Title: A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective. Series: Monograph Author: Bureau of Justice Assistance Published: October 2000 Subject: Jails and Jail Inmates, Case Processing, Sentencing 117 pages 241,664 bytes ---------------------------- Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site or order a print copy from BJA at 800-688-4252. ---------------------------- U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street NW. Washington, DC 20531 A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective BJA Bureau of Justice Assistance ---------------------------- 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 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. 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. ---------------------------- BJA Bureau of Justice Assistance A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective Monograph October 2000 NCJ 182507 ---------------------------- 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 ---------------------------- 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. ---------------------------- Contents Chapter 1 Introduction Then and Now Changes Since 1985 Need for a Systemwide Approach Survey Method Overview Chapter 2 Anatomy of a Criminal Justice System Two Dimensions of Jail Use: Admissions and Length of Confinement Criminal Justice Decision Points and Options Chapter 3 Information Needs for a Systemwide Strategy Case-Processing Information Jail Population Information Methods for Gathering Information Information Analysis A Cautionary Note Chapter 4 Systemwide Approach: How Individual Actors Can Affect Jail Population Law Enforcement Jail Administration Prosecution Pretrial Services Judiciary Defense Probation and Parole Bail Bondsmen Extra-system Services External Factors Chapter 5 Systemwide Planning To Alleviate and Prevent Jail Crowding Process Changes Program Changes Key Actor Participation Strategy Implementation Checklist Final Caveats Appendix A Case-Processing Questionnaire Appendix B-1 Sample Detention Form Appendix B-2 Sample Jail Release Form Appendix C Contacts Notes Sources for Further Information ---------------------------- Chapter 1 Introduction 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" 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" Then and Now The 1999 headlines in our nation's newspapers mirrored those in 1985, when the first edition of this monograph was published[1]--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 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 housed[10] 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-in-sentencing 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. 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 Corrections[15] 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 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. Summarized briefly, this monograph contains the following chapters: o 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. o Chapter 3 asks, "When is a jail crowded?" and identifies types of information needed to answer the question. o 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. o Chapter 5 discusses systemwide mechanisms, including factors to consider when implementing strategies to address jail population pressures. ---------------------------- Chapter 2 Anatomy of a Criminal Justice System 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: o 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. o A recognition of the effects of day-to-day decisions and agency policies on the size of the jail population. o 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. ---------------------------- Exhibit 1 Flowchart of Criminal Justice Decision Points and Options is not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site or order a print copy from BJA at 800-688-4252. ---------------------------- Two Dimensions of Jail Use: Admissions and 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 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 is to reveal the opportunities that exist for resolving the jail crowding situation, not to show the system's complexities. Criminal Justice Decision Points and Options Decision Point 1: Law Enforcement or Magistrate Following the report or observation of an offense,[20] a law enforcement officer has several choices. o The officer may issue a citation ordering the suspect to appear in court.[21] o 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 circum-stances, such as those involving public inebriates, the mentally ill, juveniles, vagrants, trespassers, or others involved in minor disputes or nuisance charges. o The officers may make an arrest and directly transport the arrestee to a temporary holding facility[22] or jail. If a law enforcement officer or private citizen requests a warrant for arrest, the judicial officer or magistrate usually has several options. o Sign the warrant and authorize the arrest of the named individual. o Issue a summons requiring the defendant to appear in court to respond to the charge. o 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. o 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. o 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 receiving a citation would be released without supervision and required to appear at the next session of the court to answer to the charge. o 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 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: o Release on Recognizance (ROR): Requires no financial deposit and involves no conditions other than appearance for court and no additional criminal charges. o 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. o 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). o 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. o 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. o Property Bail: Requires posting of property or other assets in lieu of full cash bail with the court. o 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 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: o Probation Supervision: Requiring the offender to report to the probation agency for a specified period of time, during which limitations on association or movement, treatment, or restitution to the victim may be required. o 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. o Fine: Requiring cash payment, usually in installments, based on the damage incurred and the offender's ability to pay. o 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. o 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. o 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. o 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. o Boot Camps: Requiring the offender to be confined in a residential facility that follows a militarylike regimen of exercise, classes, and demeanor. o 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. ---------------------------- Chapter 3 Information Needs for a Systemwide Strategy 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. Case-processing 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: o Law enforcement data on arrests and citation releases. o Jail administration data on admissions and length of confinement. o Pretrial release data on referrals, interviews, and recommendations and the timeframe used. o Prosecution data on cases received for screening, charging decisions, and the time elapsing between arrest and the charging decision. o Defense/public defender data on cases assigned by the court and the time elapsing between arrest and contact with the arrestee. o Data on the number of cases heard in initial appearance courts. o Outcome of release/detention decisions. o Time interval between arrest and the initial appearance hearing. o Court data on cases adjudicated and the arrest-to-adjudication timeframe. o 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 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: o 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? o 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? o Are low bail defendants or defendants with unverified background information being unintentionally detained before trial? o Are persons being held in the jail longer than necessary because of administrative inefficiencies? o Are defendants spending more time in jail awaiting trial than they are likely to receive as punishment? o 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: o Age. o Gender. o Racial identity. o Residence. o Dependence on alcohol and/or other drugs. o Mental health impairments. o Number of felony convictions. o Number of misdemeanor convictions. o Relationship to criminal justice system at time of arrest. o Pretrial release history (e.g., number of failures to appear or rearrests). o 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: o Arresting agency. o Charge. o Detention status. o Release method. o Bail amount. o Arraignment judge. o Trial judge. o Length of confinement. o Last court action. o Number of days since last court action. o 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. 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 a particular day. The advantage of the snapshot method lies in the ease, by using one-time-only 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 in-jail 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. 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. However, for jurisdictions that can afford it and those that can obtain low-cost 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 in system 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 cross-tabulation 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. ---------------------------- Exhibit 2 Characteristics of Jail Population is not included in this ASCII plain- text file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site or order a print copy from BJA at 800- 688-4252. ---------------------------- Exhibit 3 Characteristics of Jail Population is not included in this ASCII plain- text file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site or order a print copy from BJA at 800- 688-4252. ---------------------------- 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. ---------------------------- Chapter 4 Systemwide Approach: How Individual Actors Can Affect Jail Population 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 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 long-term 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 of diverting 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 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 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. 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 the community may have repercussions for crowding. 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 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 intoxication-related 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 the charges 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. 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 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 1994[42] 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 program-by-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. 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 places them under supervision. Participants may receive intensive inpatient, intensive outpatient, or weekly outpatient treatments, instead of jail 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 court-imposed 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 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. 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. 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 4 weeks. 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. 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. 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 state[50] to complete their interviews and investigations.[51] 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. 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 all but 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] 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 and into 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. 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 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 an inability 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 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 extra-system 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. 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 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 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 pr