Short and Long-Term Policies: Prisoner Overcrowding 3
Prison Overcrowding Reduction Policy Stakeholders 4
Prison Overcrowding Reduction: Short-Term Goals and Solutions 5
Prison Overcrowding Reduction: Long-Term Goals and Solutions 8
Creation of Jail Capacity Management Boards and Oversight Committees .8
Alternatives to Incarceration .9
Private For-Profit Prisons 11
Conclusion 12
References .13
Short and Long-Term Policies:Prisoner Overcrowding
Overcrowding in jails and prisons is a complex problem that is difficult but imperative for the nation to solve. The United States has the highest rate of incarceration in the world; while countries similar to the U.S. have an average rate of 100 prisoners per 100,000 people, the U.S. has an average rate of 500 prisoners per 100,000 people (Tsai & Scommegna 2012). The 2010 incarceration rate for black males was much higher with an incarceration rate of 3,074 prisoners per 100,000; research indicates that national statistics are often an inaccurate indicator of regional trends regarding the prison population because though incarceration rates in 2010 dropped in 34 states, in 16 states the prison population has increased (Tsai & Scommegna 2012).
The state of California’s problems with prison overcrowding continue to make national headlines, offering the public a detailed view of the problems of an overburdened imprisonment system and a warning to other states of what can happen when prison overcrowding becomes severe. Although California has made progress in the two years since the Supreme Court ruled the state’s prison system “amounted to cruel and unusual punishment,” a violation of the Eighth Amendment, litigation and other problems continue (Medina 2013, Legal Information Institute n.d.). Some states are having success in combating overcrowding in prisons and national statistics appear to have a positive trend toward less incarceration, but many areas are still battling the difficulties surrounding not having enough space for prisoners. In these areas, part of the puzzle is to find out why “serious crime has been declining while jail populations have been increasing substantially” (Thigpen, Hutchinson, & Geaither 2002, p. viii). These troubled states and localities must investigate the source of the increase in prisoners and evaluate what changes can be made to eliminate the overcrowding problem. Although the answers to the problems will differ depending on each state, county, or local area, policies that address the most effective short and long-term solutions to eliminate and prevent prison overcrowding is the best way to deal with prison overcrowding.
Prison Overcrowding Reduction Policy Stakeholders
Although it may sound over-inclusive, it is not exaggerating to say that prison overcrowding is a problem that every member of our society, from prisoner and law-abiding citizen to police, lawyers, and judges, with which all possess an important stake. Unfortunately, from a public relations and public standpoint, it is difficult to sell the idea to law-abiding taxpayers that the issue of prison overcrowding is one that deserves attention. In spite of the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment, which states “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, no cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” law-abiding citizens often view prisoners as persona-non-grata and that there are more important issues to tackle than the rights of prisoners (Legal Information Institute n.d.). For the public as well as county elected officials, police officers, and judicial members, having an ability to identify whom makes up the prison population is a critical part of making policy decisions about prisons.
Prisoners themselves also hold a stake in prison overcrowding reduction policies. Although in some cases the public still holds the persona-non-grata view of prisoners as people who do not deserve rights or attention, the public also supports our incarceration systems and Constitutional support for prisoner rights, citing horrific conditions in other countries as examples of methods and situations that would never happen in the United States. For instance, “Gldani Prison in the former Soviet republic of Georgia came under scrutiny when a video that surfaced on September 18, 2012, appeared to show the prison warden and a slew of guards repeatedly torturing and sexual assaulting multiple inmates” (Freeman 2012). In spite of the public’s view that the United States is a place where human rights are honored even for prisoners, accounts of horrific conditions in U.S. prisons occasionally make national headlines. For example, at the Louisiana State Penitentiary, two prisoners have a world-record-holding 40 years in solitary confinement (Freeman 2012). Additionally, the Prison Law Office which represents prisoners in litigation against prisons, gave an example of a prisoner in CA who had skin cancer that was untreated for nine months and said that in 2011 there were over 40 “preventable” prisoner deaths due to lack of appropriate medical care in prison (Medina 2012). Prison overcrowding is a direct contributor to the problems leading to litigation against prisons and undesirable conditions in prisons.
Other stakeholders in prison overcrowding issues are the police officers who make arrests, judges who hand down sentences, lawmakers, county, state, and federal prisons and prison administrators, and for-profit private prisons. Many of these stakeholders are in charge of public and prisoner welfare, making sure that tax dollars are spent efficiently, and that law-abiding citizens’ as well as prisoners’ rights are honored. For example, lawmakers deal with the creation of laws that benefit the public well-being, stipulating what activities are considered to be criminal and punishable with jail time, such as drug possession, prostitution, and domestic violence. The police are in charge of enforcing these laws within states and communities. Judges are juries are in charge of trying cases and deciding what level of punishment is appropriate for a crime. Private for-profit prisons benefit from high incarceration rates, yet they can also relieve the burden from states and counties dealing with overcrowding issues.
Prison Overcrowding Reduction: Short-Term Goals and Solutions
Although the most important parts of a policy dealing with prison overcrowding are the long-term solutions, short-term goals and solutions are often the first necessary step. In addition, some of the short-term solutions can carry over into long-term practices in order to successfully deal with the overcrowding problem. The short-term goal of a policy includes steps that can be taken immediately to deal with overcrowding issues. Evaluation, Management, and Training Associate’s (EMT) Jail Overcrowding Management Handbook identifies a list of 14 typical overcrowding problem areas. These areas include inmate housing, visitation, medical services, food services, inmate activity and recreation, inmate programs, classification and segregation, inmate disciplinary and grievance processes, staffing, staff and inmate safety, inventory storage and control, sanitation, and facility maintenance (EMT 1998, p. 10).
Almost all short-term solutions require increases of staffing and services. Short-term solutions can vary widely from prison to prison and require prison administration, elected officials, and other policymakers to work together to decide what steps are necessary for a particular institution. For instance, in cases where prisoners are sleeping on the floors, suggested solutions are relaxation of classification criteria, converting existing space such as recreation areas to housing, and transporting inmates to other facilities (EMT 1998, p. 12). It is important to differentiate these short-term solutions from long-term solutions; for instance, in the case of California’s overcrowding problems, crowding prisoners into recreation areas like gymnasiums went from being a short-term solution to a long-term problem that caught the notice of the Supreme Court (Medina 2013). It may be acceptable to use areas such as a gymnasium to house inmates temporarily, but other short and long-term solutions must quickly be acted upon to ensure the short-term solution does not become a rights violation.
Other examples of solutions for overcrowding include increasing visitation hours to seven days a week and 12 hours each day while shortening the visiting time per inmate, transporting inmates to other facilities to meet with attorneys, expanding sick-call hours and medical staff, contracting for dental care and medical services, adding mental health counseling, serving meals in shifts, making use of federal and state surplus food programs, adding televisions to each cell block, altering the facility to provide a recreation area, creating a dorm for similarly classified inmates, increase staff and vehicles for inmate transportation, add staff specifically to deal with inmate grievances and discipline, expand overtime for staff, have a full-time inventory control staff member, create incentive programs for inmates concerning sanitary conditions, and emptying one cell each week for cleaning, painting, and other maintenance (EMY 1998, pp. 12-26). Although some of these solutions are only desirable in the short-term, such as creating a dormitory for similarly classified inmates such as a recreation area like a gymnasium, others of these solutions may be acceptable to institute in long-term policy if necessary.
Whether these steps become long-term solutions or will only be temporary stopgap measures until other policies can be implemented will vary based on a prison’s needs, problems, and the desires of the policy makers. For instance, in the case of the highly publicized situation in California with the Supreme Court requiring the state to reduce its prison population, it is ironic that in January of 1988, the state hired EMT Associates, Inc., to prepare the Jail Overcrowding Management Handbook from which all of these short-term solutions come. Page two of this handbook warns, “Local authorities would do well to mobilize against overcrowded conditions before court orders mandate actions which may be disruptive, fail to consider available staffing, on-going operations, or the budget” (EMT 1988). In spite of the comprehensive nature of EMT Associate’s Handbook, California appears to have disregarded some of the most important aspects towards long-term prison population management, leading to the Supreme Court orders. Policy makers who want to tackle prison overcrowding problems with success must carefully analyze solutions, understand examples like California’s, and decide when and how to implement policy change.
Prison Overcrowding Reduction: Long-Term Goals and Solutions
The most critical part in dealing with prison overcrowding situations is to create long-term solutions. While in a few cases, the short-term solutions mentioned previously may satisfy requirements in prison overcrowding problems, many times such measures are inefficient, costly, or in violation of prisoners’ rights if continued for long periods. According to the EMT Handbook, “One of the best ways to reduce jail population is to aggressively make use of alternatives to incarceration at every point in the criminal justice process where jail incarceration is traditionally used” (1998, p. 3). However, even with alternatives to incarceration, some areas may still find that their prisons and jails are overcrowded and that increasing staff at a location and other short-term measures have become expensive, difficult to manage, and allow for costly litigation by prisoners to loom on the horizon. Areas such as these need to analyze whether changes need to be made in areas such as police behavior/discretion in arrest situations, laws and sentencing, facility size, or if an entirely new incarceration facility should be constructed or added to the system.
Creation of Jail Capacity Management Boards and Oversight Committees
Two basic ideas offered by EMT’s Handbook are the creation of a Jail Capacity Management Board and a Jail Capacity Oversight Committee. The Board and the Committee will be useful in any location as a long-term part of prison population management. The purpose of a Management Board is to bring together representatives from all branches of government and criminal justice agencies to analyze problems, create policy, and share responsibility concerning prison population in their jurisdiction (EMT 1998, pp. 27-28). According to EMT, this Board should include agencies and officials such as the Sheriff, prison administrators, police departments, prosecutors, courts, court administrators, probation, public defenders, county supervisors, and county executives (1998, p. 28).
The Jail Capacity Oversight Committee is a smaller group whose job is to deal with immediate policy and problems concerning incarceration. Its purpose, according to the EMT Handbook, is to expedite custody cases and release defendants, with weekly meetings to “review all jail cases (pre- and post-adjucation), to detect any delays in case handling . . . to determine if further confinement is necessary, and to identify procedures that require modification” (EMT 1998, p. 29). This small committee should consist of a public defender, assistant prosecutor, jail administrator, and municipal or superior court judge (EMT 1998, p. 29). The creation of these two groups can help handle both short and long-term incarceration population problems. Because each prison facility’s problems are different, the creation of these groups is critical in determining exact policies and other measures that should be used to decrease prison overcrowding.
Alternatives to Incarceration
As stated previously, finding and using alternatives to incarceration is one of the best ways to decrease prison population problems. There are many types of alternatives to incarceration, some of which are more effective in reducing crowding situations than others. The top four programs listed in the EMT Handbook include field citation, jail citation, work in lieu of jail, and early release (sentenced); four others that were considered to be moderately effective are release without charge, county parole, own recognizance (OR) or release (pretrial), and non-incarceration sentencing programs such as probation, community service, fines, restitution, and treatment (1998, p. 33).
Some examples of alternatives to incarceration that have little effect on prison population are supervised and third-party OR release, felony recognizance release, warrants/holds clearance programs, diversion to services (mentally ill, family dispute), home detention sentences, and modification of sentences (EMT 1998, pp. 30-32). Other alternatives, such as early case screening, early bail setting, use of summonses in lieu of arrest warrants, and night courts, have undetermined effects on prison population and should be focused on as part of further research as possible solutions for crowding problems.
Revising sentencing laws or policy is another long-term solution to prison overpopulation. Sentencing is both a legal policy and discretionary issue. Part of the problem in California, according to the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, is that there is a “constant ratcheting up of sentencing laws” (Medina 3013). In other words, a zero-tolerance law for drug possession, one of the most frequent reasons for arrest in the past decade, which requires jail-time regardless of the circumstance, will greatly increase inmate populations (Thigpen, Hutchinson, & Geaither 2002, p. vii). Jail Capacity Management Boards and Oversight Committees can help advise if it would be helpful to revise sentencing laws, especially in cases where the offender poses little threat to the community at large. The issue is also discretionary because in many cases, police officers and judges have a great influence over whether an offender goes to jail or not. In situations where there is prison overcrowding, a liaison from the Jail Capacity Management Boards and Oversight Committees can provide education about what alternatives to incarceration exist and are effective so that police and judges can reduce the amount of offenders being sent to prison.
Although the handbook does not mention it, a local liaison with the public, state governments, and the media should also play a part in prison population control. For example, in 2011 when California was working on reducing its prison population because of the Supreme Court mandate, the governor wanted to pass a tax extension so several thousand non-violent, low-level offenders with short prison terms could be sent to county jails; however, the governor “didn’t have the Republican votes he [needed] to make it happen” (Small 2011). A liaison from the Jail Capacity Management Boards and Oversight Committees could illustrate to politicians and the public how proposed measures such as the one the California governor considered could actually save taxpayer money over time and would be a more palatable solution than simply releasing prisoners.
Private For-Profit Prisons
Relying on private, for-profit companies to take over prisons is an option that some states have selected to reduce financial burdens and prison population problems. For instance, when the Supreme Court issued its mandate to California to reduce its prison population, one of then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s solutions was to transfer thousands of prisoners to private prison facilities in other states (Small 2011). Though this option appeals to states struggling with prison overcrowding and budget problems, overall it presents a number of other ethical problems that may make it undesirable. For instance, when Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the United State’s largest private incarceration company, addressed 48 states with an offer to take over existing state prisons, CCA “wanted a 20-year contract and assurance that the state will keep the prisons at least 90% full” (White 2012). These prisons run by companies like CCA make profits by creating contracts with state and local governments as well as “large companies in mainstream society to provide services and goods that are sold to the general public” (White 2012). Additionally, private prisons can be very discriminating about the inmates they allow within their facilities, leaving local and state run facilities as well as taxpayers with the burden of paying for prisoners who require greater medical care.
Although privatization of prisons has the possibility to reduce overcrowding problems, it presents ethical burdens that could have a lasting effect on the welfare of society. According to CCA’s 2011 10-K report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the company’s profit motive means that changes in laws or policies regarding controlled substances, drugs, illegal immigration, or any other issues that “could ‘potentially reduc[e] demand for correctional facilities’” could hurt the profitability of the company (Takei 2013).. In other words, less stringent sentencing favoring alternatives to incarceration, early release of inmates, changes to laws making arrest and imprisonment less likely, and any measures that reduce the crime rate are things CCA does not support. The ACLU reports that CCA is involved in lobbying efforts including the support of Arizona’s anti-immigration bill that advocates for stiff sentencing and incarceration laws. Therefore, while using private prisons appears to be a successful short-term solution for overcrowding situations, as a long-term solution it could have undesirable effects because it appears companies like CCA work directly against some of the most beneficial methods of inmate population reduction.
Conclusion
Although specific aspects of policies per state or facility must vary according to the facility or state’s needs, prison-overcrowding problems can only be solved by implementing both short and long-term policies. Short-term decisions should be done on an as-needed basis, while long-term solutions should include Creation of Jail Capacity Management Boards and Oversight Committees as well as a heavy emphasis on alternatives to incarceration. It is in the best interest of the nation’s overall welfare to give significant attention to the problem of incarceration, researching, revising, reforming, and reinventing according to individual state situations.
References
EMT Associates (Jan. 1998). Jail Overcrowding Management Handbook. State of California Board of Corrections. Retrieved from http://static.nicic.gov/Library/006403.pdf
Freeman, Andrew (26 Sep. 2012). 10 of the Worst Prisons in the World—Only 5 Are American. Take Part. Retrieved from http://www.takepart.com/photos/worst-prisons-locked-up
Glaze, Lauren E. & Parks, Erika (Nov. 2012). Correctional Populations in the United States, 2011. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus11.pdf
Legal Information Institute (n.d.). Eighth Amendment. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved 27 Feb. 2013 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/eighth_amendment
Medina, Jennifer (21 Jan. 2013). California Sheds Prisoners but Grapples With Courts. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/us/22prisons.html?_r=0
Oppel, Richard A. (18 May 2011). Private Prisons Found to Offer Little in Savings. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/us/
19prisons.html?_r=3&ref=us&
Small, Julie (30 May 2011). California's prison problem: Some potential short-term solutions, and ones that are already working. Southern California Public Radio KPCC. Retrieved from http://www.scpr.org/news/2011/05/30/26982/californias-running-start-on-cutting-priosn-popula/
Takei, Carl (29 Jan. 2013). Happy Birthday to the Corrections Corporation of America? Thirty Years of Banking on Bondage Leaves Little to Celebrate. American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/print/blog/prisoners-rights-criminal-law-reform/happy-birthday-corrections-corporation-america-thirty
Thigpen, Morris L., Hutchinson, Virginia A., & Geaither Richard E. (Jan. 2002). Jail Crowding: Understanding Jail Population Dynamics. U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Corrections. Retrieved from http://static.nicic.gov/Library/017209.pdf
Tsai, Tyjen & Scommegna, Paola (Aug. 2012). U.S. Has World's Highest Incarceration Rate. Population Reference Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.prb.org/Articles/2012/us-incarceration.aspx
White, Danny L. (22 Aug. 2012). The Ethics Behind Private, For-Profit Prisons: Are There Ethics Or Just Profit? Part 2. Arizona Informant. Retrieved from http://www.azinformant.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14271:the-ethics-behind-private-for-profit-prisons&catid=98:local&Itemid=135
