MENTALLY ILL OR RETARDED PERSONS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH SERIOUS CRIMES SHOULD NEVER BE SUBJECT TO JAIL CONFINEMENT. FOR THOSE CHARGED WITH SERIOUS VIOLATIONS OF CRIMINAL LAW, EACH JURISDICTION SHOULD DEVELOP PLANS AND PROCEDURES FOR IDENTIFYING AND IMPLEMENTING SUITABLE ALTERNATIVES. DIFFICULTIES IN IDENTIFYING MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS MAKE IT HARD TO DETERMINE THE FREQUENCY WITH WHICH MENTALLY ILL OR RETARDED PERSONS ARE DETAINED IN JAILS; HOWEVER, IT IS KNOWN THAT MOST JAILS HOUSE THESE PERSONS OCCASIONALLY. APPROPRIATE FACILITIES AND PERSONNEL FOR DEALING WITH RETARDED PERSONS ARE GENERALLY LACKING. THE 1970 JAIL CENSUS INDICATED THAT FEWER THAN HALF THE JAILS HAD ANY MEDICAL FACILITIES. A SUBSEQUENT SURVEY INDICATED THAT ONLY 13 PERCENT HAD ANY FACILITIES FOR THE MENTALLY ILL, AND ANOTHER SURVEY SHOWED THAT ONLY 19 PERCENT HAD PERSONNEL ON STAFF CAPABLE OF IDENTIFYING SUCH INDIVIDUALS. JAIL CONFINEMENT OF THE MENTALLY ILL OR MENTALLY RETARDED IS UNSAFE AND INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE THESE INDIVIDUALS OFTEN HARM FELLOW DETAINEES, OR FALL PREY TO THEM; SUCH CONFINEMENT LEADS TO MORE PROBLEMS THAN WERE PRESENT UPON ADMISSION. MENTALLY ILL AND RETARDED PERSONS ENTER JAILS BY A VARIETY OF AVENUES, AND STRATEGIES MUST BE DEVELOPED TO CLOSE OFF THESE COURSES. FOR EXAMPLE, EXHIBITING UNUSUAL BUT HARMLESS BEHAVIOR, SUCH AS TALKING ALOUD TO NO ONE IN PARTICULAR SHOULD NOT RESULT IN JAIL CONFINEMENT. JAILS SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A CONVENIENT PLACE TO KEEP PEOPLE UNTIL A COMMITMENT HEARING CAN BE SCHEDULED. IN ADDITION, IDENTIFICATION OF MENTALLY ILL OR RETARDED INDIVIDUALS THROUGH PROPERLY-TRAINED STAFF MEMBERS DURING THE ADMISSION SCREENING PROCESS SHOULD BE INSISTED UPON. SUCH A PROGRAM HAS ALREADY BEEN SUCCESSFULLY IMPLEMENTED IN GALVESTON, TEXAS THROUGH USE OF CERTIFIED EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIANS. TABLES AND CITATIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE POLICY STATEMENT.