Download Here are the key points to reducing the jail overcrowding

Key Points
Institute for Law and Policy Planning
A nonprofit planning agency since 1979
ILPP’s report demonstrates that a large variety of minor offenders—many of them addicted to pills—are arrested
and put on probation, with only infrequent intervention to deal with their drug problem. When they violate their
conditions of probation, they are then required to pay steep fines or serve time for failure to pay. The conditions
in the jail have often been repeatedly cited by the State as below standard, unsafe, and crowded to the point of
presenting unconstitutional conditions of confinement. State reports mislead by stating that actions have been
taken to alleviate the situation; e.g., “bracelet” programs that charge unaffordable fees; creation of committees
that serve only to hide in-action. The State reports follow the Sheriff’s explanation that proper classification of
inmates cannot occur due to crowding, but of course the failure to classify prevents coping with crowding; it
does not cause it but in fact makes it more dangerous. The request for a planning study to build more jail space is
a result of the Sheriff’s stated desire to rent beds to the Federal Government, a practice which is incorrectly
considered "profitable" by the Sheriff. ILPP’s report suggested using more appropriate community drug treatment
and mental health programs and maintaining the jail without Federal rents. If the County kept a constitutional
facility, it would lose money, but if it continues to crowd the facility it will cost a great deal when and if the County
is sued
The County should take the following top five action steps to reduce the size and composition of the jail
population. This will not diminish public protection, nor harm society, nor increase costs. They promise to
substantially lower the risk of litigation.
1.
Allow probation violation offenders to work off their obligations in a county work program. 41% of Blount's
pretrial population is being held on a pending probation violation with bond; 57% had a probation
violation. These are the highest percentages ILPP has ever seen. Courts are employing probation
violations to deny bonds to persons charged with a new offense while on active probation. Speeding up
case flow and working off their obligations by cleaning up parks, and roadways would punish offenders
and reduce crowding. A less crowded jail, run properly with classification and proper cost accounting
could actually make money.
2.
Upgrade the current Board Appointed Corrections Committee to a small Executive Committee of justice
system gatekeepers/agency heads plus the Mayor. Engage a strong outside facilitator, and provide this
new Criminal Justice Advisory Board with staffing from existing agencies so it can generate data-based
analyses that lead directly to policy change. The Criminal Justice Advisory Board should create plans
and make decisions to better manage the system and the jail.
3.
With the approval of the new policy board, formulate risk based pre-trial and related release criteria, and
commit strongly to that methodology for solving future system capacity problems. Doing so would result
in major jail bed savings because there will be more releases earlier in the judicial process and a
reduction in the number of offenders that pose minimal risk. The Courts and the Sheriff would be the lead
agencies. Although major change will need to overcome initial resistance implementation will later result
in strong support, and savings
4.
Consider use of an existing non-jail facility dedicated to providing drug treatment. The facility would be a
large minimum security/supervised motel-style arrangement or dorm, with some program spaces and a
lot of drug rehabilitation. The facility would house only those who are still in “custody,” based on an
objective risk assessment (for those who require supervision through an objective risk assessment
instrument).
5.
Negotiate contracts with the Federal and State governments that are based on honest accounting, fair to
the County, and that supports a Constitutionally operated facility for all offenders. The use of jail beds to
generate revenue should not come at the detriment of those offenders who must be statutorily housed.
If the attempt is to maximize the generation of income, then a business mentality is necessitated. The
obligation is to provide constitutionally based conditions of confinement, properly classified, and
adequate and audited medical and mental health services along with supervision levels sufficient to
ensure the safety of the community, the offenders, and the staff.
The current model appears to invite litigation due to the absence of a valid classification system and chronic and
severe overcrowding. These conditions may also lead to decisions by the US. Marshall’s Service and/or the State
to cease using the facility to board their prisoners. There has not been any single meaningful action on the part of
the Sheriff to remedy the situation, other than to call for more building because the building is full. The current
operation already saps an indebted County and adds the risk of litigation. Choices should be made by those
responsible-- the Commission -- to avoid litigation against the County for failing to manage the overall system or
the jail.