the officers involved in the study had positive opinions about

community policing. Officers who had positive opinions made fewer arrests than the other officers. During the study, the officers with positive

opinions about community policing accounted for 259 encounters with

suspects and made arrests in only 5 percent of the instances. Officers with

a negative or mixed opinion about community policing accounted for 192

encounters and had arrested 17 percent of their suspects.33

Prearrest Practices

Citation programs. Citation and station house release procedures (e.g.,

notices-to-appear and desk appearance tickets) offer an effective method

ofdiverting many arrestees from jail intake. Across the country, both small

and large jurisdictions credit increased use of citations by law enforcement

officers as one of several measures leading to a reduced jail population.

Clearly written guidelines should set forth eligibility requirements and

procedures for use in the field.34 They should also emphasize the importance of citation release in eliminating unnecessary jail bookings and the

effectiveness of citation release.

The Bernalillo County, New Mexico, sheriff’s policy instructs deputies to

issue citations in lieu of arrest for nonviolent offenses. This policy has been

in place since the early 1980s, when it was started in response to jail

crowding. According to the sheriff’s department, the issuance of citations

remains a safe and effective method of limiting the number of persons arrested and booked. The policy has been expanded recently to include the

Albuquerque Police Department. Under the policy, police chiefs instruct

officers to refrain from booking individuals unless they present a flight

risk or a clear and present danger to the community (i.e., violent offenses)

or are unable to prove their identity.

The Cite-in-Lieu-of-Physical-Arrest policy of Jefferson County, Kentucky,

was instituted in 1991. The goals of the citation program are to save

money, increase efficiency, alleviate jail crowding, and improve the
33

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

services of police, courts, and corrections by using existing justice personnel. An in-house evaluation revealed that the citation program has decreased the number of individuals jailed who pose little or no risk to

society and who have a high probability of appearing in court. The six

most frequently cited offenses are shoplifting, public intoxication, criminal

trespass, disorderly conduct, operating a vehicle on a suspended or revoked license, and unlawful possession of less than 8 ounces of marijuana.

Programs for public inebriates. Perhaps the most common form of

prearrest diversion is the use of short-term detoxification or “sobering up”

facilities for public inebriates. In several jurisdictions, police officers take

public inebriates to detoxification and referral centers instead of arresting

them and detaining them in the local jail.

One such program is the Alcoholism and Drug Services Center in San Diego County, California, operated by Volunteers of America and law enforcement officers. One of the five programs that the center offers is its

around-the-clock Inebriate Reception Center, which provides a police diversion plan, detoxification and survival referrals, basic needs assessment,

and minimal care 24 hours a day. The police take publicly intoxicated individuals to the center. Clients who agree to stay for a minimum of 4 hours

are not arrested. San Diego County claims success in relieving jail crowding through this process.

The Shisler Sobering Center in King County, Washington, provides a 60-

bed facility for inebriates brought into the center by law enforcement officers in lieu of arrest.

Under a new program instituted by the San Francisco, California, mayor’s

office in 1999, chronic inebriates (persons arrested three times within a 60-

day period) are ordered to treatment programs in the city. Those who

refuse are sent to jail.

Programs for the mentally ill. Persons suffering from mental illness are

often jailed because of a lack of adequate mental health care in the community. Numerous studies have estimated that mentally ill, emotionally disturbed, or mentally retarded persons comprise from 10 to 20 percent of

local jail inmate populations.35 Law enforcement agencies have responded

to this problem in a number of ways, including hiring civilian police employees with mental health training, creating training programs to help officers recognize mental illness, and working with other agencies, such as

extra-system organizations to divert the mentally ill from jail by seeking

services to provide emergency mental health care.36

A prebooking diversion program exists in Fairfax County, Virginia. The

Mobile Crisis Unit (MCU), funded and staffed by the county, works with

law enforcement, the courts, and families to divert mentally ill persons

from jail. MCU operates daily from 3 p.m. until 12 midnight. The unit
34

Bureau of Justice Assistance

provides services that include home visits, police training on mental health

issues during roll call sessions, backup for jail crisis intervention teams,

consultations for hostage situations, psychiatric crisis evaluations, suicide

assessment, and interventions in other crisis situations.

The Memphis, Tennessee, Police Department’s Crisis Intervention Team

(CIT) consists of 165 officers who volunteer for the assignment and receive

40 hours of training from mental health providers in the community. The

program covers 4 shifts and provides 24-hour, onsite service. In 1997, the

team responded to nearly 7,000 calls, with half being resolved on the scene.

The remaining incidents resulted in transportation to the regional medical

center’s emergency room, which is a triage and holding facility.

Many police departments have emulated the Memphis CIT, including

those in Seattle, Washington, and San Jose, California. The Seattle Police

Department CIT provides officers 40 hours of training in recognizing and

intervening in mental health crisis situations. Rather than taking mentally

ill persons or addicts to jail, Seattle CIT takes them to a 24-hour triage center where they are screened, treated, and directed to the next step of treatment. The goal of the San Jose, California, CIT, which expects to train 125

uniformed police officers in handling the mentally ill, is to reduce violent

confrontations between police and individuals who are in a mental health

crisis. The training also consists of role-playing exercises, meetings with

parents of mentally ill persons, visits to institutions treating the mentally

ill, and interviews with mentally ill individuals who have encountered the

criminal justice system.

In San Diego, California, the police department’s Psychiatric Emergency

Response Team (PERT) pairs licensed mental health professionals with police officers who are responding to situations that involve people with

mental disorders. The team receives 80 hours of training over a 4-week period. Since it began operations in 1996, PERT has handled more than 3,000

cases, only 1 percent of which have resulted in incarceration. Individuals

in the remaining cases were assisted through county mental health facilities or transferred to outpatient clinics. When the PERT teams are not responding to calls, they are following up on prior cases. The PERT program

started with eight clinicians who were paid by the San Diego Alliance for

the Mentally Ill, with funding from a federal grant and the Vista Hill

Foundation.

In 1998, the Atlanta, Georgia, Police Department launched a pilot program

aimed at diverting mentally ill persons who violate city ordinances. Under

this initiative, the police department trains officers to recognize signs of

mental illness and then call the Fulton County Mobile Crisis Unit rather

than make an arrest. The unit includes a social worker and a psychiatric

nurse who are authorized to commit a suspect at the scene and take the

person to one of two participating hospitals.
35

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

Santa Fe, New Mexico, officials have also instituted a Crisis Mobile Team

of behavioral health experts who help police officers at the scene decide

the best course of action in incidents involving mentally ill persons. A case

manager refers the person to the most appropriate outpatient facility.

Postarrest Practices

Many jurisdictions use postarrest and prebooking or postbooking variations of the citation and diversion programs discussed above.

Salt Lake County, Utah, reports using “nonbook release” as a means to

reduce jail admissions. Law enforcement and pretrial services personnel

cooperate to screen detainees charged with misdemeanors and traffic violations and release many with a formal statement of charges indicating the

time of the required court appearance.

In Washington, D.C., police officers use a 24-hour phone link with the

pretrial services agency to determine if arrestees qualify for immediate

release.

Law enforcement officials in Bernalillo County, New Mexico, are part of a

team that includes pretrial and mental health professionals working to

keep mentally ill defendants out of jail and in treatment. The New Mexico

Department of Health funded the Bernalillo County Psychiatric Emergency Coordinating Committee to establish a jail diversion project for

mentally ill defendants charged with or convicted of misdemeanor offenses. Approximately 100 police officers have been trained in mental

health crisis intervention. The statistics for 3 months of operation in 1998

showed that CIT responded to 948 calls, 60 percent of which resulted in

persons being transported to local mental health agencies for treatment or

evaluation.

Jail Administration

Jail administrators have little direct control over who is admitted to the jail

or how long they stay there. They are far from powerless, however, in influencing jail capacity requirements. The high cost of jailing places a premium on cooperation between the jailer and other actors responsible for

intake screening and case processing. The jail administrator has access to

inmates and information about them. The jail administrator can facilitate

efficient decisionmaking at the first stages of processing by providing access to inmates and sharing relevant information about the inmates.

Conversely, jail policies and procedures that delay the pretrial services

interview, the setting of bail, or the defendant’s contact with persons in

thecommunity may have repercussions for crowding.
36

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Instituting Admission and Booking Procedures

Jails can control admissions in a variety ways.

Booking fees. Many jails have decreased the number of admissions by

charging municipalities booking and per diem fees for every arrestee

brought to the jail, creating an incentive to use citation release in appropriate cases.

California counties are authorized to charge municipalities the costs incurred in booking persons into county facilities. Local agencies, such as

city police departments and private security companies, can be charged a

fee calculated on the overhead costs of processing arrested persons. A 1992

survey of 179 police agencies conducted by the California Police Chiefs Association found that, since the onset of booking fees, two-thirds of local police agencies had reduced the number of arrestees booked into local jails.

Half of the agencies reported that they no longer booked most persons

charged with misdemeanors, 25 percent did not take into custody persons

wanted on appearance or out-of-county warrants, and 13 percent did not

book some persons accused of felonies.37

Charging booking fees is popular in many jurisdictions, including King

County, Washington, Washoe County, Nevada, and Coconino, Maricopa,

and Pima Counties, Arizona. King County corrections officials began by

charging the various municipal law enforcement agencies in the county

$40 per booking; by 1999, the jail administrator was billing at a rate of $125

per booking. This is believed to have contributed to an increase in the use

of citation release and informal disposition of complaints and violations by

arresting agencies. A similar situation occurred in Coconino County when

the jail increased the fee from $37.16 to $70.05 per inmate per day.

No or limited admissions policy. Some jails are authorized to refuse admissions under certain circumstances or for certain groups of defendants.

The Michigan Jail Overcrowding Emergency Powers Act of 1987,38 which

specifies a step-by-step release process when a jail’s population exceeds

rated capacity for 7 consecutive days, has an admissions procedure component. Numerous Michigan counties have invoked this act over the years.

In Oakland County, Michigan, the sheriff implemented a nonadmission

policy for persons charged with certain nonviolent offenses. Under this administrative policy, the jail no longer admits persons arrested for nonviolent offenses, with the exception of drunk driving, domestic violence, or

assaults on police officers. Police officers still have the option of housing

these persons in lockups to await their initial court appearances or releasing them from the station house on citation releases.

Many jurisdictions have specific admissions policies for certain types of

cases, the most common being public inebriate cases. In jurisdictions with

a detoxification center, a jail may refuse to admit public inebriates. In

Volusia County, Florida, jail staff members check with the local 70-bed
37

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

detoxification facility to determine if space is available for an inebriate.

Jefferson County, Colorado, charges the county-contracted detoxification

facility a fee for refusing to admit a person charged with an intoxicationrelated misdemeanor. Under a plan instituted by the mayor’s office in November 1998, the San Francisco County, California, sheriff’s department

has agreed to limit the number of persons charged with public inebriation

who are held in jail.

Jail administrators have instituted other initiatives to divert mentally ill

persons from jail at the point of admission, booking, or consideration for

pretrial release (bail). In Denver, Colorado, a full-time psychiatric nurse at

the jail screens incoming prisoners for signs of mental illness. Based on the

nurse’s recommendation, approximately half of the 60 mentally ill prisoners received each month are diverted from jail into the custody of community mental health center staff. The program is an example of how a key

jail staff person and an adequate array of services in the community can

successfully divert mentally ill persons from jails.

The Mental Health Authority in Washington County, Maryland, received

a grant from the Maryland Department of Mental Hygiene for the jail administrator to hire two full-time case managers and a part-time psychiatrist to work at the jail. One case manager is responsible for assessing the

needs of the mentally ill inmates at intake. The other case manager is responsible for finding suitable community placements for those booked into

the jail.

The Mentally Ill Offender Project administered by South Sound Advocates,

a private, nonprofit organization, works with staff at jails in Mason

County, Thurston County, and Olympia City, Washington, to identify

mentally ill persons as soon as they are booked into jail. The project staff

work either to have these people released or to provide them with appropriate treatment while in custody. In cases of acute mental illness, when

the charge is related to the person’s condition, project staff seek to have

thecharges dismissed and the person evaluated further for commitment.

When a mentally ill person is arrested and booked into jail, project staff determine whether the person is in treatment and, if so, secure the details of

the treatment plan. Staff then present the relevant information to the judge

at arraignment and ask the court to consider release on the condition that

the person continue treatment.

Improving Release Procedures: Pretrial and Sentenced

Populations

Jail administrators have instituted ways to control how long the release

process takes for certain individuals. These include setting time limits for

releasing pretrial defendants brought in on certain charges (e.g., public

inebriation) and for transferring convicted offenders to a state facility or

mentally ill persons to a state hospital.
38

Bureau of Justice Assistance

In Saginaw County, Michigan, the sheriff implemented an administrative

policy allowing persons arrested on misdemeanor charges to bail out of jail

for the money they have in their pockets, up to a maximum of $100. The

new policy resulted from crowding at the jail and a state law that prohibits

bail setting in misdemeanor cases in excess of 20 percent of the fine that

the offense carries.

To meet the population cap for the Broward County, Florida, jail, an early

release policy is in effect. The policy results in the release each month of

more than 350 pretrial defendants charged with nonviolent offenses.

The Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, sheriff, who runs the county jail,

worked out an agreement with the Wisconsin Department of Corrections

(DOC) to take up to 105 probation or parole violators per week. The state

also agreed, but not until it was forced to do so by a decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, to limit the processing time for parole and probation violation cases to 10 days. Prior to the policy’s implementation, DOC

held alleged probation and parole violators in the jail until their probation

or parole revocation hearings without consultation with the sheriff and his

staff.39

In Bernalillo County, New Mexico, the jail administrator implemented a

policy through administrative order, curtailing the time it takes to prepare

a “judgment and sentence,” the authorization document for transferring

sentenced inmates from jail to the state prison. This change requires staff

to calculate the presentence confinement time reported at sentencing. The

judges approved the plan, which has resulted in inmates being transferred

7 to 10 days sooner than before the policy went into effect.

The Salt Lake County, Utah, jail administrator assigns inmates sentenced

for nonviolent misdemeanor charges to a home incarceration/work release

program, regardless of judicial sentence. This action is based on an interpretation of state law that gives the sheriff the legal responsibility to define

“custody.”

When the jail population reaches the county’s self-imposed cap, jail administrators in Oregon are mandated by the Oregon Revised Statute of 1997 to

inform the presiding circuit court judge, all municipal court judges, the

district attorney, and the chief law enforcement officer that a jail population emergency exists. Once the jail administrator receives approval from

the presiding judge to implement the Emergency Population Release (ERP)

Program, the administrator has complete authority to release from the jail

those inmates deemed eligible by a committee. Under the statute, the jail

administrator cannot be held responsible for any civil or criminal liabilities

that arise from releasing inmates into the community.40

In response to a jail population cap imposed by a federal court, jail administrators in Cook County, Illinois, have been participating in the Administrative Mandatory Furlough Program, also known as I–bonds. When the
39

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

jail population exceeds its cap, administrators, acting under the authority

of the federal court order, release pretrial defendants held on certain bond

amounts.41 Instituted as an emergency measure to address the federal

court order, jail officials halved the number of defendants released on I–

bonds from 22,000 in 1991 to 11,000 in 199442 by instituting an electronic

monitoring program (see discussion under Creating Alternative Programs

below). In addition to electronic monitoring, other programs such as day

reporting reduced the figure further to fewer than 3,200 in 1996.43

Gathering Needed Data

One way that a jail administrator can facilitate efforts to relieve crowding

is by gathering information about the individuals in jail and their LOC.

Without accurate information and an established, clear format for providing that information to the court and other officials, any population

reduction program may be seriously hampered. The following programby-program discussion highlights positive actions jail administrators have

taken to alleviate jail crowding through the dissemination of data.

The Boulder County, Colorado, jail uses data to identify and respond to

specific problems. Acting under the authority of the local Criminal Justice

Board, jail officials identified repeat driving while intoxicated (DWI) offenders as a rapidly increasing percentage of the average daily jail population (ADP). In response, the jail administrator participated in the

development of the Multiple Offender DWI (MOD) Program, an intensive

supervision and treatment program that diverts this group of offenders

from jail.

The Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, sheriff’s department reviews a daily

list of probation violators being held in jail and identifies those suitable for

an electronic-monitoring release. Since implementation of this plan, more

than 185 inmates per year have been released to home detention while

awaiting resolution of their probation violation.

In Marion County, Oregon, the jail Intake and Assessment Unit carefully

tracks inmates to identify those who qualify for non-jail alternatives. The

unit operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Persons charged with nonviolent offenses, whose circumstances have been determined to have changed

(e.g., they may now have a verified address to which they can return) are

released from jail pending trial. Under its Emergency Release Program, the

unit provides the population review team a list of inmates every 2 weeks

who might qualify for release to a work program. The team consists of a

jail counselor, an assistant district attorney, and a jail lieutenant. Those released to the work program who are already employed may continue

working at their job; others work at the facility or attend educational

courses.
40

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Many jails, such as the one in San Mateo County, California, provide

judges with a list of all incarcerated defendants scheduled to appear in

court so judges can target those cases for expedited processing.

Monitoring/Expediting Detention Cases

Some communities use jail case monitors to concentrate on delay reduction

and bail review. In Spokane County, Washington, case monitors continuously review jail inmates to identify those who could be diverted from the

jail or individuals whose case can be expedited in some manner.

In 1996, Jackson County, Missouri, hired an inmate population control

coordinator to expedite cases of defendants detained pretrial. Among the

responsibilities of the coordinator are monitoring the jail population, identifying inmates who could be placed on pretrial release, preparing bond

review documents, and bringing to court cases of defendants who could be

sentenced to time served based on their charge and length of stay.

Providing Access to Inmates

Jail administrators can help reduce the size of the jail population by improving inmates’ access to pretrial service, public defenders, mental health

and substance abuse treatment providers, probation officers, and other service providers. In many jurisdictions, such as Pima County, Arizona, Boulder County, Colorado, Pinellas County, Florida, Genesee County,

Michigan, and San Mateo County, California, pretrial staff have work

space at the jail and participate in the booking process. In Boulder County,

Colorado, to alleviate overcrowding, jail administrators have provided

space at the jail for professional staff to interview clients and determine eligibility for the Residential Halfway House Program.

Several jurisdictions, such as Maricopa County, Arizona, Volusia County,

Florida, Spartanburg and Pageland Counties, South Carolina, Plymouth

County, Massachusetts, and Adams County, Colorado, provide courtroom

space within the jail. Situating a courtroom in jail can save many hours of

detention time for the largest group of inmates—those released within the

first 24 hours after arrest. Although courtroom facilities in jails are generally used for the initial appearance, they can be used for any court hearing,

such as bond reviews for defendants who have remained in jail because

they are unable to post bail.

Creating Alternative Programs

The Boulder County, Colorado, jail has created a Drug/Alcohol Evaluation

Unit that evaluates offenders convicted of alcohol- or drug-related driving

offenses for level of alcohol or drug dependence and petty misdemeanor

drug offenses. The program includes assessment, report preparation, and

caseload management. The court orders offenders into the program and
41

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

places them under supervision. Participants may receive intensive

inpatient, intensive outpatient, or weekly outpatient treatments, instead

ofjail terms.

To comply with a federal court-imposed population cap, jail officials in

Cook County, Illinois, have established an electronic monitoring program.

The program is designed for pretrial defendants who have been denied release on recognizance and are being held on financial bail. During 1995,

more than 10,000 defendants were released from jail to the program.

The Los Angeles County, California, jail system has also turned to electronic monitoring. The Community Based Alternatives to Custody (CBAC)

program was developed by the jail administrator to reduce jail crowding

and improve the supervision of inmates who are released early. More than

2,000 inmates participate in the CBAC program. Participants maintain their

custody status while being detained at home and supervised through electronic monitoring until they have successfully completed their courtimposed jail term.

Prosecution

Prosecutors can play a major role in alleviating jail crowding. Following

arrest, the prosecutor is the key figure in deciding who might be directed

away from adjudication. A prosecutor’s decisions at the intake, trial preparation, and sentencing stages bear directly on jail population levels and

length of incarceration. In numerous jurisdictions, prosecutors have been

instrumental in modifying case-processing procedures to alleviate jail

crowding.

Intake and Screening Practices

Very early in the life of a case, prosecutors have the opportunity to decline

prosecution, reduce charges as necessary, and identify cases eligible for

diversion.

Early screening. Early screening of cases can be efficiently accomplished

by experienced prosecutors. The prosecutor in El Paso County, Colorado,

has an agreement with the court that requires all warrant requests to have

prosecutorial approval before being presented to a judge. The prosecutor’s

office has an attorney available 24 hours a day to review warrants. Once an

arrest is made on a warrant, the prosecutor screens the case further, improving his or her ability to make charging decisions early in the case.

As in many other jurisdictions, prosecutors in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, screen charges of all incarcerated defendants within 1 working day of

the arrest and meet with the arresting officers to make the charging decisions. The process usually consists of the prosecutor examining police reports and any other information about the alleged crime. The prosecutor
42

Bureau of Justice Assistance

often conducts meetings with the complainant and the arrestee and then

decides whether to charge the arrestee and, if so, on what charges. The

Milwaukee prosecutor’s office generally reaches a charging decision

within 24 hours after an arrest is made on a weekday and within 36 hours

on a weekend.

In Lucas County, Ohio, prosecutors have created a unit that screens warrantless arrests by telephone, which account for at least 50 percent of all

felony charges. Prosecutors review the arrest with the arresting officers

and decide immediately whether to file a case. About 20 percent of these

cases are either dropped or reduced to misdemeanors. According to the

Lucas County prosecutor, this screening process has resulted in a decrease

in the jail population level as a result of reduced jail admissions and

shorter periods of confinement for offenders whose charges are reduced.

The Multnomah County, Oregon, prosecutor’s office screens cases within 1

day of arrest and provides discovery information to the defense counsel at

the initial appearance to help speed case processing (see Prosecutor and

defense counsel at initial appearance, below). Both sides then prepare for

an early case conference. Although the prosecutor has 5 judicial days to

make a charging decision for incarcerated defendants, an attempt is made

to have the lower-level felony and misdemeanor cases disposed of in 2 or 3

days.

Experienced screening staff. To conduct early screening properly, jurisdictions must involve experienced prosecutors in the screening process. In

Kalamazoo County, Michigan, the prosecutor teams less experienced staff

with senior prosecutors when screening cases. Defense counsels are also

provided with police reports, witness statements, criminal histories, and

other information as soon as the charging decision is made.

Prosecutor and defense counsel at initial appearance. In jurisdictions

where both the prosecutor and the defense counsel attend the initial appearance, plea agreements can be immediately negotiated for defendants

charged with nonserious offenses. In several jurisdictions, including

Multnomah County, Oregon, Alachua and Palm Beach Counties, Florida,

Pueblo County, Colorado, and Montgomery County, Maryland, both the

prosecutor and defense counsel attend the initial appearance, and the prosecutor provides the defense counsel with a complete set of reports, including criminal histories. With this information, the prosecutor and defense

counsel can begin negotiations immediately on both pretrial release and

final disposition.

Decisions To Divert

Diversion can occur before or after formal charges are filed. To have an impact on jail crowding, diversion programs must draw from persons likely

to be detained before trial or, if convicted, sentenced to incarceration.
43

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

Multnomah County, Oregon, prosecutors have diversion programs that

include first offense DWI charges, drug charges, and diversion for some

domestic violence cases.

In Kalamazoo County, Michigan, the Substance Abuse Diversion Program

(SADP) was designed to divert nonviolent felony defendants with drug

problems into substance abuse treatment and rehabilitation programs.

Charges are dismissed for defendants who complete the programs.44

The prosecutor in King County, Washington, diverts first-time defendants

accused of a variety of nonviolent property and public disorder offenses to

a 30-day program. An eligible defendant is sent a hearing summons with

an offer to participate in the diversion program. The requirements of the

program include payment of $75 or completion of 15 days of community

service.

In Marion County, Indiana, a panel that includes a prosecutor, public defense counsel, and a mental health professional identifies and screens mentally ill persons within 72 hours of their arrest to determine their eligibility

for a court-monitored mental health treatment program. The team devises

a treatment plan that must be approved by the court. The court holds a bimonthly hearing in each case diverted to monitor compliance with the

treatment plan. Persons in the program who complete treatment requirements and are not arrested for a new offense for a specified period, usually

6 to 12 months, have their criminal charges dismissed.

Expedition of Detention Cases

If a defendant is detained following the charging decision, initial court appearance, or bail review, he or she is subject to the next critical element influencing the jail population—elapsed time prior to trial. The prosecutor

plays a large role in the movement of these cases, especially in jurisdictions

where the prosecutor is responsible for scheduling cases. Even where the

case-scheduling or calendaring function is reserved to the court, the expeditious handling of cases is strongly influenced by prosecutorial management techniques.

As part of its population reduction strategy, Salt Lake County, Utah, established an accelerated calendar for jail cases, setting a time standard for

prosecutors of 10 days between charge filing and preliminary hearing and

45 days between hearing and trial.

By placing jail cases on an accelerated calendar, Bexar County, Texas, was

able to reduce the time to indictment from between 90 and 120 days to approximately 60 days bringing a sizable drop in average LOC in that system. Disposition of misdemeanor cases has also been shortened from 50 to

80 days, another key element to lowering the Bexar County jail population.
44

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Case Management Practices

The way that a prosecutor’s office manages its caseload can have a significant impact on jail crowding. In St. Lucie County, Florida, the prosecutor’s

office has joined with the defense to create a fast-track court in which seasoned attorneys screen cases to identify those that are expected to result in

a plea bargain. When experienced attorneys are assigned to such cases, the

time for reaching plea agreements is cut from several months to less than

4weeks.

Monroe County, New York, also has a special court where the prosecutor

and defense counsel can expedite pleas. Participation in this court has increased the percentage of preindictment pleas from 44 to 66 percent and

decreased the average time to disposition from 18 months to 6 months.45

Prosecutors’ Role in the Bail Process

In many jurisdictions prosecutors attend the initial appearance. Even

though judges have the ultimate authority to release or detain a defendant

at the pretrial stage, they are influenced by the prosecutors’ pretrial release

recommendations.

Prosecutors’ Role in Sentencing

A prosecutor’s sentencing recommendation can have a significant impact

on jail crowding. The American Bar Association Standards reflect the view

that prosecutors should have a limited role in sentencing recommendations, specifying that the prosecutor should not make any recommendations unless requested to do so by the court.46 The National District

Attorneys Association standards take a broader view, asserting that “the

prosecution should make sentence recommendations to the court or jury,

whichever imposes sentence, in situations deemed appropriate.”47

To help alleviate jail crowding, local jurisdictions use a range of alternatives that meet the need for flexibility in sentencing. Numerous jurisdictions authorize prosecutors to use their discretion when recommending

defendants for alternative sentencing if the law calls for incarceration.

Connecticut’s prosecutors helped develop the Alternative Incarceration

Program (AIP). AIP sentences are imposed when the prosecutor indicates

that the defendant can expect a sentence of incarceration and agrees with

the defense counsel to have an assessment conducted by a probation officer. The judge in the case makes a referral to the probation department,

which assesses the defendant’s suitability for an AIP sentence. The probation officer develops an AIP plan, specifying the conditions that should be

part of the sentence. After the assessment is provided to the court, the

judge determines the sentence.
45

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

Leadership

As the chief law enforcement officers in their communities, prosecutors

can influence the local members of the criminal justice community as much

as any other actor. In their role, they can greatly influence the measures

that agencies take individually and the measures that the system as a

whole takes to alleviate jail crowding. Prosecutor involvement is vital

where the local strategy concentrates on cutting case-processing time, but

it is no less important when considering alternatives to arrest, pretrial confinement, or sentencing.

By actively supporting the development of alternatives and effective case

management measures, the Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, prosecutor has

played a major leadership role in efforts to alleviate jail crowding.

In Monroe County, New York, the prosecutor has participated in a

multiyear, complex local government and court effort that has postponed

building additional jail space. The efforts include developing pretrial and

posttrial alternatives, expediting cases, and improving case management

processes.

Other Practices

Although not treated separately in this monograph, victim/witness services affect jail use. Most often, these programs are located in the prosecutor’s office and offer a wide range of assistance, including notice of

case status and court events (e.g., initial appearance, arraignment, indictment, continuance, trial, verdict, and sentencing), preparation of victim

impact statements, scheduling of court appearances, transportation to

court, and plea negotiation consultation. Victim/witness programs also

often refer clients for crisis counseling and other emergency services.

Victim/witness programs are relatively new to the criminal justice system,

and their impact on jail populations is difficult to gauge. Insofar as such

services emphasize the need to protect victims and witnesses from defendants and convicted offenders considered dangerous, they may cause

some courts to favor increased pretrial detention and jail sentences. Judges

may compensate by making bail and nonincarceration sentences more accessible to those not charged with or convicted of violent crimes. Moreover, increased victim involvement could result in speedier resolution of

cases, reduced pretrial detention time, and, when a program involves some

form of victim-offender reconciliation, increased use of alternatives to jailing such as restitution, community service, and treatment.
46

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Pretrial Services

The organizational auspices under which pretrial services are delivered

vary across jurisdictions. Pretrial programs are found in court, jail, and

probation departments; they can also be provided by independent or private agencies. Regardless of the organizational setting, a defendant’s contact with a pretrial services agency may be the first time that a release/

detention decision is made. This is particularly true in systems that lack

prearrest diversion, citation release, or other release outlets described in

the Law Enforcement, Jail Administration, and Prosecution sections of this

chapter. Pretrial services programs can help alleviate jail crowding by providing three essential services. First, they provide information about the

defendant to help the decisionmaker make an appropriate pretrial release/

detention decision. Second, they provide the decisionmaker options for

safely releasing the defendant. Third, they have the capacity to monitor

and supervise defendants released before trial. In some cases, a pretrial

services program also reviews the jail population for candidates who may

be released or whose cases may be expedited.

Providing Information

One of the most important contributions of pretrial services programs to

the efficient use of jail space is their role in facilitating bail decisions. The

most significant aspect of this role is the gathering and verification of relevant information about the defendant. According to a 1990 survey of

pretrial services programs, 85 percent of pretrial programs reported conducting interviews with defendants and completing their investigations

prior to the defendant’s initial appearance before a judicial officer.48 Jail

population size may be directly related to the hours of operation of pretrial

screening services. Jail population levels may be reduced by adjusting staff

schedules to ensure that a maximum number of defendants are interviewed on a timely basis. If full and timely coverage is lacking, the number

of detainees may swell to unnecessary levels. Some court systems accept

large numbers of detainees awaiting initial appearance as a matter of

course, particularly on weekends and holidays, but others recognize continuous pretrial screening as necessary for efficient jail and court operations.49 For many of these programs, full screening requires extended

hours of coverage.

Pretrial program interviewers in New York City, New York, and Dade

County, Florida, work around the clock to ensure that all interviews and

investigations are completed by the time the defendant appears before a

bail-setting court. In Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, the court

makes pretrial services and magistrate bail-setting services available 24

hours a day, 7 days a week, as a means of avoiding dangerous overcrowding of jails. Because court rules in Kentucky require that the pretrial investigation be completed within 12 hours of the arrest, pretrial interviewers

are on call 24 hours a day and often must travel long distances to rural

parts of the state50 to complete their interviews and investigations.51
47

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

Video technology was introduced in a rural area of Virginia to enable pretrial services programs to interview defendants located in widely dispersed facilities. The Southside Community Corrections and Pretrial

Services of Emporia, Virginia, serves the Sixth Judicial District, that encompasses Brunswick, Greensville, and Sussex Counties. Video equipment was

installed in the Brunswick and Sussex County jails, the Southside Regional

jail, and the Southside Community Corrections agency in Emporia, where

the pretrial interviewers are located. At 6 a.m. each weekday, the pretrial

interviewer in Emporia goes “on screen” in the Brunswick County jail 21

miles away. Half an hour later, the interviewer goes on screen at the Sussex County jail 28 miles away. The activity is repeated at 7 a.m. for the

Southside Regional facility located next door to the interviewers in Emporia. This schedule allows for interviews to be completed and information

verified before the 9 a.m. sessions of the General District Courts in the

three counties. The pretrial services agency recommendations are sent by

facsimile to the various courtrooms in time for the morning hearings.

A pretrial services program must target the widest possible population in

its information gathering. Pretrial programs in many jurisdictions, including Pima County, Arizona, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, and San Mateo

County, California, interview all felony and misdemeanor arrestees. In August 1997, the Governor of Puerto Rico signed an amendment to the existing pretrial release law that requires all criminal defendants to be screened

by the Commonwealth’s Pretrial Services Office.

Several pretrial programs started out with a limited target population but

expanded the population in response to jail crowding. For example, the

Washoe County, Nevada, pretrial program initially served only misdemeanor offenders, but has expanded coverage to felony offenders upon the

recommendation of a hired consultant. The Montgomery County, Ohio,

pretrial program, which focused on only felony cases when it was established in 1989, expanded to include misdemeanors in 1994.

Risk Assessment Validation

To maximize its effectiveness, a pretrial services program should validate

the risk assessment instrument that it uses to make recommendations to

bail-setting officers. Several jurisdictions have conducted such validations,

including Harris County, Texas, Cook County, Illinois, Hennepin County,

Minnesota, New York City, New York, and Maricopa County, Arizona.

Delegated Release Authority

In many jurisdictions, courts have authorized pretrial program staff to release persons charged with some offenses prior to their first court appearance. Pretrial staff in Connecticut’s uniform statewide bail system are

authorized to make direct releases in specified cases, including those involving defendants charged with certain felony offenses.
48

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Pretrial programs in Pima County, Arizona, and Shelby County, Tennessee, are authorized under local court rule to release defendants charged

with misdemeanor offenses. Pretrial staff work in the jail 24 hours a day

interviewing defendants charged with misdemeanors before booking, apply a point scale to determine release eligibility, and release those who are

determined eligible without having been admitted into the jail.

In Oregon, a statute allows the presiding judge of each circuit to designate

release assistance officers who are authorized to grant pretrial release in

allbut the most serious cases.52 In Multnomah County, Oregon, pretrial

program staff designated as release assistance officers interview arrestees

as they are brought into the jail at night and make immediate release decisions. All defendants, whether released or not, must report to court the

next business day for a judicial review of the release status. At the judicial

review, a report on each defendant is presented to the judge.

In King County, Washington, pretrial services staff operating under the jail

administrator are empowered by the court to release certain felony defendants prior to initial appearance.

Diversion Screening

The pretrial services agency may also play a role in screening defendants

for diversion from prosecution. Such screening may be conducted by the

prosecutor’s staff. In some jurisdictions the pretrial agency performs initial

information gathering and makes its findings available to the prosecutor or

other officials responsible for accepting defendants for diversion.

An increasingly important aspect of pretrial services screening is the early

identification of persons whose special needs make them appropriate candidates for diversion. Public inebriate and DWI defendants, drug abusers,

and the mentally disabled constitute a large and growing segment of many

jail populations. For example, DWI arrests and jailings are increasing with

the nationwide crackdown on intoxicated drivers. Local systems are beginning to use pretrial agencies to develop appropriate options for defendants

fitting this special needs category.

In Monroe County, New York, the local bar association sponsors a pretrial

release/diversion program. The Pretrial Services Corporation has a special

deferred prosecution component for persons charged with DWI. Staff

members screen offenders, determine eligibility, make recommendations

to the court and prosecutor, and supervise program clients.

A comprehensive study of drug courts revealed that pretrial program staff

conduct the initial screening to determine defendants’ eligibility for drug

court in more than 20 percent of drug courts. According to the study, 30

percent of drug courts operate exclusively during the pretrial stage. Charges

are dropped upon successful completion of program requirements.53
49

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

In Fayette County, Kentucky, pretrial services staff contact the references

of DWI arrestees and arrange for their immediate release to the custody of

responsible third parties.

Special Population Screening

Pretrial services programs can play a major role in alleviating jail crowding

by providing information and options to decisionmakers faced with meeting the special needs of certain populations. One special population is the

mentally ill. Thousands suffering from mental illness or disability are in

the nation’s jails, but few jails have personnel with the expertise to identify

inmates requiring services or to provide proper treatment. Pretrial services

agencies perform an essential function in some jurisdictions by employing

specially trained staff to screen defendants or by contracting with individual psychiatrists or clinics to perform evaluations.

A specially trained staff person in Multnomah County, Oregon, screens

arrestees who have mental or behavioral disorders prior to initial appearance and identifies extra-system services and non-jail placements for court

consideration. Third-party custody agreements are also arranged for certain defendants.

In Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, pretrial staff screen defendants for mental illness during the initial interview and refer them to the Community

Support Program. The support program staff put together a supervision

package to address these defendants’ needs, including housing, medical,

and financial services. A caseworker is assigned to oversee delivery of

these services.

The Shelby County, Tennessee, pretrial services program implemented a

mental health component to help mentally ill defendants get out of jail

andinto treatment. The federally funded program consists of two mental

health counselors who interview newly booked inmates who show signs of

mental illness. Using information gathered during this and regular pretrial

interviews, the counselors develop a treatment plan that includes continuation of any regimen the defendant may be undergoing. The plan is presented to the prosecutor and public defender, whereupon the three parties

present it to the judge. If the judge accepts it, the defendant is released on

the conditions delineated in the plan. If the judge declines the release plan,

the three parties work to expedite the processing of the case.

Changes in state transfer laws are increasing the numbers of juveniles

prosecuted in adult courts. The presence of juveniles raises difficult issues

for pretrial programs and pretrial release decisionmakers. Risk assessment

instruments and release options that are designed for an adult population

may not be appropriate for children, some as young as 13 or 14 years old.
50

Bureau of Justice Assistance

One pretrial program is addressing this problem. With a federal grant, the

Pima County, Arizona, pretrial program is designing a new risk assessment instrument specifically for juveniles charged as adults. The grant will

also fund a case manager who will specialize in supervising these young

defendants.

Changes in law have also considerably increased the number of persons

arrested for DWI and for domestic violence. In many jails, inmates with

these charges make up a significant portion of the pretrial detainee population. Several pretrial programs have taken steps to identify appropriate release options for these groups.

In Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, the pretrial program established a Pretrial Intoxicated Driver Intervention Project that places repeat drunk drivers in intensive alcohol treatment programs shortly after arrest, rather than

after a conviction. The premise of the program is that drunk drivers will

recidivate unless they receive immediate intervention. The program has

two full-time caseworkers who screen, review, and assess repeat drunk

drivers and provide intensive supervision from arrest through adjudication. Evaluations of the program show that it has reduced the probability

of recidivism on drunk driving charges by 50 percent.54 Such results increase decisionmakers’ confidence in releasing repeat drunk driving offenders to such programs while their cases are pending, thereby reducing

jail crowding. Given the program’s positive results, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation granted funds for an additional 2 years of operation when the program’s federal funding ran out after 5 years.

The Coconino County, Arizona, pretrial program contracts with a community center that offers classes for persons charged with domestic violence,

support groups for victims, and mediation and followup services. The pretrial program refers defendants to the program and pays the initial assessment and enrollment fees when necessary.

Supervision of Release Conditions

Most state statutes or court rules specify the types of conditions that judicial officers can set. These include requiring the defendant to remain at or

away from a certain address, area, or person; report regularly to a court

agency; and refrain from using illegal drugs. In many jurisdictions, pretrial

programs monitor court-ordered release conditions.

Pretrial staff in Maricopa County, Arizona, place random telephone calls to

defendants with curfew conditions to ensure that they are at home during

designated hours. They also make random field visits.

Several pretrial programs, including the one in Genesee County, Michigan,

place pretrial defendants under electronic monitoring. Supervised by the

sheriff’s office, defendants may be permitted to leave home during the day
51

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

for their jobs but must return by a specified hour and provide pretrial program staff with regular documentation of continued employment. Other

defendants might be given permission to leave home for a specific period

to look for a job or conduct other business. Most defendants on electronic

monitoring are subjected to periodic drug and alcohol tests. Pretrial programs in the District of Columbia, Prince George’s County, Maryland, and

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, have in-house facilities to conduct drug

testing.

Some jurisdictions have set up supervision programs designed specifically

for defendants who would otherwise be detained. In the District of Columbia, for example, the pretrial program has an Intensive Supervision Unit

that targets defendants who have been detained after the initial appearance. If released to the program, defendants are placed in the third-party

custody of the D.C. Department of Corrections and are transferred to a

halfway house for a 2-week orientation and transition period. While in the

halfway house, they begin twice-weekly drug testing, which continues

throughout the supervision period. They also are assigned to a caseworker

who has no more than 20 defendants in his or her caseload.

The Pre-Trial Release Office of the Fifth Judicial District Department of

Correctional Service in Polk County, Iowa, established an intensive supervision program that targets high-risk defendants who otherwise cannot obtain pretrial release. Under the program, staff visit the defendant at home

up to five times each week and perform drug and alcohol testing. Most

defendants also have to abide by a curfew; some are also electronically

monitored.

Monitoring the Jail Population

Many defendants who are initially detained at pretrial, usually due to

aninability to post the set bail amount, can be safely released as new circumstances arise or additional information surfaces. Several pretrial programs regularly monitor the pretrial detainee population to identify such

defendants.

The Pima County, Arizona, pretrial services program discovered the value

of such a bond review effort when it began its Fastrack Program in 1991.

Under the program, pretrial staff interview felony defendants who were

not released at their initial appearance. They collect additional information

that might help a defendant secure release and identify appropriate release

alternatives. Pretrial program staff then have the authority to schedule

bond review hearings. The program has been credited with reducing the

felony pretrial detainee population by 20 percent.55

Other pretrial programs identify for defense lawyers detained defendants

who may be ready to enter a plea. For example, a defendant charged with

a misdemeanor who has already spent more time in jail during pretrial
52

Bureau of Justice Assistance

than he or she would likely receive as a sentence upon conviction may be

eager to plead guilty, receive a sentence of time served, and be released.

The Monroe County, Florida, pretrial program prepares a list each week of

which defendants are in jail on a misdemeanor charge, how long they have

been there, and when they are due back in court. The list is presented to

the prosecutor and public defender at the beginning of the week to aid in

plea negotiations. At the end of the week, the pretrial program receives a

list from the public defender of all cases that have successfully negotiated

a plea. The pretrial program schedules those cases for a Friday afternoon

plea hearing. Through regular review of the jail population, pretrial programs can also help prevent defendants from getting “lost in the system.”

As part of their duties to monitor jail population, pretrial programs regularly compare court and jail records to ensure that no discrepancies have

led or could lead to the unnecessary detention of defendants.

Wisconsin Correctional Service (WCS), a private, nonprofit supervisory release agency in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, interviews all defendants

remaining in jail more than 72 hours following initial appearance to gather

information from detainees with specific problems, such as drug and alcohol use and mental disorders. WCS verifies the information, devises an appropriate release/treatment program, and recommends placement to the

court. The agency also supervises pretrial releasees who have mental disorders, and it is licensed to dispense prescribed medication.

Other jurisdictions that rely on followup review for jail population control

are Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, through the Pretrial Services Division’s

Conditional Release Section; Salt Lake County, Utah; and the state of Kentucky. The Kentucky Pretrial Services Agency, as part of the state’s Administrative Office of the Courts, assists local courts in conducting statutorily

required bail review within 24 hours of a defendant’s initial bail setting. In

the interim, additional information may be gathered on specific problems,

probation and parole officials may be contacted about defendants under

their supervision, the defendant’s family may be contacted, and extrasystem referral agencies may be queried about their willingness to provide

supervision.

Other Practices

Investigations of failure to appear. Defendants who fail to appear (FTA)

in court disrupt the schedules of other parties in the case, such as the

judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, and witnesses and can also have an

impact on the jail population. When an FTA occurs, the judge issues a

warrant for the arrest of the defendant. Once the warrant is executed, the

defendant is typically booked into jail. Pretrial programs in several jurisdictions have sought to ease the impact of FTAs on both the court and the

jail by establishing FTA units.
53

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

The District of Columbia pretrial program has had an FTA unit since the

early 1980s. Unit staff seek to prevent bench warrants from being issued by

notifying the court in advance of the court date that the defendant will not

be present. Staff attempt to verify the reasons for the defendant’s absence

and report that information to the court. They also seek to resolve warrants

issued by immediately contacting defendants who missed court dates and

having them surrender voluntarily to the program. Several other programs, including those in New York City, New York, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Maricopa County, Arizona, have established FTA units.

Presentence investigation. In most jurisdictions, presentence reports are

prepared by the probation department to aid judges in sentencing. Pretrial

services programs, such as those in Washington, D.C., and Cobb County,

Georgia, often participate in the investigation process by providing background information collected and verified in the pretrial phase. Information on the offender’s compliance with pretrial release conditions may be

valuable to the court in considering non-jail sentences.

Jail and Case Flow Information

Pretrial services agencies also communicate useful information relating to

pretrial case flow and the jail population to the court and others in city or

county government. Local criminal justice advisory groups or jail crowding task forces may rely on the pretrial agency to provide such data on a

periodic basis. Several pretrial agencies, including Kentucky’s statewide

program and Utah’s Salt Lake County program provide regular jail census

or system flow statistics.

Staff of the San Mateo Bar Association, which operates the pretrial services

program in San Mateo County, California, maintain criminal justice statistics, including daily jail population analyses, that are provided to judges.

The analyses consist of information about jail inmates and their length of

stay, charges, and reasons for continued detention. The information is used

to identify alternative program needs and areas of case processing that

warrant improvement.

Judiciary

No other actors have more control over the ebb and flow of jail populations than judges. Judges are involved, directly and indirectly, in all aspects of criminal case processing. This discussion concentrates on judges

on the courts of general jurisdiction that process felony trials and judges

on the courts of limited jurisdiction that handle felony case preliminary

proceedings and misdemeanor cases. Judges on each type of court affect

jail admissions and LOC. This section highlights actions that judges can

take in individual cases and those involving case-management policies in

concert with other judges. In addition, judges in leadership positions
54

Bureau of Justice Assistance

working with others in the criminal justice system can accomplish much to

alleviate jail crowding. The court administrator, who is not dealt with

separately in this monograph, can also affect jail numbers by generating

case-processing data, managing the court calendar, and performing other

duties for judges.

Case Initiation

Judges can reduce the number of jail bookings by issuing summonses in

lieu of arrest warrants. In many jurisdictions, judges carefully screen warrant requests to determine if a summons can be issued in lieu of an arrest

warrant. Courts in Volusia County, Florida, and San Mateo, California, for

example, have made the judicial warrant review part of their overall strategy to alleviate jail crowding. In another effort to alleviate jail crowding at

the case initiation stage, judges have ordered jail administrators to implement booking policies requiring them to refrain from incarcerating certain

defendants.

Prompt Bail Setting

According to national jail inmate statistics, most pretrial inmates are those

who cannot post a money bond.56 The court creates procedures and rules

that determine when, where, and how release decisions are made and establishes bail schedules that allow defendants to post a money bond prior

to appearing before a judicial officer.

The court can adjust the frequency of initial appearance hearings, including holding them during evenings and weekends. In many jurisdictions,

such as Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, Spartanburg County, South

Carolina, and all the counties in Virginia, magistrates are on duty 24 hours

a day to set bail before booking takes place at a jail. In Milwaukee County,

Wisconsin, the circuit court holds Sunday sessions in addition to its Saturday and weekday intake court. In Maricopa County, Arizona, bail hearings

occur four times a day.

Delegated Release Authority

Many jurisdictions delegate release authority to nonjudicial staff, such as

pretrial services or jail officials, as another pretrial release decision

method.

In Pima County, Arizona, Volusia County, Florida, Shelby County, Tennessee, and the state of Oregon,57 the court has delegated the authority to

release defendants charged with misdemeanors to the pretrial services program. In Shelby County, delegating release authority has decreased the average LOC for misdemeanor defendants from 24 to 10 hours.58

The King County, Washington, district court established a three-tiered

release policy to be applied by pretrial services personnel. The policy
55

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

specifies the types of charges for which the pretrial staff may (1) effect release without court consultation, (2) carry out release with court consultation by phoning a duty judge, or (3) submit recommendations to the court

for the most serious felony cases. This release policy has led to significant

reductions in court time, jail admissions, and LOC.

Bond Review Hearings

Judges can reduce the average LOC of defendants who at first are unable

to post bail by scheduling bond review hearings several days after the defendants enter jail. The Volusia County, Florida, court regularly holds “jail

arraignments,” hearings for defendants who have been incarcerated 3 to 5

days after their initial appearance and who might qualify for case disposition, bond reduction, or pretrial release consideration.

Case Management

Courts can greatly reduce the time to disposition by instituting delay reduction measures. Courts can set up special mechanisms, referred to in

many jurisdictions as a “rocket docket,” to help defense counsel and prosecutors reach agreements in noncomplex cases. Effective calendaring (e.g.,

strict use of continuances, specific scheduling of trial dates) of cases from

initial appearance through adjudication and sentencing also has crucial implications for the jail population.

Many courts can take plea agreements for the least serious cases at the initial appearance. This occurs in Multnomah County, Oregon, where both

the defense and prosecution attend the hearing. The public defender can

act as temporary counsel to all defendants and discuss an immediate plea

with defendants charged with nonviolent offenses. This process speeds up

case processing and decreases the length of time defendants are detained

pretrial.

Courts can set up special mechanisms to expedite the processing of certain

categories of cases. The court in St. Lucie County, Florida, has set up experimental fast-track courts to accept pleas. The state attorney’s and the

public defender’s offices assign seasoned attorneys to screen the cases at

intake and identify those likely to result in a plea, cutting the time for

reaching plea agreements by two-thirds.

The Washoe County, Nevada, court implemented an Early Case Resolution

program that has reduced the time of felony cases that are bound over

from the lower court to the trial court from 30 to 15 days, and it began

early negotiations on cases, reducing the average daily jail population by

32 inmates. Washoe County’s judiciary, public defense counsels, and district attorneys jointly implemented this program. Under the program, an

assistant district attorney meets with an assistant public defender the day

adefendant is arraigned to discuss resolution of the case. As a result,

casesare usually resolved in 4 days, instead of 2 weeks. The defendant is
56

Bureau of Justice Assistance

released on the day that the defendant, defense attorney, and district

attorney agree on how the case will be resolved—through diversion, drug

treatment, or another alternative.

In 1996, Marion County, Indiana, established an expedited court for minor

felony and misdemeanor cases. The court was modeled on a similar court

created a year earlier to process felony cases. The explicit goal of the court

was to reduce the number of days that pretrial defendants spend in jail before trial to no more than 90 days. Before the program, defendants unable

to post bail could remain in the jail for a period longer than the jail sentence they would receive upon conviction. The first defendants who appeared in the new court were all inmates of the county jail who, after

pleading guilty, were sentenced to serve jail time that was equal to or less

than the time they had served pretrial.

The trial calendar of Fairfax County, Virginia, is the state’s busiest, with

22,000 cases filed annually. It is referred to as the rocket docket because it

is one of the fastest courts in the state. The court disposed of 96.5 percent

of all criminal cases in 1996 within 120 days, resulting in defendants

spending less time in jail pretrial.

The concept of a rocket docket was applied specifically to the processing of

domestic violence cases in Oakland County, Michigan. Arraignments occur within 5 days, instead of the 40 days that it took prior to the program,

and cases are now tried in 13 days, instead of 113. Since the program began

in 1996, it has experienced high conviction rates and a 38-percent decline

in repeat offenses. According to the program’s supporters, its success can

be attributed to the judges who are trained to work on domestic violence

cases.

In response to the slow criminal case processing that has resulted from the

three-strikes-and-you‘re-out law, codified under Section 667 ofthe California Penal Code, Los Angeles County implemented two delay-reduction

programs that combine many of the above-mentioned features. In 1996, the

Early Disposition Program operating in some of the county’s municipal

courts was expanded to all 24 municipal courts. The program works as follows. First, senior district attorneys and public defense counsels agree

which cases are suitable for early resolution. Then, pretrial services personnel check records before the disposition hearing, and within 48 hours

ofthe initial municipal court appearance. More than 200 cases each month

are resolved through the Early Disposition Program in the Central Division alone. The county’s second initiative is the Delay Reduction Program

implemented in 1996. This program involves a concerted effort by superior

and municipal court judges to process cases in an expeditious manner. Under the program, defense attorneys must assure the court at the outset that

the case can proceed to trial within 60 days of the superior court arraignment. The program limits the number of continuances, requires that all
57

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

pretrial motions be made in writing, and insists that disclosure of discovery material be made available at least 30 days before trial. The program’s

goals are based on the American Bar Association standards that call for 90

percent of criminal cases to be disposed within 120 days. Within a few

months of the program’s startup the number of cases older than 120 days

was more than halved, from 1,300 to 600.

In 1997, prompted by chronic delays and backlogs, the presiding judge of

the Westborough, Massachusetts, district court devised a new process for

jury trials. Under the new system, called trial by appointment, any defendant who wants a jury trial is assigned a court date within 2 months of arrest. On the day of the trial, the judge expects all parties to be ready. No

delays or excessive continuances are tolerated, and no plea negotiations

are accepted once the jury is brought to the courthouse. The results of the

new procedure have been dramatic. In the first 3 months, 32 cases had

been tried, compared with 4 per month previously. Proponents of the new

procedure note that faster case processing of defendants charged with

drunk driving or drug-related offenses means quicker access to needed

treatment.

In 1997, Broward County, Florida, received assistance when the state legislature created a new specialty division called Strike Force. Retired judges

from across the state preside over this court. Cases that have been postponed are pulled from the dockets of sitting judges and reassigned to a

Strike Force judge. Unencumbered by probation violation cases, arraignments, and other matters that take up much of the time of sitting judges,

Strike Force judges can hear assigned cases immediately. Any case that involves few witnesses and can be tried in 1 or 2 days is eligible for assignment to the court. Capital and life felony cases are excluded. In the first 4

months of Strike Force’s operation, more than 300 cases were disposed.

To bring the county jail into compliance with a court-ordered population

cap, Jefferson County, Alabama, officials implemented a rocket docket procedure. Several agencies outside the jurisdiction assisted, including 15

state assistant attorney generals and 5 district attorneys from Montgomery

County. In the first of 2 special sessions, Jefferson County criminal, civil,

and family court judges disposed of more than 600 cases in pretrial hearings. As a result of the procedure, the jail population was brought to well

within the jail’s legal capacity, from 1,442 to 1,000 inmates.

Adjudication of Special Populations

Adding to its list of specialty courts, including a drug court and a domestic

violence court, Broward County, Florida, in 1997, established a part-time

mental health division within the county court’s criminal division. It hears

cases involving mentally ill or mentally retarded persons charged with

nonviolent misdemeanor offenses. The chief circuit court judge established
58

Bureau of Justice Assistance

the court by issuing an administrative order, noting that the increasing

number of mentally ill persons has contributed to congestion of the court

docket and an overcrowded jail. The county’s chief assistant public defender participated in the creation of the mental health court. Persons determined to have possible mental disability, by either the police or nurses

available at booking, are assigned to the court. The court’s first order of

business is to determine the most appropriate treatment placement for the

individual, which may involve civil commitment to a state psychiatric hospital or pretrial release with the condition that the individual participate in

community mental health treatment. Persons who participate in this court

waive the right to a speedy trial, and the court monitors each defendant’s

progress in treatment.

Cook County, Illinois, also established a mental health court. The court operates in the sixth municipal district, which encompasses 16 municipalities,

1 of which is the poorest in the nation. The court integrates all phases of

treatment of mentally ill persons who are involved in the criminal justice

system. Mentally ill and/or substance-abusing defendants detained pretrial are released on bond with the condition that they undergo assessment

for mental illness and substance abuse and follow the assessors’ recommendations for treatment. Both the assessment and the subsequent treatment are available at the court-based mental health center. In addition to

the courtroom, the center has a children’s room for mothers attending

treatment programs. Mediators trained in substance abuse and cooccurring mental health disorders are also available.

Sentencing

Although up to this point in the monograph the actor-by-actor discussion

has centered on practices employed prior to adjudication, postadjudication

practices warrant the same scrutiny. One key factor in sentencing that

greatly affects jail population is the amount of time that passes between

adjudication and sentencing. Another important factor is the availability

and use of non-jail options when sentencing offenders.

The probation department usually prepares a presentence investigation report on offenders being sentenced for more serious offenses to provide

judges with detailed background information about the offender. A number of jurisdictions have found ways to decrease the PSI report preparation

time, resulting in significant jail-bed savings.

The King County, Washington, district court established an accelerated

sentencing action that decreased the average time used to prepare the PSI

report by 15 days, which resulted in a decrease in the average daily jail

population of approximately 70 to 75 inmates per day. Washoe County,

Nevada, reduced its average daily jail population significantly by decreasing the average time to produce a PSI report from 30 to 20 days. Maricopa

County, Arizona, decreased the time between adjudication and sentencing
59

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

from 28 to 21 days by consolidating the defendant/offender report formats

in a way that requires all agencies to use the same information and formats, thereby reducing redundant data collection and report writing.

Judges should have non-jail sentencing options to choose from.59 Several

special programs and non-jail sentencing options are in use throughout

thecountry including community service, fines, probation (summary and

formal), intensive probation, treatment for substance or alcohol abuse, diversion or treatment programs for the mentally ill, domestic violence treatment programs, electronic monitoring, home incarceration, halfway

houses, and boot camps.

In Jefferson County, Kentucky, criminal justice officials can refer adjudicated defendants with chronic mental illness to the Community Treatment Alternatives Program (CTAP). The Seven Counties Mental Health

Centerin Louisville, Kentucky, operates CTAP, whose goal is to provide

community-based mental health services as an alternative to incarceration.

CTAP caseworkers review jail inmates daily to identify chronic offenders

who have severe mental illness. Those determined eligible for CTAP are

released only after a plan has been developed by the court, corrections,

and community health service providers. The plan must meet the mental

health needs of the detainee and specify conditions of release and compliance requirements. CTAP detainees must sign a contract that commits

them to the program for a 2-year period and, in case of revocation, to a jail

term. If a violation of the contract occurs, a judge determines whether to

sentence the individual to jail, renew the 2-year contract to the program, or

impose some variation of treatment and jail time.

Courts that have shown success in ensuring proper use of non-jail sentences (avoiding the tendency to use such sanctions simply as add-ons to

other forms of community supervision) have employed one or a combination of three basic approaches.

❑ Enhancing advocacy in individual cases at sentencing. This may

include modifying the probation agency’s presentence investigation to

explore more fully the possibility of non-jail sentences and providing

support for probation or public defender services in preparing

community sentencing plans. The court or the offender can contract

with a private agency to develop individualized proposals for court

consideration. One such agency, the National Center on Institutions and

Alternatives (NCIA), based in Alexandria, Virginia, contracts to provide

client-specific planning (CSP) services. For persons who appear likely to

be incarcerated, NCIA develops proposals that detail specific plans for

supervision, treatment, and restitution.

❑ Designating target populations and developing strict eligibility

criteria for non-jail sanctions. A jurisdiction may set guidelines for the

use of non-jail programs based on a study of sentencing patterns or may
60

Bureau of Justice Assistance

limit placements to only those defendants with prior records, because

first-time offenders often do not receive jail sentences. The Community

Service Sentencing Project operated by the Vera Institute in New York

City, New York, accepts only those defendants who have received jail

terms of 1 to 6 months and have prior convictions.

❑ Selecting offenders for non-jail sanctions. Jurisdictions usually select

offenders by providing the judge with the option of referring jail-bound

cases to a review board that may recommend modification or suspension of the original sentence and placement in a residential or

nonresidential program. Virginia’s Community Diversion Incentive

(CDI) Program uses such a review process for misdemeanants

sentenced to local jails and felony offenders sentenced to state prison.

Local 15-member CDI boards may also oversee pre- and postadjudication community programs, as those in Frederick County,

Virginia. Non-jail sentences may include probation supervision, a

suspended sentence, a fine, the payment of court costs, community

service, restitution, specialized treatment, community residential

(halfway house) placement, or some combination of the above. Given

the wide variety of available dispositions, courts have a great deal of

latitude when applying sanctions in individual cases; community

resources can often be enlisted by the court to create sentencing options

that meet the needs of the victim, the community, and the offender. The

Salt Lake County, Utah, court cites community service and restitution

programs as a primary ingredient in keeping the jail population down.

Although in some communities these sanctions serve as only get-tough

alternatives to fines or probation supervision for certain offenders—

especially drunk driving offenders—court officials in Salt Lake report a

significant reduction in the number of persons serving jail time since

the programs became operative. Salt Lake officials also report that their

county has reaped large economic benefits as a result of the programs.

DWI Treatment

Few forms of criminal behavior have gained such prominent visibility in

recent years as drunk driving. State and local governments throughout the

nation have increased efforts to redress this crime. Local jurisdictions have

responded in a variety of ways. Although many local justice systems have

sought to jail more DWI arrestees and convicted offenders, others have

acted to divert such persons from jail. Some states have enacted laws to incarcerate habitual DWI offenders.

Salt Lake County, Utah, courts use specialized detoxification and treatment programs as an alternative to jailing DWI offenders. Though state

laws mandate custody, local courts in Utah generally consider public and

private treatment services more appropriate than jailing. Jail administrators and judges also believe these programs will help limit jail population

increases.60
61

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

In Quincy, Massachusetts, first- and second-time DWI offenders may be

placed on probation as an alternative to jail and ordered to a certified

drunk driving treatment program. In this 26-week program, offenders are

required to attend weekly group counseling sessions and Alcoholics

Anonymous meetings. Offenders are required to remain abstinent, and

many may be required to undergo random drug testing. The program is

reported to be an effective jail crowding countermeasure while yielding

high rehabilitative success rates.

Jail-Bed Allocation

When a new jail in Kent County, Michigan, began to fill up immediately,

concerns were raised that the new facility would soon be overcrowded. A

Jail Bed Allocation Committee, consisting of judges, prosecutors, defenders, and jail administrators, was formed to try to keep the jail from becoming crowded. The committee recommended, and all judges on the circuit

and district courts agreed, that each judge be allotted a certain number of

beds for sentenced and pretrial inmates. Judges can trade vacant beds with

other judges. However, if a court exceeds its bed allocation, the chief judge

notifies the court and allows 4 weeks for the court to address the overuse.

After 4 weeks, the circuit court notifies the sheriff not to accept inmates

from that court until the overuse has been corrected. Muskegon County,

Michigan, has adopted the same policy. Since implementing the plan, the

Kent County jail has not exceeded its court-ordered capacity.

Systemwide Leadership

The courts’ pivotal position in the criminal justice system places judges,

particularly presiding or administrative judges, in a leadership position to

formulate and implement a systemwide approach to alleviating or preventing jail crowding. Research has found that judicial leadership is

needed to achieve effective efforts to alleviate jail crowding. Judges affect

jail population through their decisions in individual cases, their authority

to set court rules for processing cases, and their leadership position in the

criminal justice system. As leaders, judges can call together their brethren

and other actors to examine the entire criminal justice system and its impact on jail population.61

Defense

Overlooked defender policies and practices are crucial to alleviating jail

population pressures. System procedures critical to determining population levels include indigent screening and appointment, application of pretrial release options, use of bail review, consideration of dismissal, plea

bargaining, adjudication, and sentencing and sentence mitigation. All may

be affected by defense practices. Defender services must strive to provide

early and intensive intervention in case processing so that cases can be
62

Bureau of Justice Assistance

completed rapidly and defendants who should be released pretrial are released quickly.62 Alleviating jail crowding is not the defense counsel's primary focal point, but as the defendant’s representative, it is certainly a

priority.

Early Participation by Defenders

Like early intervention by prosecutors, early indigent screening, defender

appointment, and defendant contact can yield substantial jail-space savings. When defense attorneys are available at the initial bail-setting hearing, they can argue for the pretrial release of the defendant.

In many jurisdictions, including Montgomery County, Maryland, every

defendant is assigned a defense counsel at the initial appearance, even if

only for that hearing. In King County, Washington, the Administrative Office of the Public Defender requires defense contractor organizations to

have an attorney on duty 24 hours a day to receive phone referrals. The attorneys consult on the phone unless it is a very serious case, in which

event the defender goes to the jail.

The initial appearance also provides an excellent opportunity for defenders to begin discussions with the prosecutor about possible plea agreements. In some jurisdictions, such as Palm Beach County, Florida, and

Montgomery County, Maryland, the prosecution and defense begin

screening the simplest cases at the initial appearance. Because all parties

are present, a plea agreement is often reached at that time.

Case Review

Commitment of high-quality system resources at the early stages of the

court process is an essential ingredient in combating jail crowding. Early

defense intervention in case screening may also foster improved cooperation between defender and prosecutor. All fast-track and rocket docket

calendars depend on the cooperation between prosecutors and defense

counsel in the first stage and cooperation with the court at later stages.

Early screening of cases by a seasoned attorney can lead to earlier case

resolutions. Screening cases at the start can decrease case-processing time

and the time some defendants spend in jail.

A good example of the impact of a thorough early analysis by the defense

is in St. Lucie County, Florida, where the public defender’s office is part of

afast-track process designed to reduce the time needed to reach a plea

agreement. Two courts are dedicated to handling pleas, with a public defender and prosecutor assigned to each. These intake specialists are experienced attorneys capable of identifying cases appropriate for a plea. This

process has cut the average time taken for plea agreements from months to

weeks.
63

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

The Monroe County, New York, public defenders initiate an early conference with the prosecutor and judge to review cases for possible negotiation. The public defender’s office reports that this process has increased

the percentage of preindictment pleas from 44 percent to 66 percent and

decreased the average case-processing time from 18 to 6 months.

In Baltimore, Maryland, public defenders work with prosecutors in the

central booking facility 7 days a week screening cases of misdemeanant

inmates who are not released within 3 days of arrest. Qualified cases are

scheduled for plea or other disposition within 12 days or continue in the

regular process. This effort has been credited with reducing the average

length of pretrial incarceration by 7 days.

Defender Caseloads

In many jurisdictions, the heavy caseloads of public defenders or appointed defense attorneys, whose focal point is necessarily individual clients, preclude them from investing much time in devising general plans to

decrease the jail population. Large caseloads and a lack of resources (e.g.,

investigators, case managers) have an impact on individual cases, as defense counsel are forced to push for pleas rather than trials. Large

caseloads may also cause defense counsel to overlook clients who will

spend only a few days in jail before securing release. In general, lighter

caseloads and sufficient staff to investigate cases and prepare recommendations for bail and sentencing hearings promote better handling of individual cases and overall caseload management. When more attention is

paid to individual cases, with fewer requests for continuances, more effective bail and sentencing recommendations are developed and less time is

spent in jail.

Many jurisdictions have taken steps to keep defender caseloads manageable. The public defender’s office in King County, Washington, an administrative office that contracts with three private nonprofit organizations to

provide defender services, has established workload formulas for handling

different kinds of cases. When a service providers reaches a specified limit,

new cases are assigned to another provider or additional resources are

provided to the contractor.

Defender offices have found that they can reduce the impact of high

caseloads by making use of nonattorney resources. The Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania, public defender’s office has a social work unit that handles

indigent determination and screening for social service needs. Also, unit

staff assist the attorney and the client at the pretrial and sentencing stages

of the case.
64

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Finding Alternatives

Use of social service workers or paraprofessionals to complement the work

of the attorney staff can also diminish jail population pressures. Two similar longstanding special defender services programs claim considerable

success in securing non-jail dispositions for offenders most likely to be

jailed. In Portland, Oregon, trial assistants are assigned to work with

defense attorneys on all felony cases to expedite bail review, arrange

placements in treatment programs, and prepare defense presentence investigations. In New York City, New York, the Legal Aid Society, an organization contracted to provide indigent defense services, has created a special

unit to work with the legal staff as felony cases proceed to disposition.

Like the Portland program, the unit assists in preparing bail reports, makes

referrals to various community resources (e.g., psychiatric treatment or vocational training), and helps an attorney prepare presentence memoranda

recommending specific non-jail dispositions.

The availability of alternatives, treatment options, and other resources is a

powerful tool in decreasing jail populations. The Multnomah County, Oregon, public defender keeps and continually updates a database of services for both pretrial defendants and adjudicated defendants awaiting

sentencing.

In Monroe County, New York, two staff members from the county’s Alternative to Incarceration program are permanently assigned to defenders.

They provide defense advocacy services for defendants in jail on bond and

those about to be sentenced. Staff also locate alternative programs for clients and monitor their progress.

The Commonwealth of Virginia Public Defender’s Commission employs

sentencing advocates in most of its offices throughout the state. The advocates provide assistance by developing diversion plans or locating sentencing alternative programs for defendants. Sentencing advocates also work

with defendants and their families to address and recommend treatment

options or sentencing alternatives to the court.

Alternative Advocacy

The private defense bar’s interest in improving bail practices has led to the

establishment of pretrial services agencies in a number of communities.

Bar associations have sponsored the creation of pretrial offices in San

Mateo County, California, and Monroe County, New York, and ongoing

bar involvement has served as a primary catalyst in dealing with jail

crowding in both jurisdictions.

Public defender offices also support special alternative sentencing projects.

The Community Partners in Action Center on Alternatives works with public defender offices in Hartford and New Haven, Connecticut, to develop
65

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

structured, individualized sentencing recommendations for clients likely to

receive jail terms. This program is based on the client specific planning

model pioneered by the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives.

Case Management

Finally, defender’s case-processing systems may influence the size of the

jail population. Vertical processing—assigning a case to the same attorney

or team throughout the court process—may reduce court delay and save

jail space. Reassignment of cases as they pass a certain stage—horizontal

processing—often results in considerable case “dead time” while a new attorney becomes familiar with the case and defendant.

Other Practices

Defenders’ discovery and case conflict resolution practices may influence

the jail population size. In Volusia County, Florida, and other jurisdictions,

the public defender submits a discovery motion at the beginning of each

year to cover cases throughout the year. Since defenders do not have to file

this motion in every case during the year, this cuts down on unnecessary

bureaucratic delays and allows information to be passed quickly between

prosecutor and defense counsel.

In Alachua County, Florida, the pretrial services officer gives the assistant

state attorney two copies of the police officer’s affidavit, the defendant’s

criminal history, and the pretrial report. To comply with discovery obligations, the assistant state attorney gives the second copy of the information

to the assistant public defender at the initial appearance hearing.

In El Paso County, Colorado, the defense can request discovery prior to a

pretrial negotiations conference. State law mandates that defense counsel

receive discovery in less than 20 days.

A certain percentage of cases appointed to a defender’s office are returned

due to a conflict of interest. For example, the client may be a codefendant

of one of the attorney’s other clients or a victim or witness in another case.

The sooner conflicts are identified, the shorter the court delay will be. In

each conflict, the appointment process is repeated and new attorneys must

be assigned who must familiarize themselves with the case. In King

County, Washington, the Administrative Office of the Public Defender

checks several different sources for conflicts before assigning a case and

estimates that potential conflicts exist in approximately 10 percent of cases.

Probation and Parole

The range of non-jail alternatives can be effectively expanded in any jurisdiction if support and resources are mobilized for successful implementation. In most communities, the probation agency is charged with the
66

Bureau of Justice Assistance

mobilization task, as well as with conducting the presentence investigation, arranging for services, and supervising probationers. Probation/

parole agencies, particularly those funded directly by units of local government, are vital to the enhancement of non-jail sanctions. A number of survey sites appear to rely on these agencies to work to expand the range of

both pretrial and sentencing options in the community. Moreover, local

and state probation departments administer approximately 25 percent of

all local pretrial services programs in the nation. Community resources for

pretrial conditional release placements can do much to reverse escalating

jail populations.

Probation and parole agencies can play a major role in alleviating jail

crowding by providing non-jail alternatives for sentencing, enhancing

case-processing efficiency by streamlining the time needed to complete

PSIreports, and expediting revocation decisions.

Alternatives to Incarceration

Providing supervised probation, as an alternative to incarceration, results

in significant savings in jail-bed space. According to a Bureau of Justice

Statistics report, by the end of 1996, state and local probation agencies had

supervised more than 3 million adults, about 1 in every 62 persons age

18or older.63 Since 1990, the nation’s probation population has steadily

increased at an average of 3 percent per year. By 1996, probationers accounted for 58 percent of adults under correctional supervision, including

persons held in jails and prisons and those on parole.64

In response to increased jail populations, probation agencies are working

with other criminal justice agencies to develop alternative programs. Many

counties opt for increasing the number of community-based alternatives,

instead of the rate of incarceration, because the former is a more costeffective means of alleviating jail crowding while maintaining public

safety.

In California, the Los Angeles County, probation department joined the

sheriff’s department in developing the Los Angeles County Community

Based Alternatives to Custody program. Sentenced offenders are screened

by probation staff who interview an inmate, obtain and chart a full criminal record, and assess the inmate’s risk level and program placement

options, which include electronic monitoring, work release, and work furlough. Inmates with felony or misdemeanor convictions who qualify for

program placement are released early from jail.65 Although detained at

home, inmates retain in-custody status until successful completion of their

jail term. Program failures are returned to custody and are no longer eligible for CBAC participation. Currently, more than 2,000 inmates are electronically monitored through CBAC.

A 1995 BJS national survey of adults on probation showed that 70 percent

of the probationers reported past drug use and 47 percent reported they
67

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of their offense.66

The large number of probationers with drug and alcohol abuse problems

has led many states to implement alternative programs that specifically address the treatment needs of alcohol offenders while reducing the jail

population.

Boulder County, Colorado, probation officials, having identified repeat

DWI offenders as a rapidly increasing percentage of the average daily jail

population, participated in development of the Multiple Offender DWI

Program, an intensive supervision and treatment program that diverts

these offenders from jail. Repeat DWI offenders are sentenced to serve a

minimum of 6 months in the county jail. Once offenders enter the jail, the

Probation Alcohol Unit immediately assesses them. Offenders who do not

possess any exclusionary factors67 are then referred to the Correctional Alternatives Committee for approval. Once approved, offenders are transferred into the Work Release Program by jail administrative order. After

successful completion of 180 days in the program, offenders are released

from the jail and placed on probation for 180 days with a day-reporting requirement. This program affords sentenced offenders the opportunity to

serve a split sentence, instead of serving their entire sentence in jail. The

program administrator reports that an estimated 3,000 jail-bed days are

saved each year through this program. The offender partially offsets the

cost of the program to the probation department and jail by paying a

weekly fee of $15.

Some states have implemented statewide efforts to alleviate crowding in

county jails.

In 1990, the Connecticut General Assembly passed a law establishing the

Office of Alternative Sanctions (OAS) with the state’s judicial branch to

create and expand a statewide continuum of programs to augment the alternatives to incarceration available for judges to impose on pretrial and

convicted offenders.68 In the Alternative to Incarceration Program, prosecutors indicate that a defendant or offender can expect a sentence of incarceration and arrange with defense counsel to have an assessment

conducted by a probation officer. The judge in the case makes a referral to

the Office of the Adult Probation to have the defendant investigated for

suitability for an AIP sentence. The probation officer develops an AIP plan,

specifying conditions that should be part of the sentence. Once an offender

is ordered by the court to participate in the program, he or she is supervised by the probation officer. Many participants in AIP report to a day incarceration center (DIC), remain under intensive supervision, participate

in drug treatment, and perform community service as conditions of their

release.69 DICs are designed as community-based alternatives to jail or

prison for defendants with more serious offenses. Participants report to the

centers during the day and are electronically monitored at night. They are

under supervision 24 hours per day, 7 days a week. Offenders who participate in AIP have been convicted of serious crimes such as drug-related or
68

Bureau of Justice Assistance

violent offenses but have short criminal histories. AIP saves Connecticut

approximately 700 jail beds each year.70

Many probation departments have been playing a vital role in restorative

justice programs. In 1995, Vermont implemented the Reparative Probation

Program, which requires an offender to come face-to-face with the community at a meeting where an agreement is negotiated that specifies ways

theoffender will make reparation to victims and the community. The

program’s goal is to impose a punishment that responds to the criminal act

without unduly burdening the courts, jails, and other criminal justice actors. It is an alternative to traditional probation because it focuses on issues

related to the crime and on repairing injuries to victims and the community. Under this program, an offender is required to stipulate that he or she

will have no further involvement with criminal activity and must agree to

any other conditions specified. The offender appears before a reparative

board consisting of five citizens from the offender’s community. The board

members and the offender discuss the details and impact of the offender’s

behavior. The result is an agreement between the board and the offender

stipulating specific activities for the offender to complete. The agreement

incorporates four specific objectives: (1) to repair the damage done to the

victims of crime, (2) to make amends to the community, (3) to learn about

the impact of crime on the victims and the community, and (4) to learn

ways to avoid reoffending. The offender is not on traditional supervision,

and agreement and compliance with the terms are the offender’s responsibility. Once the board imposes sanctions, the offender has 90 days to fulfill

the agreement and complete the program. Upon completion, the board

may recommend discharge from probation.71

Expedited Processing of Probation/Parole Violators and

Expedited PSIs

In 1995, presentence investigations were completed in 64 percent of felony

cases and 19 percent of misdemeanor cases nationwide.72 Among those for

whom a PSI was prepared, 80 percent received a probation recommendation.73 Many counties are making changes within their probation departments to expedite case processing and PSI preparation and implementing

new alternatives-to-incarceration programs to reduce the number of probation/parole violators in jail.

In September 1995, Monroe County, New York, initiated the Jail Utilization

System Team (Project JUST) to allow for continuous study of the county’s

use of jail resources and provide a full range of controls—through expedited case processing and alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders and sentenced inmates—to manage these resources. The project is

administered by the county’s Public Safety Sector Total Quality Management Team, which includes the county’s probation department, sheriff,

public defender, district attorney, police, and other criminal justice
69

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

agencies.74 Two examples of Project JUST initiatives that include efforts by

the probation department have had favorable results. Under expedited

case processing of in-custody inmates, the court, district attorney, public

defender, and probation department helped initiate speedier case processing for parole violators with new charges. The initiative helped decrease

case-processing time for both inmates charged with felonies (from 198

days in 1994 to 139 days in 1996) and inmates charged with misdemeanors

(from 87 days in 1994 to 72 days in 1996).75 Another case-processing

change initiated by Project JUST involved speeding up presentence investigation reports for in-custody cases. According to a report on the change,

probation services reduced the preparation time for PSI from 4 weeks in

1994 to 2 weeks in 1996, saving 4,319 jail-bed days or 12 jail beds per day in

1996.

King County, Washington, established an accelerated sentencing action

that reduced the average time to prepare a PSI report and decreased its

average daily jail population by approximately 75 inmates per day. In

Brevard County, Florida, the jail population oversight committee identified PSI delay as a serious problem through its study of the jail population

in late 1983. The group worked with the state probation/parole agency’s

local office to streamline the PSI procedure, thereby reducing the number

of days for submission of PSI reports in jail cases from 90 to 30–35 days.

Many counties have taken postsentencing actions to reduce the parole violation population in the jail. The Maricopa County, Arizona, court has expedited the adjudication of probation/parole violation hearings, reducing

the average time by 43 percent (from 29 days to 16.5 days). The reduction

has resulted in a decrease in the average daily population of inmates. The

court and probation officers redesigned the process to have all violation

hearings occur at the defendant’s arraignment.

To reduce both jail crowding and jail costs, a Gwinnett County, Georgia,

superior court judge holds probation revocation hearings at the jail once a

month. At his first court session in the jail in 1997, the judge handled 25

probation violation cases in less than 2 hours. It would have taken a full

day to hear this number of cases in court. Many of the prisoners were released because their violations were deemed minor.

Other Practices

In addition to instituting timely revocation procedures, probation/parole

agencies can affect jail population levels through policies governing the

use of automatic detention or revocation in cases of rearrest or failure to

pay a fine and through their authority to issue arrest warrants. Direct issuance of arrest warrants, without court or prosecutorial screening, may result in inappropriate demands on scarce jail space and other system

resources.
70

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Bail Bondsmen

Even though commercial bail-bonding agents are businesspeople who

technically operate outside the criminal justice system, their practices and

the regulations and policies that influence their decisions have a considerable effect on jail population sizes. When surety bail is ordered as a condition of release, an arrestee must find a bondsman willing to write the bond.

The defendant, in turn, pays the bondsman a nonrefundable premium,

usually 10 percent of the bail set, and the bondsman assumes responsibility for the defendant’s appearance in court. Should the defendant fail to

appear, the bondsman must either locate and return the defendant to court

or forfeit the entire bail amount. Consequently, many bondsmen require

collateral or a cosigner in case of default.

The bondsman, not the court, makes the release decision in cases where

surety bail is set, writing bonds for some defendants and rejecting others.

Their decisions are based not only on whether a defendant is a good risk

but also on the defendant’s ability to pay the premium or post sufficient

collateral to cover the bond.

Surety bail is a pretrial release option available in most jurisdictions. Only

four states have replaced surety bail with defendant-option deposit bail,

and one of those states has specifically outlawed bail bonding for profit.76

In the remaining jurisdictions, bondsmen’s decisions and the impact of

these decisions on jail populations vary according to the conditions affecting the profitability of their business. Conditions include the following:

❑ State laws and administrative regulations.

❑ Local court practices regarding use of surety bail as a release option,

collection of forfeited bonds, time to case disposition, and general

support for bail-bonding activities.

❑ Market share and the structure of the local bail bond industry (i.e., the

extent of insurance company involvement as underwriters for local bail

bond firms).

❑ Other factors, such as bondsman preferences and types of defendants.

The regulatory environment and length of case processing may affect

bondsmen’s operations. For instance, bail bondsmen thrive in jurisdictions

where bail forfeiture regulations or practices are lax. The opposite is true

in jurisdictions with effective case processing, beginning with early release

of pretrial defendants, which limits the number of candidates eligible for

release on surety bail.

In addition to their case-by-case decisions, bail bondsmen may also affect

the size of jail populations through organized efforts to alter court policies.

In some instances, bondsmen have expressed opposition to strict court

regulations. A decision among local bondsmen to decrease bondwriting
71

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

activity may cause an immediate and drastic increase in detention

populations, bringing pressure on the court and other regulatory agencies

to alter policies viewed as unfavorable to the industry.

Such tactics may be highly effective in jurisdictions that rely heavily on

surety bonds as a release mechanism. They also demonstrate that bail

bondsmen play an important and often underrated role in influencing pretrial case handling and the size of jail populations.

Extra-system Services

The experiences of many jurisdictions reflect the critical and often central

role of extra-system actors in implementing specific programs. Several jurisdictions surveyed for this publication reported benefiting from extrasystem participation in systemwide use of jail space planning. Officials in a

number of sites have involved a wide range of extra-system actors, including the following providers:

❑ Persons skilled in treating and counseling juveniles, drunk drivers,

chronic public inebriates, the mentally disabled, and drug addicts.

❑ Professionals and volunteers in shelter, dispute settlement, crisis

intervention, and emergency relief programs.

❑ Vocational education specialists.

❑ Employers able to provide jobs and community service slots.

❑ Church groups and social service providers willing to supervise pretrial

or sentenced defendants.

Extra-system agencies, those operating outside the traditional criminal justice system, are essential to alleviating jail crowding. From the initial decision of a victim to press charges or a witness to cooperate with the police

investigation to the possible revocation of non-jail sentences, extra-system

service providers affect numerous decisions that determine jail admissions

and length of confinement. Lack of such resources at any point in the casehandling process may force a jail into the role of “social service provider of

last resort.” Extra-system services may also provide crucial resources in

the event of court-mandated population reduction measures. Finally, various human service providers and concerned citizens often lend the

breadth and objectivity of analysis essential to the success of systemwide

jail-use planning efforts.

External Factors

The local criminal justice system consists of agencies and offices that have

their own rules, practices, and procedures. The decisions of local agency

administrators and staff are defined, however, not only by their internal
72

Bureau of Justice Assistance

environment but by laws and policies set by higher levels of government

in consideration of a wider, external environment. Because legislation, executive rules, and standards set local policy parameters and court orders

are issued at the state or federal level, those involved in developing new

jail-use policies must study these external areas most closely. Moreover,

knowledge of state legislative, executive, and judicial structures is essential. Factors such as local demographics are important in planning for

criminal justice and social service system needs. The availability of local,

state, and federal resources also influences incarceration policies. Public

opinion and media coverage of criminal justice issues play a large role in

local policy and may even affect decisions in individual cases. The activities of various community organizations (such as the bar associations,

chambers of commerce, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, American Civil

Liberties Union) affect local criminal justice policy. Political campaigns and

referenda may bring about substantial shifts in practices, and highly publicized criminal acts can cause changes in confinement practices.

State laws, court rulings, and executive orders must be carefully reviewed

to determine their effects on the following policy areas:

❑ System diversion.

❑ Bail policy.

❑ Defense counsel.

❑ Sentencing practices.

❑ Community corrections.

❑ Jail operations.

❑ Emergency procedures.

❑ State corrections.

In the area of system diversion, a jurisdiction must be aware of legislative/executive/judicial prescriptions pertaining to the treatment of chronic

inebriates, drug addicts, the mentally disabled, juveniles, and others for

whom alternatives to arrest or jailing may be mandated or encouraged.

State policy may prescribe dispute resolution in lieu of immediate arrest

and charging for certain offenses. The use of shelters may be encouraged

as an alternative to jailing for homeless persons. Conversely, incarceration

may be mandated for such individuals. State funds may be available for

developing system diversion services.

In the area of bail policy, planners must be familiar with the presumptions

in favor of or against pretrial release established by a state court rule, statute, or constitution. They must also have knowledge of legislatively authorized release options, such as citation release, personal recognizance, and

deposit bail mechanisms. State law or court rules may call for pretrial

preventive detention based on predictions of future criminal activity or
73

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

prohibit such practices. State law may also mandate victim or witness participation in the bail-setting process.

When considering defense counsel, jail-use planners must be aware of

how the jurisdiction appoints attorneys for indigent defendants and

whether a public defender agency is authorized in the jurisdiction. Specific

procedures or standards may be established to ensure timely delivery of

defense services, and systems of remuneration may be prescribed for defense attorneys who serve indigent clients.

In terms of sentencing practices, local review must include factors such as

state regulations on the use of probation and parole (including authority to

create local probation and/or parole programs) and sentencing guidelines

for all offenses. State laws may mandate jail for certain offenses, such as

the use of firearms in the commission of a felony, DWI, and habitual

offenders.

Planners should review community corrections legislation that provides

state compensation for local custody or supervision of offenders who

might otherwise be sentenced to the state prison system and imposes penalties for state prison commitments when local custody or supervision is

presumed appropriate. Legislation or executive guidelines may govern

work-study release programs for persons serving local sentences. The state

court or legislature may allow victims and witnesses to testify or otherwise

participate in the court process or sentencing of offenders.

In the crucial area of jail operations, it is important to know whether discretionary powers are expressed or implicit with regard to jail admissions

or extension of the limits of custody. Jail standards, particularly those relating to capacity, should be studied, and the jurisdiction must be familiar

with the function of any state jail commissions or task forces. Jurisdictions

should also investigate the availability of state or federal funds for jail operations (including per diem payments for holding state or federal prisoners locally) or capital expenditures and the existence of statewide jail data

collection systems.

Legislation may authorize or mandate the use of emergency procedures to

reduce the size of jail populations. Executive powers in such circumstances

may also be spelled out. Laws or standards may require expeditious transfer of prisoners sentenced to state custody, with specific rules on elapsed

time. Special procedures, incentives, or disincentives may exist relating to

cooperative ventures among counties in the use of jail space or the establishment of regional or multicounty jail facilities. Officials of these types of

facilities must examine any strictures concerning local authority to contract

with private firms to build or operate jails or to obtain private financing for

a new jail.

Finally, if a jail’s conditions are under court challenge, the court may become involved in jail operations, perhaps ordering population reduction or
74

Bureau of Justice Assistance

establishing new jail capacity limits. Court intervention may also impinge

on practices outside the jail (such as bail setting or sentencing) depending

on the extent of crowding and the long-term implications of the court order.

The state corrections system may also have a direct impact on jail population size through its handling of state-committed persons. The Bureau of

Justice Statistics cited 18 states holding state prisoners in local jails at the

end of 1998. Six of these states—Alabama, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, and South Carolina—each reported holding more than

250 state prisoners in local jails. Even though prison officials in these and

other states may be hard-pressed to assist particular local systems beset

with crowding programs, many find ways to respond. Even with significant prisoner “backlog,” state corrections personnel may be able to cooperate with selected jurisdictions to expedite the processing of paperwork

necessary to accomplish custody transfers.

Some external elements—namely, state legislative, executive, and judicial

standards—may affect jail population size and influence city and county

jail-use planning. Local criminal justice administrators must be aware of

the entire spectrum of external forces, including public opinion and the

media, to develop appropriate jail-use policies and minimize future needs

for jail capacity. They must also guard against external constraints. Many

jurisdictions that have been successful in implementing new programs and

procedures have encountered substantial opposition from external influences. Nevertheless, they have taken advantage of public attention and

media interest to generate support for safe, money-saving innovations.

The external environment can cause jurisdictions to adopt a tunnel-vision

approach, but a number of communities exemplify the value of dealing

with the jail space question as a systemic problem, requiring comprehensive planning based on sound information. Chapter 5 discusses specific local information needs and several methods of collecting that information.
75

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

Systemwide Planning To

Alleviate and Prevent Jail

Crowding

Chapter 5

As jurisdictions gather information to identify appropriate target groups

for population reduction measures, the types of changes that emerge can

be categorized as either “process” or “program” changes. Each category

has its own benefits and drawbacks. The process/program distinction is

raised in this chapter simply as a convenient way to discuss concerns associated with approaches to systemic change. In practice, the two categories

are not mutually exclusive. For example, the creation of a new program,

a“programmatic measure,” may also necessitate modifications in casehandling or defendant-processing procedures.

Process Changes

As solutions to jail crowding, process changes tend to be case-oriented

as opposed to person-oriented, with their goal being to improve the efficiency of the case-processing system. Certain benefits accrue when process

changes are implemented to reduce crowding. More efficient case processing can result in the following:

❑ An overall positive impact on case flow.

❑ Reduced need for more costly programs.

❑ Reduced length of confinement in jail for pretrial defendants and

convicted offenders.77

Consideration of process changes may also stimulate discussion of each

actor’s case-processing procedures, thus improving other system actors’

understanding of current procedures. However, jurisdictions must exercise

caution when considering process changes. First, process changes, though

generating increased efficiency, may also lead to short-term increases in

jail population, as jail-bound offenders are more expeditiously convicted

and sentenced. Second, attempts to speed the processing of cases could require increased staffing in some agencies, with a commensurate increase in

system-operating costs.

Finally, changes in court processes may be unexpectedly difficult to implement. In a national examination of the causes of court delay in criminal

and civil courts, the National Center for State Courts identified the “local

legal culture” (i.e., the informal norms established by judges and lawyers

in governing the timeliness of case disposition) as a key variable in attempts to improve court efficiency. The report stated, “[T]he impact of the
76

Bureau of Justice Assistance

local legal culture on the pace of litigation presents a serious challenge to

those who would attempt to accelerate that pace. [Any] such effort will

face considerable resistance that must be taken into account.”78

Program Changes

Programmatic changes tend to be more person oriented than process solutions. The intent of programmatic changes is to identify a particular population of jail inmates who could benefit from the intervention of particular

programs. The success or failure of such programs is measured by the

number of persons within the target population who are diverted or released from jail without disrupting the court system or endangering the

public.

As with process solutions, certain benefits can be expected from programmatic changes.

❑ Because program solutions are aimed at particular target populations,

rather than all defendants, they can have a direct impact on categories

of persons who, without the program’s intervention, would have been

detained. Target populations might include persons with histories of

drug or alcohol abuse, mental illness, or those awaiting trial on certain

felony charges. In each instance, a program is implemented or expanded to address the needs of the target population either before

admission to the jail or shortly thereafter, thus measurably affecting

both confinement time and number of admissions.

❑ Programs aimed at a specific social problem, such as drug addiction or

alcoholism, may remedy certain conditions (e.g., chronic drunkenness)

while contributing to criminal justice system involvement and reducing

recidivism.

❑ Unlike process changes, program changes may require little

modification of the surrounding case-processing system.

❑ Program innovations can be evaluated more easily than process

changes to determine their effectiveness in ensuring community safety

and their impact on jail populations.

At the same time, program changes share certain disadvantages with process solutions:

❑ Every program implemented to decrease jail crowding has the potential

to increase jail populations. That is, if ineffectively monitored, programs

may include participants who otherwise would not have been detained.

❑ Program solutions usually require a “startup” period, when there may

be little, if any, effect on the crowded jail. Depending on the complexity

of the program design, this period might be lengthy.
77

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

❑ Additional costs may be incurred by the jurisdiction in creating,

remodeling, or expanding a program.

❑ Strong system resistance may be encountered, because program staff

will be attempting to convince key system actors to divert or release

persons who in the past have been incarcerated.

❑ New programs, particularly while in development and before

substantial public and political support has been established, are highly

susceptible to individual client failures. The rearrest of a pretrial

releasee or a new charge against a probationer, particularly when

violence is involved, can easily cause the elimination of a recently

established program, no matter how much impact the program might

have had on the overall jail population.

Key Actor Participation

The approaches outlined in chapter 4 emphasize programs and practices of

particular system actors (e.g., prosecutorial screening practices and their

impact on jail population levels). It would be erroneous to assume that appropriate solutions to jail crowding problems might be derived from an

examination of the isolated practices of one or two system actors. Jail

crowding is the result of interaction among criminal justice system officials

whose actions determine the rate of jail admissions and periods of confinement. No single system actor or agency can be blamed for crowded conditions because the practices of one actor or agency are virtually always

affected by the actions of a number of others. Therefore, effective strategies

to combat the problem of crowded jails necessitate an examination of the

interaction of all involved actors and systems.

Earlier examinations of jail crowding have stressed the need to develop

collective planning mechanisms. The 1983 recommendation of the Jail

Overcrowding Project, funded by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, that emphasized the need to form jail population management

boards made up of a broad range of local agencies, still holds true today.79

Such participation was a precondition for counties to receive technical assistance or program funding. The final report recommended that the following system actors and agencies collaborate in studying the causes of jail

crowding and in formulating and implementing recommendations:

❑ Sheriff.

❑ County department of corrections.

❑ Jail superintendent.

❑ Prosecutor.

❑ Court of general jurisdiction.

❑ Court of limited jurisdiction.
78

Bureau of Justice Assistance

❑ Court administrator/clerk.

❑ Pretrial services agency.

❑ State or county adult probation.

❑ State parole office.

❑ Public defender.

❑ Municipal police departments.

❑ County commission.

❑ Office of the county executive.

❑ Director of data processing service.

❑ Other offices, depending on local circumstances. These may include

county counsel, Federal Government agencies, or juvenile justice

agencies.

The formation of such a broad-based group is, of course, no guarantee of

success. To avoid the pitfalls of indecision and stagnation, participants

must be prepared to share in the work of the group, develop a sound plan,

and carry it out on schedule. The accomplishments of such boards in jurisdictions throughout the country suggest there is much to recommend

about this approach.

A chief benefit of the collective involvement of all key system actors is an

increased awareness of the impact of various actions on other system agencies and their procedures. In addition, the recommendations of a broadly

constituted planning group are more likely to gain systemwide support

and be successfully implemented than those offered by single system actors or a small, closed group. Further, a measure of political pragmatism

accompanies “committee” recommendations and may allow some participants to support more imaginative policy options. As one local court official said during BJA’s survey, “If the criminal justice committee decides

that it’s a good idea to change [a particular office procedure], I’ve got protection that’s nonexistent if I decide to make the same change on my own.

That committee allows me to be a bit more willing to take a chance on

change.”

Jurisdictions across the nation continue to rely on collaborative efforts under whatever name they go by: jail population task force, coordinating

council, quality management team, criminal justice planning commission,

or criminal justice coalition. Many such entities have addressed recent jail

crowding situations. The Hillsborough County, Florida, Public Coordinating Council on Alternatives to Incarceration was set up in 1996 to explore

several options to jail crowding when the state dropped its decade-long jail

lawsuit against the county.
79

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

When the jail population reached crisis levels in late 1997, the Santa Clara,

California, Jail Overcrowding Working Group, a task force made up of

court and corrections officials, added to its agenda identifying ways to

bring the population down to manageable levels. Under consideration

were several options, from expanding non-jail alternatives such as electronic monitoring and a day-reporting center to instituting a Felony Advance Resolution Calendar to expedite certain cases.

The preferred approach of the Stark County, Ohio, Corrections Planning

Board has been strategic planning and not crisis management. The board

was convened in October 1997 to participate in a 2-day seminar attended

by key members of the county’s criminal justice system and outside groups

to discuss ways of improving the criminal justice system. Changes subsequently implemented by the board have included streamlined pretrial proceedings, a day-reporting program, an integrated automated management

information system, and direct indictment in select cases that have shaved

off a month in case-processing time.

The Missoula County, Montana, jail task force was directly responsible for

establishing a pretrial services agency. The program is intended to ease jail

crowding by identifying inmates who can be safely released under certain

conditions.

In 1998, the Genesee County, Michigan, Judicial Council formed a 15-

member committee, known as the Jail Work Group, consisting of judges,

pretrial services administrators, police, and other county officials, to develop a jail management plan that would alleviate crowding. The plan was

aimed at avoiding the need to implement emergency measures in response

to inmate populations exceeding jail capacity, as had occurred on numerous occasions. The group developed a plan that involved expediting trials,

creating weekly jail population updates, and reinstating the Felony Plea

Project, in which a district court judge took guilty pleas and handled sentencing in some felony cases. (Felony cases are generally bound over to the

superior court.)

In a grassroots effort, 12 agencies in Dona Ana County, New Mexico, met

to discuss how to deal with mentally ill persons who become involved in

the criminal justice system. The meeting of representatives from the county

jail, juvenile detention facility, other justice agencies, and mental health

professionals from the local hospital and university led to more meetings

with a state legislative committee. The committee was instrumental in

changing state regulations that permit jurisdictions to contract with the local hospital to provide alternatives to pretrial detention for the mentally ill

and to address the long waiting list for the state hospital.

In anticipation of the opening of a new jail, the Metropolitan Criminal Justice Coordinating Council of Bernalillo County, New Mexico, met to consider several alternative measures. The Council, composed of key criminal
80

Bureau of Justice Assistance

justice actors, examined both changes in case processing and new programs. The measures included Sunday and afternoon arraignments, alternatives to jail for mentally ill defendants, citations in lieu of arrests, case

consolidation, and streamlined procedures for sentencing orders.

Strategy Implementation Checklist

The following list is a guide for jurisdictions addressing jail crowding. The

10 steps require varying amounts of time and resources. Data gathering,

for example, could require several days or several months to complete.

Some steps may take place concurrently, or new jail crowding solutions

may be developed and implemented after implementation of strategies. In

either event, adequate evaluation of each approach to the crowding problem is crucial.

❑ Involve the key actors. Make certain that all officials identified as

having some impact on the jail population level are committed to

finding and implementing solutions to the problem.

❑ Develop the necessary jail and system data. Although the basic data

needed for a jurisdiction to undertake a sound planning effort are

provided in chapter 3, unique local conditions require that a jurisdiction

design its own data-collection mechanism. Such mechanisms will

ensure that the jurisdiction obtains the data required to answer sitespecific questions.

❑ Examine data for indications of possible process changes and

potential target populations for program changes. Begin discussions

with key actors on the benefits and drawbacks for the jurisdiction.

❑ Identify programs and processes to be implemented.

❑ Develop methods to evaluate the impact of particular changes on the

size of the jail population. This step should take place before actual

implementation.

❑ Implement new programs and processes.

❑ Evaluate the impact of the programs and processes on the jail

population.

❑ Identify unanticipated effects that the programs and processes have

on other criminal justice procedures.

❑ Modify programs and processes based on the findings of the

evaluation process.

❑ Inform the public of system changes when initiated and of successful

strategies as they are confirmed.
81

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

Final Caveats

Many programs that have become integral parts of local criminal justice

systems, such as those involving release on recognizance, diversion, and

community service, were initially designed to reduce jail populations. In

many instances, jurisdictions assumed that program implementation

would solve the problem of crowding and that specific programs would

serve as panaceas to deflate population pressures. Local research and experience, however, have revealed the complexity of the jail crowding problem and the futility of expecting one program or process to eliminate the

phenomenon of rising jail populations and crowded cells. Long-term success requires time, patience, and the attention of the entire criminal justice

community.

Research for this monograph has revealed situations in which the causes of

crowding were readily evident and could be immediately remedied.

Hence, if the cause of crowding is evident, an immediate remedy should

be sought. Nothing in this document is meant to suggest that jurisdictions

should not quickly undertake an obvious response to any clear-cut cause

of crowding. If a particular procedure or program emerges as an obvious

remedy with a predictable impact, lengthy data gathering and analysis

may be eliminated. The steps outlined in this chapter for developing workable strategies are based on the assumption that the most obvious solutions have been tried and did not effectively or adequately achieve their

intended result.
83

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

Law Enforcement (Multiple Agencies)

1. How many adult arrests were made last year in your jurisdiction?

Total number of arrests _____

Felony arrests _____

Misdemeanor arrests _____

Traffic/local ordinance arrests _____

Other arrests _____

2. How many citations (“notices to appear”) did arresting

agencies issue last year, excluding traffic offenses? _____

Jail Administration

1. How many jail admissions were there last year?

Total number of admissions _____

Felonies _____

Misdemeanors _____

Detainers without additional charges _____

Other _____

2. Does the jail administrator have release authority for pretrial

defendants?

❐ Yes ❐ No

3. If yes, how many defendants were released

under this authority? _____

Prosecution

1. In the past year, how many referrals did the office of the prosecutor

receive?

Total number of defendant referrals _____

Persons with felony charges _____

Persons with misdemeanor charges _____

Persons with ordinance violations _____

Appendix A

Case-Processing Questionnaire
84

Bureau of Justice Assistance

2. What percentage of defendants referred to the prosecutor were charged

with an offense?

Defendants arrested for a felony

and charged with a felony _____%

Defendants arrested for a felony

and charged with a lesser felony _____%

Defendants arrested for a felony

and charged with a misdemeanor _____%

Defendants arrested for a misdemeanor

and charged with a felony _____%

Defendants arrested for a felony

and released without any charges filed _____%

Defendants arrested for a misdemeanor

and released without any charges _____%

3. On average, how much time transpired between a person’s arrest

and notification to the court of the prosecutor’s formal charging

decision described in Question 2 above?

❐ less than 8 hours

❐ 8–24 hours

❐ 24–48 hours

❐ 2–5 days

❐ 5–10 days

❐ 10–14 days

❐ More than 14 days

If so, specify number of days ___

Pretrial Services

1. In the past year, did an agency or office in your jurisdiction conduct

pretrial release screening?

❐ Yes ❐ No

2. If yes, did the pretrial services agency interview arrestees prior to their

first court appearance?

❐ Yes ❐ No

3. During the past year for which data were available, how many

arrestees were screened for pretrial release?

Total number of arrestees referred to the agency _____

Number of arrestees interviewed _____

Number recommended for nonfinancial release _____
85

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

4. Does the pretrial services agency have the authority to release arrestees

prior to their first court appearance? (Check all that may apply.)

❐ Yes, it can release some arrestees on its own authority.

❐ No

❐ It can recommend release to law enforcement or court-appointed

 officials with the power to release arrestees before their initial court

 appearance.

❐ It can contact a judge for approval prior to releasing arrestees.

5. What percentage of arrestees referred to the pretrial services agency

were released prior to their first court appearance? _____%

Judiciary

1. For the past year, what was the average time between arrest and initial

court appearance?

❐ Less than 8 hours

❐ 8–24 hours

❐ 24–48 hours

❐ More than 48 hours

2. When do initial appearance courts operate? (Check all that apply.)

❐ Regular business hours

❐ Nighttime

❐ Saturday

❐ Sunday

3. How many judges (or bail commissioners) set bail at any one

time? _____

4. What was the average time (in months and/or days) between arrest

and adjudication (not including sentencing)?

Months Days

Detained felony defendants _____ _____

Detained misdemeanor defendants _____ _____

Released felony defendants _____ _____

Released misdemeanor defendants _____ _____
86

Bureau of Justice Assistance

5. What was the average length of time (in months and/or days) between

adjudication and sentencing when presentence investigations were

ordered?

Months Days

Felony offenders _____ _____

Misdemeanor offenders _____ _____

6. How were cases disposed?

Pleas _____%

Jury trials _____%

Non-jury trials _____%

Dismissals/Nolle Contendre _____%

Other _____%

Defense

1. In the past year, what percentage of defendants were represented by

counsel at their initial court appearance?

❐ 0–10%

❐ 10–25%

❐ 25–50%

❐ 50–75%

❐ 75–100%

2. On average, for those cases/persons to whom the court assigned

defense counsel, how much time elapsed between arrest and counsel’s

first meeting with the arrestee?

❐ Less than 8 hours

❐ 8–24 hours

❐ More than 24 hours

If so, specify actual amount of time ___

Probation

1. How many requests for presentence investigation (PSI) reports were

made last year?

Total number of PSI requests _____

Felonies _____

Misdemeanors _____
87

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

2. What was the average length of time (in months and/or days) from the

time of PSI request to delivery of the PSI report to the court?

Months Days

Felonies _____ _____

Misdemeanors _____ _____

3. How many probation detainers were filed last year? _____

4. How many of the filed probation detainers resulted

in revocation? _____

5. What was the average length of time

(in months and/or days) between the filing Months Days

of a probation detainer and a revocation decision? _____ _____

Parole

1. How many parole detainers were filed last year? _____

2. How many of the filed parole detainers

resulted in revocation? _____

3. What was the average length of time (in months and/or days)

between the filing of a parole detainer and a revocation

decision?

Months Days

_____ _____

4. Were any inmates who were eligible for parole serving sentences prior

to the expiration of their sentence?

❐ Yes ❐ No

If yes,

How many hearings were conducted last year? _____

How many resulted in an inmate being released? _____
89

Appendix B–1 A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

Sample Detention Form Date: Name/ Gender Age County Most Serious Charge Detention Arresting Probation Parole Other Bail ID# Status Charge Level Status Agency Hold Hold Detainer Amt. (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N) John Doe Male 32 In-county Agg. Assault Felony Sentenced Akron PD Y N N Jane Doe Female 21 Out-county Prostitution Misdem. Pretrial Stow PD N N N $100

*Some jails prefer to use numeric codes. For sample codes, see legend below.

Gender Age County Status Charge Level Detention Status Bail Amount

1=Male 1=<18 years 1=In-county 1=Felony 1=Pretrial 1=$1–$5002=Female 2=18–29 2=Out-of-county 2=Misdemeanor 2=Sentenced (local) 2=$501–$1,500

3=30–39 3=Violation 3=State Sentenced 3=$1,501–$5,0004=40+ 4=Probation Hold Only 4=$5,001–$10,000

5=Parole Hold Only 5=$10,001+6=Other
91

Appendix B–2 A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

Sample Jail Release Form Name/ Gender Age County Most Serious Charge Length of Release Bail Amount ID# Status Charge Level Confinement Method John Doe Male 32 In-county Agg. Assault Felony 25 days Sent.-Time — Jane Doe Female 21 Out-of-county Prostitution Misdem. 1 day Cash Bail $100

*Some jails prefer to use numeric codes. For sample codes, see legend below.

Gender Age County Status Charge Level LOC (days) Release Method Bail Amount

1=Male 1=<18 years 1=In-county 1=Felony 1=1–2 1=Dismissed 1=$1–$5002=Female 2=18–29 2=Out-of-county 2=Misdemeanor 2=3–5 2=Release on Recognizance 2=$501–$1,500

3=30–39 3=Violation 3=6–10 3=Percent Deposit Bail 3=$1,501–$5,0004=40+ 4=11–20 4=Third-Party Custody 4=$5,001–$10,000

5=21–30 5=Cash Bail or Bond 5=$10,001+6=31–60 6=Acquitted7=61–90 7=Sentenced to Time Served8=91–150 8=Jail Sentence Completed9=151–365 9=Non-Jail Alternative

10=366+ 10=Sentenced to State Prison

11=Released From Detainer12=Released to Other Activity13=Other Release
93

Appendix C A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

Contacts

Law Enforcement

Prearrest Practices

Citation Release

Sheriff Joe Bowdich

Bernalillo County, New Mexico

505–768–4100

David Nicholson

Jefferson County Crime Commission

Jefferson County, Kentucky

502–574–5088

Programs for Public Inebriates

Volunteers of America

San Diego County, California

619–232–9343

Gene Uno

King County Treatment Center

King County, Washington

206–587–0761

Programs for Mentally Ill Offenders

Fairfax County, Virginia

Mobil Crisis Unit

703–246–2253

Lt. Sam Cochran

Memphis, Tennessee Crisis Intervention Team

901–576–5735

Sgt. Lou Eagle

Police Department Crisis Intervention Team

Seattle, Washington

206–684–8183

Lt. Brenda Herbert

Crisis Intervention Team

San Diego, California

408–277–4631

Marla Kinkade

Psychiatric Emergency Response Team

619–692–4836

Fred Sandoval

Crisis Mobile Team

Santa Fe, New Mexico

505–984–6672

Postarrest Practices

Citation Release

Dennis Hunter

Pretrial Services

Salt Lake County, Utah

801–799–8400

Programs for Mentally Ill Offenders:

Jean Pettit

Psychiatric Emergency Coordinating Committee

Bernalillo County, New Mexico

505–761–8847

Jail Administration

Instituting Admission and

BookingProcedures

Booking Fees

James Harmes

Jail Administration

King County, Washington

206–296–3404

Sheriff Joe Richards

Coconino County, Arizona

520–774–4523

No or Limited Admissions Policy

Terry Moore

Jail Administration

Volusia County, Florida

904–254–1552
94

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Tom Giacinti

Jail Administration

Jefferson County, Colorado

303–271–4841

Eileen Hurst

Public Information Officer

San Francisco County, California

415–554–7225

Rhonda Lindenbaum

Mental Health Authority

Washington County, Maryland

301–739–2490

Tony O’Leary

Mentally Ill Offender Project

South Sound Advocates

Mason County, Thurston County,

and Olympia City, Washington

360–754–7676

Improving Release Procedures: Pretrial and

Sentenced Populations

Steve Garza

Jail Population Manager

Saginaw County, Michigan

517–790–5408

Sheriff Ken Jenne

Broward County, Florida

954–831–8300

G. Larry Mays

Jail Administration

Bernalillo County, New Mexico

505–464–3955

Captain Robert Beenus

County Jail

Salt Lake County, Utah

801–743–5500

Gathering Needed Data

Tom Boyle

Colorado Criminal Justice Board

Boulder County, Colorado

303–441–4797

Jennine Kenny

Sheriff’s Department

Milwuakee County, Wisconsin

414–278–5015

Commander Ted Nelson

Intake and Assessment Unit

Marion County, Oregon

503–581–1183

Roman Duranczyk

O.R. Program

San Mateo County, California

650–363–4181

Monitoring/Expediting Detention Cases

Beth Michaels

Community Corrections

Jackson County, Missouri

517–768–5812

Providing Access to Inmates

Kim Holloway

Pretrial Services

Pima County, Arizona

520–740–3310

Claudia Brown

Boulder County Community Corrections

Boulder County, Colorado

303–441–4585

Sgt. Diane Houle

Pretrial Services

Pinellas County, Florida

727–464–6410

Barbara Menear

Pretrial Services

Genesee County, Michigan

810–257–3486

Roman Duranczyk

O.R. Program

San Mateo County, California

650–363–4181
95

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

Tom Short

Pretrial Services

Maricopa County, Arizona

602–506–1026

John DuPree

Assistant Court Administrator

Volusia County, Florida

904–239–7780

Creating Alternative Programs

Hal Niece

Drug and Alcohol Evaluation Unit

Boulder County, Colorado

303–441–3690

John Robinson

Jail Administration

Cook County, Illinois

312–443–6435

Jake Katz

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department

Los Angeles County, California

805–257–8842

Prosecution

Intake and Screening Practices

Early Screening

Jeanne Smith

District Attorney

El Paso County, Colorado

719–520–6169

E. Michael McCann

District Attorney

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

414–278–4646

Michael Shrunk

District Attorney

Multnomah County, Oregon

436-–643–1999

Experienced Screening Staff

James Gregart

Criminal Justice Task Force

Kalamazoo County, Michigan

616–383–8900

Prosecutor and Defense Counsel at

Initial Appearance

Michael Shrunk

District Attorney

Multnomah County, Oregon

436–643–1999

Rod Smith,

State’s Attorney

Alachua County, Florida

352–374–3670

Gus Sandstrom

District Attorney’s Office

Pueblo County, Colorado

719–583–6030

Decisions to Divert

Michael Shrunk

District Attorney

Multnomah County, Oregon

436–643–1999

James Gregart

Criminal Justice Task Force

Kalamazoo County, Michigan

616–383–8900

Michael Planet

Court Administration

King County, Washington

206–296–9305

Judge Steven Eichholtz

Superior Court

Marion County, Indiana

317–327–4479
96

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Expedition of Detention Cases

Richard Shepherd

District Attorney’s Office

Salt Lake County, Utah

801–366–7900

Susan Reed

District Attorney

Bexar County, Texas

210–335–2311

Case Management Practices

Joy Whitney

Public Defender’s Office

St. Lucie County, Florida

407–462–2048

Honorable Patricia Marks

County Court

Monroe County, New York

716–428–5276

Leadership

E. Michael McCann

District Attorney

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

414–278–4646

Howard Relin

District Attorney

Monroe County, New York

716–428–2334

Pretrial Services

Providing Information

Jerome McElroy

Criminal Justice Agency

New York, New York

212–577–0500

Victoria Cox

Pretrial Services

Dade County, Florida

305–874–1035

Janie Beaver

Court Services Department

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

704–336–2027

Lance Forsythe

Southside Community Corrections Services

Emporia, Virginia

804–348–1035

Kim Holloway

Pretrial Services

Pima County, Arizona

520–740–3310

Marilyn Walczak

Pretrial Services

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

414–223–1307

Roman Duranczyk

O.R. Program

San Mateo County, California

650–363–4181

Carl Hinxman

Court Services

Washoe County, Nevada

775–325–6614

Thomas Muhleman

Pretrial Services

Montgomery County, Ohio

937–225–3473

Risk Assessment Validation

Carol Oeller

Pretrial Services

Harris County, Texas

713–755–5440

Thomas Quinn

Pretrial Services

Cook County, Illinois

312–627–8829

Dennis Avery

Community Corrections

Hennepin County, Minnesota

612–348–2110
97

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

Jerome McElroy

Criminal Justice Agency

New York, New York

212–577–0500

Marcus Reinkensmayer

Superior Court

Maricopa County, Arizona

602–506–3190

Delegated Release Authority

Kim Holloway

Pretrial Services

Pima County, Arizona

520–740–3310

William Powell

Pretrial Services

Shelby County, Tennessee

901–545–2529

Steve LaMarche

Pretrial Services

Multnomah County, Oregon

503–248–3893

James Harmes

Department of Adult Detention

King County, Washington

206–296–3404

Diversion Screening

Susan Brannen

Pretrial Services

Monroe County, New York

716–454–7350

Melinda Wheeler

Pretrial Services

Fayette County, Kentucky

502–573–1419

Special Population Screening

Steve LaMarche

Pretrial Services

Multnomah County, Oregon

503–248–3893

Marilyn Walczak

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

414–223–1307

William Powell

Pretrial Services

Shelby County, Tennessee

901–545–2529

Kim Holloway

Pretrial Services

Pima County, Arizona

520–740–3310

Robert Tomten

Pretrial Services

Coconino County, Arizona

520–773–8706

Supervision of Release Conditions

Margaret Callaway

Pretrial Services

Maricopa County, Arizona

602–506–8503

Barbara Menear

Pretrial Services

Genesee County, Michigan

810–257–3486

Susan Shaffer

Pretrial Services

Washington, D.C.

202–220–5650

W. Stephan Simmons

Prince George’s County, Maryland

301–952–7050

Marilyn Walczak

Pretrial Services

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

414–223–1307

Dorothy Faust

Department of Correctional Services

Polk County, Iowa

515–242–6582
98

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Monitoring the Jail

Population

Kim Holloway

Pretrial Services

Pima County, Arizona

520–740–3310

Robin Cooks

Pretrial Services

Monroe County, Florida

305–292–3469

Marilyn Walczak,

Pretrial Services

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

414–223–1307

Jerome McElroy

Criminal Justice Agency

New York, New York

212–577–0500

Melinda Wheeler

Pretrial Services

State of Kentucky

502–573–1419

Other Practices

Investigations of Failure to Appear

Susan Shaffer

Pretrial Services

Washington, D.C.

202–220–5650

Jerome McElroy

Criminal Justice Agency

New York, New York

212–577–0500

Margaret Callaway

Pretrial Services

Maricopa County, Arizona

602–506–8503

Presentence Investigation

Susan Shaffer

Pretrial Services

Washington, D.C.

202–220–5650

Wanda Spann

Pretrial Services

Cobb County, Georgia

770–528–8950

Jail and Case Flow Information

Melinda Wheeler

Pretrial Services

State of Kentucky

502–573–1419

Roman Duranczyk

O.R. Program

San Mateo County, California

650–363–4181

Judiciary

Case Initiation

John DuPree

Court Administrator’s Office

Volusia County, Florida

904–239–7780

Peggy Thompson

Clerk of Court

San Mateo County, California

650–363–4711

Prompt Bail Setting

Janie Beaver

Court Services Department

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

704–336–2027

Larry Powers

Jail Administrator

Spartanburg County, South Carolina

864–596–2607
99

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

Marilyn Walczak,

Pretrial Services

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

414–223–1307

Marcus Reinkensmayer

Superior Court

Maricopa County, Arizona

602–506–3190

Delegated Release Authority

Kim Holloway

Pretrial Services

Pima County, Arizona

520–740–3310

John DuPree

Court Administrator’s Office

Volusia County, Florida

904–239–7780

William Powell

Pretrial Services

Shelby County, Tennessee

901–545–2529

Michael Planet

Court Administration

King County, Washington

206–296–9305

Bond Review Hearings

John DuPree

Court Administrator’s Office

Volusia County, Florida

904–239–7780

Case Management

Michael Shrunk

District Attorney

Multnomah County, Oregon

436–643–1999

Joy Whitney

Public Defender’s Office

St. Lucie County, Florida

407–462–2048

Judge Brent Adams

District Court

Washoe County, Nevada

775–328–3176

Office of Court Administrator

Marion County, Indiana

317–327–4747

Robert Horan

Commonwealth’s Attorney

Fairfax County, Virginia

703–246–2776

Court Administrator’s Office

Oakland County, Michigan

248–858–0344

Edward Brekke

Criminal Courts Operations

Los Angeles County, California

213–974–5270

Dixie Knoebel

Circuit Court

Broward County, Florida

954–831–5513

Adjudication of Special Populations

Judge Ginger Lerner–Wren

County Court

Broward County, Florida

954–831–7240

Sentencing

Sentencing Unit

Prosecutor’s Office

King County, Washington

206–296–9000

Judge Brent Adams

District Court

Washoe County, Nevada

775–328–3176

Marcus Reinkensmayer

Superior Court

Maricopa County, Arizona

602–506–3190
100

Bureau of Justice Assistance

David Nicholson

Jefferson County Crime Commission

Jefferson County, Kentucky

502–574–5088

DWI Treatment

Michael DeCaria

Treatment Unit

Criminal Justice Services Administration

Salt Lake County, Utah

801–799–8466

Jail–Bed Allocation

Judge Donald Johnston

Circuit Court

Kent County, Michigan

616–336–4467

Defense

Early Participation by Defenders

Brian Tsuchida

Defender Association

King County, Washington

206–447–3900

Diane Cunningham

Criminal Justice Commission

Palm Beach County, Florida

561–355–4943

Case Review

Joy Whitney

Public Defender’s Office

St. Lucie County, Florida

407–462–2048

Edward Nowak

Public Defender

Monroe County, New York

716–428–5531

Defender Caseloads

Brian Tsuchida

Defender Association

King County, Washington

206–447–3900

Diane Graughlyn

Public Defender’s Office

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

215–686–7120

Finding Alternatives

Public Defender’s Office

Multnomah County, Oregon

503–226–3083

Legal Aid Society

New York, New York

212–577–3300

Edward Nowak

Public Defender

Monroe County, New York,

716–428–5531

Alternative Advocacy

Gerard Hiliard

Private Defender Program

San Mateo County, California

650–312–5396

Edward Nowak

Public Defender

Monroe County, New York

716–428–5531

Other Practices

James Gibson

Public Defender

Volusia County, Florida

904–822–5770

Cynthia Morton

Criminal Justice Services

Alachua County, Florida

904–338–7364
101

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

Brian Tsuchida

Defender Association

King County, Washington

206–447–3900

Probation and Parole

Alternatives to Incarceration

Claudia Brown

Community Corrections

Boulder County, Colorado

303–441–4585

Expedited Processing of Probation/

Parole Violators and Expedited PSIs

Robert Burns

Probation and Community Corrections

Monroe County, New York

716–428–5765

Michael Planet

Court Administration

King County, Washington

206–296–9305

Marcus Reinkensmayer

Superior Court

Maricopa County, Arizona

602–506–3190

Chief Judge K. Dawson Jackson

Superior Court

Gwinnett County, Georgia

770–822–8617
103

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

Notes

1. Andy Hall et al., Alleviating Jail Crowding: A System-Wide Strategy,

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,

1985.

2. Darrell K. Gilliard, Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 1998, Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, March 1999,

p. 7.

3. Ibid.

4. Abt Associates Inc., National Assessment Program: Assessing Needs in the

Criminal Justice System, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, January 1984, p. 9.

5. Paul Feldman and Eric Lietblau, Los Angeles Times “Board Tells Sheriff

to Seek Renters for 3 Closed Jails,” April 4, 1996, p. B–1.

6. The $22 million Santa Fe County Adult Correctional Facility, built with

many more jail beds than required for local needs, received no requests for

space for several months after it opened. In addition, the per diem charge

for housing inmates has declined since the jail was designed, causing a further decline in jail revenues.

7. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Jails and Jail Inmates, 1993–1994, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1995.

8. Eric Schlosser, “The Prison-Industrial Complex,” The Atlantic Monthly

December 1998, pp. 51–77.

9. The average daily population in local jails in mid-1998 was 593,808

compared with 408,075 in 1990. During this period, the number of jail inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents increased from 163 to 219. See note 2,

Gilliard, 1999, p. 6.

10. More women and juveniles held as adults are in local jails today than

in 1985. The adult female jail population grew 7 percent annually from

1990 to 1998, compared with a 4.5-percent increase for men; the number of

juveniles held in adult facilities nearly doubled between 1993 and 1998,

from 3,300 to 6,542. See note 2, Gilliard, 1999, p. 6.

11. The ratio of pretrial detainees to those sentenced to local jails has

changed over the years. In mid-1983, approximately 51 percent of the inmates held in local jails were awaiting trial compared with 57 percent in

mid-1998. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Jail and Jail Inmates, 1983, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, November 1985. See also note 2,

Gilliard, 1999, p. 6.
104

Bureau of Justice Assistance

12. See note 2, Gilliard, 1999, p. 6.

13. 18 US.C. § 3626.

14. Darlene Grant and Steve Martin, “Should Prison Reform Litigation Be

Curtailed?,” NCCD Focus, San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime

and Delinquency, May 1996.

15. The Jail Center of the National Institute of Corrections, Federal Bureau

of Prisons, offers several types of technical assistance and other jail-related

programs, including local system assessments.

16. Besides the earlier monograph on this topic (see note 1, Hall et al.,

1985), two other publications were prepared by the American Justice Institute for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration as part of the Jail

Overcrowding Project: Jerome R. Bush, Jail Overcrowding: Guide to Data Collection and Analysis, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Local

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, May 1982 and Walter

Busher, Jail Overcrowding: Identifying Causes and Planning for Solutions,

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Local Law Enforcement Assistance Administration February 1983.

17. President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration

of Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1967.

18. Bureau of Justice Assistance, Improving State and Local Criminal Justice

Systems, Indigent Defense Series, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, October 1998, p. 1.

19. The term “jail administrator” in this monograph refers to corrections,

law enforcement, or county official chiefly responsible for the operation

and management of a jail.

20. The criminal case process often begins with an act or its result being

observed by a victim or witness who may tolerate the situation or confront

the behavior. If the latter course is taken, the first action is usually to call

law enforcement officials or to file a charge with a judicial officer. Several

other choices may be available, such as those discussed in chapter 4 as law

enforcement/magistrate extra-system options.

21. In many states, including Ohio (Ohio RC 293526), the law mandates

the issuance of citations in lieu of arrests for certain nonserious offenses.

22. A short-term holding facility is a block of cells at a police station where

arrestees can be held for no more than 48 hours.

23. The court may order a combination of financial and nonfinancial bail

conditions requiring, for example, money bail in addition to some form of

supervised release.
105

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

24. As in the pretrial phase, serious or repeated violation of conditions accompanying a non-jail sentence or parole following a jail or prison term

may result in revocation and confinement. In most jurisdictions, arrest on a

new charge carries a presumption of revocation. Because resolving the

question of revocation takes considerable time, a substantial amount of jail

space is occupied by persons awaiting a decision on revocation.

25. Data contributed by various criminal justice agencies to describe the

flow of cases and individuals through the system may result in inconsistencies and confusion. Law enforcement accounts of arrest volume may

not match the prosecutor’s records of arrests screened for charging. Probation figures on presentence investigation report totals and timeframes may

differ from comparable court data. Such discrepancies can usually be reconciled by reviewing counting methods and definitions. If discrepancies

persist, additional data may be necessary to conduct a jail population

analysis. Accurate information on the length of time between events in a

case are needed to calculate jail-bed use.

26. The questions in appendix A address basic system operation issues

used in case flow studies. Jurisdictions undertaking such a study will need

to augment these questions with more detailed items appropriate to their

individual systems.

27. Sample forms that may be used to gather snapshot data can be found

in appendixes B–1 and B–2.

28. Multivariate analysis can reveal which factors have the greatest impact

on the jail population.

29. See appendix C for a list of contacts for the programs and procedures

highlighted in chapter 4.

30. In 1994, the National Institute of Justice conducted a survey of police

chiefs and sheriffs to identify the needs and problems of their agencies.

Community policing was listed as an agency initiative of a majority of the

responding law enforcement officials. From the sample, 278 police chiefs

(82 percent) and 175 sheriffs (65 percent) said that they were establishing

community policing initiatives, and virtually all of the remaining respondents indicated that they wanted to adopt such initiatives. Improving the

quality of life in neighborhoods and involving citizens in fighting crime

were the primary reasons cited for implementing community policing.

31. Police Executive Research Forum, Themes and Variations in Community

Policing: Case Studies in Community Policing, Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum and U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of

Justice, 1996.

32. Stephen D. Mastrofski, Robert E. Worden, and Jeffrey B. Snipes, Law

Enforcement in a Time of Community Policing, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1996.
106

Bureau of Justice Assistance

33. Ibid.

34. Several agencies should be involved in developing written guidelines,

including law enforcement officials, the county’s prosecuting attorney,

judges, and the defense bar.

35. According to a 1999 Bureau of Justice Statistics study, an estimated 16

percent of jail inmates suffer from a major mental illness, Paula M. Ditton,

Mental Health and Treatment of Inmates and Probationers, Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 1999.

36. Henry J. Steadman et al., “Comparing Outcomes of Major Models for

Police Responses to Mental Health Emergencies,” Psychiatric Services,

forthcoming, 2000. The study identified three approaches and selected the

following programs to represent them: the Birmingham Community Service Officer Program, the Knoxville Mobile Mental Health Crisis Unit, and

the Memphis Crisis Intervention Team.

37. Rene Lynch, “Time Limit on Holding Uncharged Suspects

Suspended,” Orange County Register, Santa Ana, CA, April 6, 1992 p. 2.

38. 1982 PA 325 MCL 801.51.

39. The sheriff sought a circuit court injunction imposed on the state to

prevent the state from housing probation and parole violators in the jail.

Aruling in favor of the state, based on the principle of state sovereignty,

prompted the sheriff to take it to the appeals court. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the county sheriff may limit jail admittance and/or

length of stay to alleged parole and probation violators when the jail is

overcrowded. The court held that the fact that DOC must pay for keeping

detainees at the jail did not mean that DOC had an absolute right to demand such detention.

40. Under the EPR Program, the jail administrator is authorized to create

an eligible pool of inmates and send their files to a small committee, consisting of corrections personnel and prosecutors. The committee selects the

individuals for release or alternative programs. Those inmates approved

for release by the committee are released from jail without a hearing before

a judge.

41. Eligibility for release on an I–bond fluctuates, depending on how far

the jail population is over the cap. For example, one day the jail may release all pretrial detainees held in lieu of $5,000 bail or less. If this action

does not bring the population within the cap, the eligible bail amount for

release is lowered.

42. John Howard Association, “Jail Conditions at the Cook County Department of Corrections and Compliance with the Consent Decree,” Court

Monitoring Report, February 1997, p. 26.
107

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

43. Ibid.

44. In 1997, 158 women were referred for enrollment in the program. Of

these, 52 were enrolled, 44 percent of whom were also on probation or parole. Twenty women completed the program and had their charges dismissed; 25 women completed treatment. Of the 242 men who were

referred for enrollment, 132 men were enrolled, 41 percent of whom were

also on probation or parole. Nineteen men completed treatment and had

their charges dismissed. Summary of Court Operation, Circuit for the Ninth

Judicial Circuit of Michigan, 1997 Annual Report, p. 23.

45. Jail Utilization System Team, Total Quality Management: Comprehensive

Community Based Corrections Program, Monroe County, NY: Jail Utilization

System Team, October 1994.

46. American Bar Association, Standards Relating to the Prosecution Function

and the Defense Function, Chicago, IL: American Bar Association, 1993.

47. National District Attorneys Association, National Prosecution Standards,

Standard 881. Washington, DC: National District Attorneys Association,

1991, p. 236.

48. Kristen L. Segebarth, Pretrial Services and Practices in the 1990s: Findings

from the Enhanced Pretrial Services Project, Washington, DC: National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies, 1991, p. 3.

49. Some pretrial programs are designed not to intervene until a defendant has made an appearance before a bail-setting judicial officer. These

programs might begin their initial investigation after the defendant has

been detained for a specified period. The rationale for such a design is that

many defendants can be released, either on their own recognizance or by

posting bail, without the intervention of the pretrial program. Limited resources, therefore, might be better spent focusing on those defendants who

are unable to secure release.

50. Kentucky has a statewide pretrial program.

51. Kentucky Supreme Court Rule 410.

52. Oregon Revised Statutes 135235.

53. Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project, 1997 Drug

Court Survey Report Executive Summary, Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, October 1997, p. 17.

54. Mark Rosnow, Milwaukee County Pretrial Intoxicated Driver Intervention

Pilot Project: Four-Year Follow-Up Evaluation, Milwaukee, WI: Wisconsin

Correctional Service, August 1, 1997.

55. Shelby Meyer and Kim Holloway, “The Fastrack Program,” Federal

Probation, Vol. 57, No. 19, March 1993, pp. 36–41.
108

Bureau of Justice Assistance

56. Allen J Beck and Darrell K. Gillard, Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear

1997, Bulletin, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1998.

57. Oregon Revised Statutes 135235.

58. Interview with the director of Probation and Pretrial Services for

Shelby County, Tennessee.

59. A jurisdiction’s lack of community programs for offenders with recognized needs or a lack of confidence in such programs may lead judges to

impose jail sentences in the hope that the offenders’ needs will receive

some degree of attention in the facility. Numerous localities have worked

to augment the range of available non-jail sentencing options, including

restitution, intensive probation supervision and treatment, and community

service, only to fail to reach those who would otherwise be incarcerated.

60. Courts point to a recent increase in beer taxes earmarked for DWI

treatment programs as proof of broad support for diverting DWI offenders

from jail.

61. In Monroe County, New York, an overcrowded jail spurred the chief

judge of the trial court and the county executive to establish a systemwide,

multiyear process that examined the entire criminal justice system, resulting in a sophisticated and effective multiagency response to jail crowding.

62. Susan Sadd and Randolph Grinc, The Neighborhood Defender Service of

Harlem, New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice, December 1993.

63. Thomas P. Bonczar, Characteristics of Adults on Probation, 1995, Special

Report, Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, December 1997.

64. Ibid.

65. The program is designed for low-risk offenders who have not been

convicted of violent crimes including child abuse.

66. Thomas Bonczar and Christopher J. Mumola, Substance Abuse and

Treatment of Adults on Probation, 1995, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics 1998.

67. Exclusionary factors include major assaultive history, significant mental health problems, below normal cognitive functioning, pending charges,

or failing to meet the living requirements for the Day Reporting Center

(e.g., not having a telephone).

68. Justice Education Center, Inc. Longitudinal Study: Alternatives to Incarceration Sentencing Evaluation, Year 3, Hartford, CT: Justice Education Center, Inc., September 1996.
109

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

69. Ibid.

70. Ibid.

71. Ibid.

72. See note 63, Bonczar 1970.

73. See note 63, Bonczar 1970.

74. Jail Utilization System Team, Project JUST, Monroe County, NY: November 1997.

75. However, according to the report’s authors, “much of the impact of

this initiative was lost as the state allowed state ready prisoners to remain

in Monroe County Jail an average of 20 days longer than in 1994.” Ibid.

76. Illinois, Kentucky, Oregon, and Wisconsin have no surety bail bonding

Kentucky outlawed bail bonding in 1976.

77. Emphasis on reduced length of confinement, rather than number of

admissions, will not increase the number of persons released or diverted

from jail. The effect on jail population size is accomplished by releasing the

same types of persons released in the past, but more expeditiously.

78. Thomas Church, Jr., et al., Justice Delayed: The Pace of Litigation in Urban

Trial Courts, Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 1978,

p. 85.

79. See note 16, Bush, 1983.
111

A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective

Sources for Further Information

For more information on jail overcrowding or BJA grants and programs, contact:

Bureau of Justice Assistance

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

202–514–6278

World Wide Web: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

Bureau of Justice Assistance Clearinghouse

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

1–800–688–4252

World Wide Web: www.ncjrs.org

U.S. Department of Justice Response Center

1–800–421–6770 or 202–307–1480
Bureau of Justice Assistance

Information

General Information

Callers may contact the U.S. Department of Justice Response Center for general information or specific needs,

such as assistance in submitting grants applications and information on training. To contact the Response Center,

call 1–800–421–6770 or write to 1100 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005.

Indepth Information

For more indepth information about BJA, its programs, and its funding opportunities, requesters can call the

BJA Clearinghouse. The BJA Clearinghouse, a component of the National Criminal Justice Reference Service

(NCJRS), shares BJA program information with state and local agencies and community groups across the

country. Information specialists are available to provide reference and referral services, publication distribution, participation and support for conferences, and other networking and outreach activities. The Clearinghouse can be reached by

❒ Mail

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

❒ Visit

2277 Research Boulevard

Rockville, MD 20850

❒ Telephone

1–800–688–4252

Monday through Friday

8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m.

eastern time

❒ Fax

301–519–5212

❒ Fax on Demand

1–800–688–4252

❒ BJA Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

❒ NCJRS World Wide Web

www.ncjrs.org

❒ E-mail

askncjrs@ncjrs.org

❒ JUSTINFO Newsletter

E-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org

Leave the subject line blank

In the body of the message,

type:

subscribe justinfo

[your name]
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

BJA World Wide Web Address

For a copy of this document online,

as well as more information on BJA,

check the BJA Home Page at

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/BJA

PERMIT NO. G–91