By Michele Deitch

This in-depth article provides comprehensive background information about the nature, value, and history of correctional oversight; documents the shifting landscape and increasing momentum around the oversight issue over the last decade; highlights key distinctions between prison and jail oversight; and provides a comprehensive assessment of the state of prison and jail oversight in the U.S. today. The article includes tables listing and categorizing every correctional oversight body in the United States as of 2020.

American Journal of Criminal Law 47, no. 2 (2020): 207–74.

By Nicole Gelinas

Six months before the Covid-19 epidemic spread across New York City in early March, Mayor Bill de Blasio and the city council approved a plan to spend nearly $9 billion over the next half-decade to build four jails, one each in the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Queens. The completion of the new jails, in turn, would allow the city to close Rikers Island, home to most existing jail facilities. The mayor and the council are right in one respect: the jail facilities on Rikers are deficient. One way or another, New York must invest billions to make good on its promise to treat detainees—most of whom have not yet been convicted of any crime—with compassion and dignity. But there are major flaws in the city’s plan. The construction of four new jails in dense urban neighborhoods, at enormous expense and risk to the city’s fiscal health, does not guarantee inmates the better care that the city has promised. By concentrating on location rather than on deeper-seated problems, the city may simply replicate Rikers’ problems elsewhere. Indeed, should the city fail to successfully execute its borough-based jails plan, it would even fall short of its ultimate, symbolic goal: closing Rikers. The coronavirus crisis puts these flaws into sharper relief. At present, the city faces the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, billions—if not tens of billions—in tax revenue, and significant uncertainty over when recovery will begin and how strong it will be. As a result, New York simply has far less room for error than it did last fall, when it approved its plan to build new jails. There is a better alternative: rebuild Rikers. This 400-acre island is an optimal location for multiple, well designed, low- to mid-rise jail facilities. Rikers is also New York’s only remaining open space near enough to the courthouses in all five boroughs to be a practical location for housing inmates in a sprawling setting—but far away enough from the general population to serve as a secure location. Figure 1 is a sketch of what a rebuilt Rikers Island might look like.

New York: Manhattan Institute, 2020. 16p.

By Stephen Raher

The growth of public expense associated with mass incarceration has led many carceral systems to push certain costs onto the people who are under correctional supervision. In the case of prisons and jails, this frequently takes the form of charges associated with telecommunications, food, basic supplies, and access to information. The operation of these fee-based businesses (referred to here as “prison retail”) is typically outsourced to a private firm. In recent years, the dominant prison retail companies have consolidated into a handful of companies, mostly owned by private equity firms. This paper explores the practices of prison retailers and discusses potential consumer-law implications. After an overview of the prison retail industry and a detailed discussion of unfair practices, the paper looks at some potential legal protections that may apply under current law. These protections, however, prove to be scattered and often illusory due to mandatory arbitration provisions and prohibitions on class adjudication. The paper therefore concludes with recommendations on a variety of steps that state, local, and federal governments can take to address the problems inherent in the current model.

17 Hastings Race & Poverty L.J. 3 (2020).

By U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division;  U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia 

 In September 2022, Lashawn Thompson died alone in a filthy cell in the mental health unit of the Fulton County Jail. Mr. Thompson, who had a history of mental illness and was unhoused, was accused of spitting at a Georgia Tech police officer and arrested on a simple battery charge, then held on an old warrant. Three months after his arrest, Mr. Thompson was found in his cell, slumped over with his head on his toilet. A medical examiner reported that his malnourished body was infested with an “enormous presence of body lice,” and concluded that he was “neglected to death.” There was widespread reporting and outrage about the conditions that led to Mr. Thompson’s death. But there was another death on the mental health unit—several months before Mr. Thompson’s—that never made the news. An unhoused man with serious mental illness was arrested and held in Fulton County Jail’s mental health unit after breaking into a building to seek shelter and warmth. On the mental health unit he stopped taking his medications, and his health declined. He was found unresponsive following a likely seizure and was transported to an outside hospital for care, but never recovered. He died in hospice a month later. Two more people died in the Jail’s mental health unit in the weeks following Mr. Thompson’s death. Both men had serious mental health needs; one had a developmental disability. Both were killed by their cellmates, and both were found with their feet bound. One of them was wrapped up in bedding “like a mummy.” Altogether, these four Black men with serious mental health needs died in the Jail’s mental health unit in under a year. In July 2023, we opened a civil rights investigation into conditions in the Fulton County Jail under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, 34 U.S.C. § 12601. Within weeks of opening our investigation, six more Black men had died in the Jail. One person was found unresponsive in his cell after his cellmate strangled him. And days later, tensions in the Jail erupted in violence: within 24 hours, five units in the Jail saw violent assaults, at least seven people were stabbed, and one person was killed. After an extensive investigation, we find reasonable cause to believe that Fulton County and the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office violate the constitutional and statutory rights of people incarcerated in the Fulton County Jail. Fulton County Jail fails to adequately protect incarcerated people from the substantial risk of serious harm from violence, including homicides and  stabbings by other incarcerated people. Serious violence has harmed people with mental health needs and other vulnerable populations. Assaults are carried out with weapons fashioned from Jail fixtures and are made possible by physical deficiencies in the Jail environment, such as unlocked doors. The Jail has long had inadequate practices for reporting and responding appropriately to sexual violence. Poor supervision, poor classification practices, and inattention to the maintenance of the Jail are major contributors to the unacceptable violence. Fulton County Jail deputies and detention officers use force against incarcerated people without adequate justification. This includes a practice of deploying Tasers against incarcerated people without reasonable cause. Understaffing in the facility contributes to the excessive use of force, as do poor policies, training, and the failure of supervisors to identify, correct, and discipline officers. Fulton County Jail living conditions do not meet basic constitutional standards. The Jail has allowed housing areas to fall into a state of serious disrepair, with standing water collecting in living areas, exposed wires, pests poorly controlled, and deficient services for providing clean clothing and sheets. These conditions are dangerous and unsanitary. Meals are served to the incarcerated population in an unsanitary manner and do not meet nutritional standards. As a result, people in the Jail have suffered harms from pest infestation and malnourishment. Medical and mental health care in the Fulton County Jail do not meet constitutional standards. The Jail impedes access to medical and mental health care through a lack of security staff. Medication administration gaps lead to medical and mental health complications and injuries. When medical emergencies occur, the Jail fails to provide appropriate medical care. And although people with mental health needs are overrepresented in the Jail population, the Jail environment exacerbates symptoms of mental illness. The Jail does not adequately protect people from a risk of suicide and does not adequately treat serious mental health needs. Restrictive housing conditions in the Jail pose a substantial risk of harm, including acute mental illness and self-injury, and restrictive housing practices are discriminatory and unlawful. The Jail places people in isolation without adequate monitoring for decompensation. Restrictive housing placement processes discriminate against people with mental health disabilities in violation of the ADA. Jail officers punish people with long terms in restrictive housing without adequate due process protections. Georgia is one of only four states where the juvenile justice system’s jurisdiction ends at 16. There are 17-year-old boys and girls at the Jail, many of whom spend over a year in custody. These children are subjected to violence and excessive force, experience sexual abuse, and are denied adequate mental health care. The Jail’s use of restrictive housing uniquely harms these children because they are psychologically different from adults, making their time in isolation much more damaging, exacerbating the onset of mental illness, increasing the risk of suicide, and causing long-lasting trauma. The Jail also fails to provide special education services to 17-year-old boys and girls who are entitled to them, in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400–1482. None of these problems are new. And despite widespread awareness of these issues, the unconstitutional and illegal conditions have persisted. Vulnerable populations— including children, those who are gay or transgender, people with medical and mental health needs, and others—often bear the brunt of these conditions. Deaths and other harms have continued. In April 2024, an incarcerated person died in the Jail after being stabbed 20 times. Less than a week later, a man was found dead in his cell, likely hours after his death. The report that follows explains the scope of our investigation and provides background information about the Jail. The report describes the constitutional and statutory violations that we found in the Jail, including the legal framework applied, the unacceptable conditions identified, and the deficient practices that led to the problems. We end by identifying changes that need to be implemented to fix the violations and prevent further harms.       

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2024. 105p.   

By Sarah L. Desmarais, Brandon Morrissey, Lisa Callahan, Samantha A. Zottola, Jen Elder, Kristin Lupfer, Elan C. Hope, & Richard A. Van Dorn

Although most jail admissions represent the only contact a person will have with the criminal legal system, there is a small group of people who experience more frequent jail contact and who represent a disproportionate number of both jail admissions and expenditures.1,2 People with frequent jail contact experience complex, interconnected social, economic, and behavioral health needs that may exacerbate (or be exacerbated by) their frequent jail contact. This group also experiences frequent contact with other services in the community, such as emergency rooms, homeless shelters, and treatment facilities. Strategies to implement services that meet complex needs and address structural barriers are critical to meaningfully and sustainably reduce system involvement among the population of people who experience frequent jail contact. Effective change for people with frequent jail contact must proceed simultaneously on a systemic, policy level and on the individual 1 services level. The population discussed in this policy brief typically has complicated behavioral and medical health needs, extensive criminal legal encounters, and significant social deficits such as poverty, isolation, and elevated risk of being unhoused. Many of their needs can be addressed with intensive, person-centered treatment in a coordinated continuum of care. The success of community-based solutions is supported by three foundational elements: 1. A systemwide examination of structural barriers and opportunities, 2. A focus on policies to effectively implement and support evidence-based interventions, and 3. A re-envisioning of how the behavioral health and criminal legal systems can coordinate trauma-informed responses for people with frequent jail contact. In this policy brief, we provide nine policy recommendations to help communities address the needs of people experiencing frequent jail contact toward the goal of reducing future contact. These policy recommendations are based on a review of existing research on people with frequent jail contact,3 consideration of the findings of a 2-year mixed-methods study focused on understanding the population of people with frequent jail contact in three U.S. counties,4 and consultation with experts, community partners, and people with lived experience. The nine policy recommendations are: 1. Create a Data Sharing Ecosystem 2. Establish Formal, Jurisdiction-Specific Definitions 3. Use Validated Behavioral Health Screening Tools 4. Implement Psychiatric Advanced Directives 5. Facilitate Jail In-Reach Programs 6. Increase Peer Support Programs 7. Improve Access to Housing 8. Increase Utilization of Community-Based Services 9. Center and Evaluate Efforts for Racial Equity
 

New York: Safety and Justice Challenge Research Consortium, which is managed by the CUNY Institute for State and Local Governance. 2023. 9p.

By Charles Fain Lehman

In 2019, then-mayor Bill de Blasio introduced, and the New York City Council approved, plans to close the jail complex on Rikers Island and replace it with four jails in Manhattan, Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Queens. Construction on these borough-based jails is expected to be completed in 2027, at which time the city is expected to shutter Rikers entirely. In doing so, it will replace a system with a maximum capacity of nearly 15,000 beds with one that can hold just 3,300 detainees on a given day. That capacity is, by any measure, extremely small, representing a daily population seldom seen on Rikers since its opening a century ago. Even after more than half a decade of deliberate incarceration, the jail’s daily population today sits between 5,500 and 6,000, far greater than the borough-based jails’ allotment. Can New York City operate a jail system with just 3,300 beds without either: a) dangerous, likely illegal, overcrowding? or b) making the city less safe? This report argues that the answer is no. To reach this conclusion, it recounts how the 3,300-bed figure was arrived at, which had more to do with politics than with any reasonable projection of required capacity. It then details the research on the effects of pretrial detention, investigates who is currently on Rikers and who could safely be released, and estimates the relationship between crime rates and jail population. The bottom line: under almost no conceivable scenario can the city expect to safely and sustainably reduce the daily jail population to 3,300—never mind, to reduce it below that figure. Given the city’s commitment to closing Rikers, this report concludes by looking at potential sources of alternative capacity, including refurbishing or repurchasing closed jails; constructing small additional borough jails; and “boarding out” detainees to Long Island and Westchester County. These solutions could buy additional capacity for the system but not enough to provide adequate and safe housing for even the current, much-reduced population. In light of this, the report briefly revisits the case for keeping some of Rikers open  In 2019, then-mayor Bill de Blasio introduced, and the New York City Council approved, plans to close the jail complex on Rikers Island and replace it with four jails in Manhattan, Brook lyn, the Bronx, and Queens. Construction on these borough-based jails is expected to be completed in 2027, at which time the city is expected to shutter Rikers entirely. In so doing, it will replace a system with a maximum capacity of nearly 15,000 beds with one that can hold just 3,300 detainees on a given day. That capacity is, by any measure, extremely small, representing a daily population rarely seen on Rikers since its opening a century ago. Even after more than half a decade of deliberate incarceration, the jail’s daily population today sits between 5,500 and 6,000, far greater than the borough-based jails’ allotment. Can New York City operate a jail system with just 3,300 beds without either: a) dangerous, likely illegal, overcrowding? or b) making the city less safe? This report argues that the answer is no. To reach this conclusion, it recounts how the 3,300-bed figure was arrived at, which had more to do with politics than with any reasonable projection of required capacity. It then details the research on the effects of pretrial detention, investigates who is currently on Rikers and who could safely be released, and estimates the relationship between crime rates and jail population. The bottom line: under almost no conceivable scenario can the city expect to safely and sustainably reduce the daily jail population to 3,300—never mind, to reduce it below that figure. Given the city’s commitment to closing Rikers, this report concludes by looking at potential sources of alternative capacity, including refurbishing or repurchasing closed jails; constructing small additional borough jails; and “boarding out” detainees to Long Island and Westchester County. These solutions could buy additional capacity for the system but not enough to provide adequate and safe housing for even the current, much-reduced population. In light of this, the report briefly revisits the case for keeping some of Rikers open 

New York: The Manhattan Institute, 2022. 34p.