Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118564922
label
[Corrections, Board of] - Coordinated California Corrections: Institutions, July 1971 (1 of 6)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564922
contentType
document
title
[Corrections, Board of] - Coordinated California Corrections: Institutions, July 1971 (1 of 6)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Reports
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564922
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
5fb0ce7f8b4ef8fe
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: [Corrections, Board of] -
Coordinated California Corrections:
Institutions, July 1971 (1 of 6)
Box: P33
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
Coordinated
California
Corrections:
INSTITUTIONS
JAILS
JUVENILE PRISONS
Correctional System Study
OF
STATE THE
BOARD OF CORRECTIONS
HUMAN RELATIONS AGENCY
CALIFORNIA
July, 1971
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM STUDY
JAIL TASK FORCE REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
X
CHAPTER
I.
INTRODUCTION
1
Study Objectives
3
Research Methodology
3
Sources of data
3
Study sample and procedure
4
Organization of Jail Task Force Report
5
II.
AN OVERVIEW OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY JAILS
7
A Brief Historical Account of the Jail
7
The Functions of Jails
9
As a temporary holding facility
9
As a criminal sanction
9
As a behavior modifier
9
The System of Jails in California
10
Administrative organization
10
Characteristics of jails
10
Inspection of jails
12
Jail staff
13
Jail population
13
Costs and Effectiveness
14
III.
THE PRESENT JAIL SYSTEM: SURVEY FINDINGS
21
Perceptions and Evaluations of Goals
21
Staff views
21
Client views
24
CHAPTER
PAGE
The Staff of the Jail System
25
Staff characteristics
26
Staff roles
26
The deputy sheriff
26
The correctional officer
26
The female deputy
30
Factors in job satisfaction
30
Staff evaluation of quality of management
32
The jail and the community
36
Use of para-professionals
36
The use of volunteers and other community resources
38
Perception of the public's view of corrections
39
Major concern of the jail staff
39
The staff role
39
Inadequate training
39
Overcrowded facilities
39
Not suited for corrections
40
Troublesome offenders
40
Salaries
40
Jail facilities
40
The Inmate in the Jail System
40
Summary of inmate characteristics
41
Jail activities and plans for the future
41
Significant differences
44
[iii]
CHAPTER
PAGE
Minimizing Confinement in the County Jail
44
Release on own recognizance
45
Misdemeanor citations
46
Diverting the alcoholic from the county jail
47
Diverting other types of offenders from jail
49
Offenders with mental disorders
49
The narcotic addict
49
Summary
49
Sentence modification
50
County parole
51
Weekenders
53
Conclusion
53
Highlights of Existing Programs
54
Work furlough
54
Education
55
Educational leaves
56
Vocational training
57
New directions in vocational training
57
Counseling services
58
Volunteers in corrections
59
Comments
61
The Need For Financial Support
62
Local funding
62
Internal budget allocations
62
[iv]
CHAPTER
PAGE
State subsidy
63
Other possible sources for jail funds
63
Evaluation of Correctional Facility Programs
63
Knowledge of the corrections system
63
Clarity of goals and costs
65
Present research efforts
65
IV.
THE MODEL COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
70
Recommendations For The Model Facility From
Administrators and Staff
70
Adequate funding
70
Effective programs
70
Unified efforts
70
Training for corrections
71
Law enforcement and corrections
71
Inmates inappropriate for jail
71
Observations by the Jail Task Force
71
Recommendations For The Model Facility From Inmates
72
Humane physical conditions
72
Selection at intake
72
Individual attention
72
Segregation
73
The opportunity to earn funds
73
Motivation
73
Community resource information
73
[v]
CHAPTER
PAGE
All programs voluntary
73
Individual responsibility
74
Training in use of leisure time
74
Academic and vocational training
74
Increased family contact
74
Release based on readiness
74
Mark debt "paid"
75
Summary
75
The Goal of the Community Correctional Facility
75
The protection of society through reduction of the
probability that an offender will commit another
crime
75
Principles of the Model Community Correctional Facility
76
The appropriateness of incarceration
76
Cocrdination
76
Safe and humane conditions
76
Responsibility for community corrections
76
Accountability
77
Range of services
77
Reintegration
78
Visibility and public involvement
78
V.
PREVAILING ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
80
The Dilemma of Jails: Change, Transfer, or Close?
80
Inadequate Information Systems
83
Recommendations 1 - 2
85
[vi]
CHAPTER
PAGE
The Isolation of Sub-Units in the Criminal Justice System
85
Recommendation 3
87
Minimum Standards For Local Detention Facilities
87
Revision of standards recommended
87
Interviews with county jail administrators
88
Recommendations 4 - 6
89
The Female in Custody
90
Recommendation 7
91
The Appropriate Allocation of Correctional Resources
91
Resources limited
91
Serious offenders pass through unidentified
92
The maximum of effect
92
Information is readily available
92
The institutional services unit
93
Functions
94
Staff
94
Recommendation 8
94
The Alcoholic in the Jail
95
The St. Louis Detoxification and Diagnostic Evaluation
Center
95
Support from law enforcement
96
Funds
96
Recommendation 9
96
Community involvement in Corrections
96
[vii]
CHAPTER
PAGE
The citizen volunteer
96
Recommendation 10
97
The Correctional Stigma as a Correctional Handicap
97
A Community Department of Corrections
98
Recommendation 11
98
Inter-County Placement
99
Recommendation 12
99
Hastening the Demise of the City Jail
99
Youth Correctional Centers
100
Recommendation 13
101
Recommendations Requiring Only Administrative Action
101
Administrator attitudes and quality of program
101
Recommendation 14
101
The cloak of secrecy
101
Recommendation 15
102
The correctional officer VS the deputy
102
Recommendation 16
102
Staff training
102
Recommendation 17
103
Diverting Inmates From The Jail
103
Recormendation 18
103
[viii]
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
I.
County and City Jail Population Reported on a Specified
Day of Year, 1960-1969
15
II.
Status of Jail and Camp Inmates
16
III.
Characteristics of County Jail Staff in the 15 Study Counties
27
IV.
Comparison of Deputy Sheriff and Correctional Officer
in the 15 Study Counties
29
V.
Job Satisfaction Among County Jail Staff in the 15 Study
Counties
31
VI.
Staff Evaluation of Jail Management in the 15 Study Counties
33
VII.
County Jail Staff Perceptions of the Community in the
15 Study Counties
37
VIII.
Characteristics of Sentenced Inmates in the 15 Study Counties
42
[ix]
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
The State of California should expand its major responsibility for
the accumulation, dissemination, and interpretation of data re-
flecting the movement of the offender through each sub-unit of the
criminal justice system and should provide follow-up data which
would describe the outcome of critical decisions made by each com-
ponent of the criminal justice system.
2.
The State should provide interpretative services and training for
the correctional decision-makers in the use of the data collected.
This effort should be directed at generating greater confidence in
the use of data on crime and developing the skills necessary to
apply data to decisions.
3.
Counties (or, if several counties wish to group themselves, regions)
shoula establish Criminal Justice Commissions composed of represen-
tatives from the sub-units of the criminal justice system in the
area, ,nembers of the community, and members of local governing bodies.
4.
The State should subsidize operational costs of local correctional
facilities as specified in the System Task Force Report. Basically,
this plan prescribes subsidization at the following ratios:
60/40--"open" institutions. The State would pay 60% of
actual costs of those facilities that provide for
regular access of inmates to the community, e.g.
work furlough units or Youth Correctional Centers.
40/60--"Closed" institutions which are community-based
(i.e. they are within or adjacent to community they
serve and provide a high degree of interaction with
the community) and short-term (i.e. no inmate can
be committed for more than 6 months).
25/75--Other "closed" institutions (this would apply to
most current jails).
Any subsidization by the State, however, depends on adherence to
State standards.
5.
The primary proposal of the Committee to Study Inspection of Local
Detention. Facilities should be immediately implemented by the Board
of Corrections.
6.
This Task Force joins with the 1969 Committee in recommending:
"That an appropriately constituted committee be established
to explore and recommend changes to the present "Minimum
Jail Standards", including specific attention to the following:
Summary of Recommendations
a. Training of line personnel.
b. Numbers of personnel.
C. Security of facilities.
d. Inclusion of all pertinent health and fire regulations.
e. Creation of more mandatory standards.
f. Provision for meaningful enforcement."
7.
Local communities should begin immediately to develop alternatives
to incasceration for females. Such alternatives should include
supervised group homes and special probation supervision programs.
In addition, local communities should begin immediately to expand
programs for incarcerated females. Among such programs which might
be considered are community centered education, work furlough, and
contractual agreements with other counties.
8.
Counties should establish Institutional Services Units either as a
joint responsibility of the Sheriff and Probation Officer or in a
manner prescribed by the local Criminal Justice Commission. The
responsibilities of these Units would be essentially to screen and
arrange for the release of inmates as soon as possible and to pro-
vide Oil coordinate efforts at rehabilitation and reintegration.
9.
The State should establish additional taxes on alcoholic beverages
which would be used solely for research into alcoholism and for the
establishment of detoxification centers where needed with treatment
services provided by the appropriate mental health or health depart-
ments.
10.
Staff and resources at the community level should be allocated to
the recruitment, training, and employment of community volunteers
in loca¹, correctional institution programs.
11.
Those counties expressing an interest in establishing a County De-
partment of Corrections should be encouraged to do SO through Law
Enforcement Assistance Act funds and consultation from the State.
12.
Counties should embark upon cooperative arrangements to provide for
the reciprocal transfer of inmates from counties of commitment to
counties of residence.
13.
Counties should immediately begin planning and establishing Youth
Correctional Centers or similar facilities and programs as an alter-
native to jails wherever appropriate.
14.
To maximi.se improvements in staff morale, effective programming, and
efficient operations, department heads should demonstrate a greater
[xi]
Summary of Recommendations
interest in and support for those staff who are involved in the
corrections functions.
15.
Sheriffs and correctional facility administrators should establish
a policy of public relations in which the public, through the appro-
priate news media, is allowed free access to facility programs,
problems, and incidents.
16.
A county electing to establish a "correctional officer" classifica-
tion to staff corrections facilities should ensure that such per-
sonnel are paid and trained at least on a level equal to that of
the "deputy sheriff" and that there are provisions for a career
ladder to supervisorial and administrative positions.
17.
Correctional administrators should make provisions for at least
supervisory and administrative corrections staff to visit other
correctional operations at both the State and county level for the
purpose of staff and program development.
18.
Counties should develop and expand programs aimed at minimizing
confincment in jails, such as O.R. (i.e. release of persons upon
their own. recognizance), use of citations, sentence modification,
county parole, and work furlough. They should also implement
non-criminal processing of alcoholics and other types of persons
who do not pose a serious threat to the community.
[xii]
=
most offenders have at some point encountered
the worst correctional evil: county jails and
similar local lockups
Jail conditions frequently
breed hardened criminals who then go on to the
prisons themselves, (another) anomaly in a pattern
that stands as a monument to irrationality."
Time Magazine
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The county jail has become a focal point of concern among those
interested in problems of criminal justice and corrections. Until recently,
no one knew how many jails existed in the United States. In January, 1971,
the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration published the results of the
first national jail census; there are at present 4,037 jails in the United
States. 1 The survey also found that 52% of all persons in jail had not
been convicted of any crime, and of this group, four out of five were eli-
gible for bail, but could not raise the funds. While the Jail Task Force
Report will deal only with the sentenced jail population, it nevertheless
recognizes the importance for jail management of having at least one-half
of the prisoners unsentenced and awaiting court proceedings. As will be
evident in the chapters to follow, jail resources are limited; the incar-
ceration of large numbers of unsentenced prisoners results in consuming
many of the resources which would otherwise be utilized by those persons
who have been convicted of a crime and sentenced to jail by the courts.
The jail has long been considered as a breeding place for crime, and
many have been outraged by the filth and squalor that exist in them. As
long ago as 1923, Joseph Fishman, a jail inspector for the Federal govern-
ment, described the jail as:
"An unbelievably filthy institution in which are
confined men and women serving sentences for mis-
demeanors and crimes, and men and women not under
sentence who are simply awaiting trial. With few
exceptions, having no segregation of the uncon-
victed from the convicted, the well from the
diseased, the youngest and most impressionable
from the most degraded and hardened. Usually
swarming with bedbugs, roaches, lice and other
vergin; has an odor of disinfectant and filth
which is appalling; supports in complete idle-
ness countless thousands of able bodied men and
women, and generally affords ample time and oppor-
tunity to assure inmates a complete course in
every kind of viciousness and crime. A melting-
pot in which the worst elements of raw material in
the criminal world are brought forth blended and
turned out in absolute perfection.
- 2 -
The conditions described by Fishman have not appreciably changed.
The jail in one of the Bay Area counties in California was constructed
in 1901 to house 50 inmates. In 1944, it was enlarged to house 125 persons.
However, in '968, the average daily population in this jail was 140 and on
some days it swelled to 180 persons. The time is spent in idleness, and
as many as 60 inmates spend each day in a room that measures 24 feet by 21
feet. There are only two showers and toilets in the room. The jail has
no exercise area. 3 Sanitation conditions in this jail are sub-standard;
in March, 1971, the superior court ordered the sheriff of this county to
raise the health standards to a minimal level by "provision of soap, tooth-
brushes and toothpaste for indigent inmates, the issuance of clean blankets
to prisoners at least once every 90 days and disinfectation of mattresses
before distribution. The court also ordered careful screening of incoming
inmates for open sores, skin fungus, venereal disease and athletes foot.
However, the section of the court's order which most clearly revealed con-
ditions in this jail was in reference to staff treatment of inmates. The
order required the sheriff to reinstruct his deputies that "assault or abuse,
physical or verbal, of inmates is not tolerated."
By way of background to the above situation, a bond issue calling
for the construction of a new jail was soundly defeated in 1967.6 In 1970,
the county sheriff submitted, in his annual budget, a request for approx-
imately 3.5 million dollars for jail and prison farm new facilities or
improvements. The county administrator, who reviews all county budgets,
recommended reduction of the requested 3.5 million to $17,675!7 In light
of the lack of financial support, the court order should not come as any
surprise.
It should not be assumed that the above situation is an isolated
instance in California. In another large county, a study of its jails
revealed equally squalid and sub-standard conditions. In their "Intro-
duction", the study staff expressed their surprise over the jail by noting:
II
our study of the jails revealed that they are
a much more important subject in considering the
total problem of crime than we had realized. We
saw how youthful offenders and alcoholics are
tossed in with the most degraded and corrupt, how
they are abused and contaminated, and how they are
likely to emerge not only un-rehabilitated, but
perhaps more incorrigible than before. We saw
how slight is the security that protects the com-
munity from criminals with a proven capacity for
maximum violence. "8
The report also noted that the physical condition of many inmates
was very poor, indeed to the point where some should have been hospitalized
but were not. One evening, a staff of the study team visited one of the
jails, and observed that:
- 3 -
01 one inmate was passing blood in his urine;
another prisoner's blood pressure was recorded
by a trustee-medic at 220 over 110 (160 over 90
is on the high side of normal for a middle aged
man). By telephone, the doctor told the jailor
he could not come over to see them and not to
hospitalize either of the prisoners; he would
see them the following day.
It is no wonder that jails and lockups are considered to be among
the State's worst correctional evils. Conditions, such as those described
above, can do nothing but increase the bitterness of those who are exposed
to them. The treatment that jail prisoners receive without any doubt influ-
ence their ideas of fairness and justice as well as their attitudes toward
the law. Thus, the importance of jails in the correctional process needs
hardly to be justified as a crucial area of study.
I. STUDY OBJECTIVES
The study objectives for the Jail Task Force were as follows:
1. To describe the county jail system in California as it presently
exists, from the point of sentencing to point of release.
2. To develop the most efficient, and reasonably attainable "model"
of a community correctional facility and program.
3. To prescribe and evaluate methods for transition from the present
system to the "model".
II. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Sources of Data
The basic plan and design of the study conducted by the Jail Task
Force was based on a review of the existing literature on jails and also on
contributions made by jail authorities who served as consultants to the Task
Force. Their ideas were built into the interview schedules and question-
naires that were used.
Two methods of data collection were utilized in obtaining staff views
and opinions. Administrative officials in each of the 15 counties that were
selected for the study were interviewed. Staff members who were directly
involved in the delivery of services to sentenced prisoners completed an
anonymous questionnaire that had been prepared specifically for them. Initial
plans of the Task Force also included conducting panel interviews with cross
sections of these staff. Unfortunately this proved impossible, and as a
result, staff interviews were conducted as opportunities arose.
- 4 -
Questionnaires were also designed and administered to obtain the
views and perceptions of inmates serving time in the facilities falling
within the scope of the study. In addition, group interviews were con-
ducted with inmates in order to obtain their views of what a model correc-
tional system should look like.
Study Sample and Procedure
The prisoners incarcerated in facilities of the 15 study counties
comprise approximately 75% of the State's entire jail population, and 80%
of the State's entire jail and camp staff. 10 In securing the data from
each county, respondents were assured that every possible precaution would
be taken to protect the confidentiality of the information supplied. There-
fore, names of counties are not identified.
Because of its massive population, Los Angeles County was sub-sampled
so that at leust 25% of its staff and 25% of its inmates would be included
in the study population.
One hundred percent of the sheriffs and administrators of the 15
counties were interviewed. In addition, the same questions were asked by
mailed questionnaires of all sheriffs in the remaining 43 counties and
eight chiefs of police operating major city jails in the State. In addition
to the 15 sheriffs in the study counties, 17 other sheriffs and 6 chiefs of
police returned completed questionnaires. Of the staff questionnaires dis-
tributed, approximately 60% were completed and returned.
In order to obtain a representative number of inmates, the following
sampling criteria was applied to rosters maintained by alphabet or bed
location:
Available Population
Sample
1 - 50
100%
51 - 250
50%
251 - 999
25%
1000 or more
10%
Stratified sampling was used wherever appropriate, so that, if for example
a county had 50% of its population in maximum security, then 50% of the
sample came from. maximum security. After the completion of each question-
naire, a sub-samule of the inmates was interviewed in a group using a
minimally structured interview technique.
The Jail Task Force made 31 on-site visits to facilities in the 15
counties, ranging from traditional maximum and minimum security facilities
to specialized units housing only work furlough program participants. The
Task Force staff did not seek to make formal evaluations as those made in
the Adams-Burdman jail study¹¹. Rather, data were gathered on both positive
and negative aspects of construction and program design. For a more detailed
- 5 -
discussion of the methodology, the reader is referred to the Systems Task
Force Report.
III. ORGANIZATION OF JAIL TASK FORCE REPORT
The material in this section of the institutions volume will be
organized and presented as follows:
Chapter II includes a discussion of the history of jails and a
description of the present county jail system in California. Special
emphasis is placed on the functions, goals and philosophy of the county
jail system.
Chapter III presents data that were collected through interviews
and questionnaires. Both staff and inmate views of jails are included in
the discussion. The highlights of available programs are described, and
the chapter concludes by pointing to the notable lack of research in county
correctional facilities.
Chapter IV presents the elements of a model correctional community,
both facilities and programs. The discussion is based on the model elements
that were recommended by jail administrators, staff, and inmates in the
counties studied.
Chapter V, the concluding chapter in this Report, sets forth a set
of specific recommendations and the justification for each.
- 6 -
FOOTNOTES
¹Cited in Time Magazine, January 18, 1971, p. 48.
²Joseph Fulling Fishman, Crucibles of Crime, (New York: Cosmopolis
Press, 1923), pp. 13-14, cited in Harry Elmer Barnes and Negley K. Teeters,
New Horizons in Criminology, (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1951), p. 459.
³San Francisco Examiner, March 31, 1969.
40akland Tribune, March 18, 1971.
⁵Ibid.
⁶Sₐₙ Francisco Examiner, op. cit.
⁷Richmond Independent, June 29, 1970.
⁸San Francisco Committee on Crime, A Report on the San Francisco
County Jails and City Prison, (San Francisco, 1970) P. 1.
9 Ibid.
OVentura County was substituted for Sacramento County in the jail
study because local problems precluded adequate study of the latter county
facility within the time available.
CHAPTER II
AN OVERVIEW OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY JAILS
A requisite to understanding the function, goals, and philosophy of
the county jails as they exist today in the criminal justice system is a
knowledge of their history, the codes which define their purposes, and the
philosophy held by the persons who staff and operate them. This chapter
will briefly trace the historical function of the jail, explore the statutes
bearing on the jails' function, and summarize characteristics of the system
of jails in the State.
I. A BRIEF HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE JAIL¹
In recorded history, the first jail (from Gaol, literally meaning
cage) was established in 1166 for the purpose of assuring that offenders
would be present for adjudication and punishment. At that time, a person
was punished by a variety of methods ranging from dunking or public ridicule
in the stocl: to partial incapacitation and death. The jail was not intended
as a place for punishment.
In the mid 18th century in Western Europe, the spirit of humanitarian-
ism led to the replacement of corporal punishment with imprisonment. Impris-
onment retained society's idea of the efficacy of punitive sanctions to
law breaking and greatly simplified the degree to which a person could be
punished for a specific act, by simply varying the length of imprisonment
to fit the crime. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, jails had two
clear functions: to assure the presence of the offender in court and to
provide a means for punishing the offender.
As populations grew and the numbers of offenders requiring punishment
also grew, the state established prisons or penitentiaries, thereby greatly
limiting the punishment function of the local jail to the minor offender
who required shorter periods of incarceration. Many of the early peniten-
tiaries were constructed on the basis of rudimentary ideas for reforming
offenders and, although these ideas have undergone drastic change, refor-
mation or rehabilitation continues to be a more salient goal for state
prisons than for county jails. In comparison to local communities, the
states, with their penitentiaries, were far richer in terms of money and
the resources upon which they could draw. Activities designed to reform
gathered greater momentum in state institutions and rehabilitation gained
greater importance. Jails were not expected to reform. If a community
identified an offender who was in need of "rehabilitation", he was committed
to one of the state facilities which ostensibly had the resources, the struc-
ture, and the expertise necessary to perform the necessary transformations.
It is within the last generation that rehabilitation programs have
been superimposed upon the initial goals of the jail, viz. assuring a
person's presence for court and punishment. Although jails have always
had work programs - even the first jail had to be mopped, meals cooked, and
- 8 - -
the facility kept in good repair it is only recently that they have been
referred to as "rehabilitation programs". The forces behind this trend
were gradual recognition that jail punishment was an ineffective means of
preventing recidivism, and the development of humanitarianism. Even today,
the rehabilitation programs found in jails are not as extensive as those
found in prisons. Most, if not all, of the early jail rehabilitation pro-
grams were provided by the community's volunteer efforts rather than by
the efforts of the jail administrator. In large measure, rehabilitative
functions in today's jails continue to be performed by community volunteers.
It is only in the large counties that the necessary finances are provided
to underwrite these programs.
The function of the county jail is presently in a period of transition
from the relatively simple task of "keeping" people to the more complex and
difficult task of "changing" people. The "jail" philosophy is also under-
going a period of transition.
A stated goal and philosophy provide a framework for action and
create a common direction. By law the sheriff is mandated to operate a
jail facility and receive prisoners. Section 4015 of the Penal Code states:
"The sheriff must receive all persons committed
to jail by competent authority. The board of
supervisors shall provide the sheriff with neces-
sary food, clothing and bedding, for such prisoners,
which shall be of a quality and quantity at least
equal to the minimum standards and requirements
prescribed by the Board of Corrections for the
feeding, clothing, and care of prisoners in all
county, city, and other local jails and detention
facilities."
There are other laws directing the sheriff to maintain humane conditions
in the jail and to assure prisoner safety. In addition, there are per-
missive statutes which give the counties the latitude to operate correc-
tional type programs of their choosing, such as work and educational fur-
lough (1208 P.C.) and vocational and academic instruction (4018.5 P.C.).
In short, the sheriff is not required to do any more than house inmates.
But, in the event that he has the support of the board of supervisors, he
may provide correctional programs. In fact, without that support there
is very little that he can do beyond "warehousing" the persons serving jail
sentences.
It may be assumed that some "good" is provided for the community by
housing inmates in the county jail or that some "good" is provided the
inmates by permitting them to work or to attend school. However, while
these functions are required or permitted in the law, nowhere does the law
clearly delineate correctional objectives for jails.
- 9 -
II. THE FUNCTIONS OF JAILS
For simplicity, the county jail is best thought of as being two
facilities: (i) a detention unit which houses prisoners who are somewhere
in the process of adjudication from arrest to the finding of guilt or
innocence and (2) a correctional facility which houses only those who have
been found guilty and sentenced to a term in jail.
When viewed from a framework of operational efficiency, county jails
process hundreds of thousands of persons each year with relative speed and
efficiency. Considering the massive number of offenders processed, rela-
tively few serious problems have arisen. In essence, the sheer "warehousing"
and processing of bodies is being accomplished with a comparatively high
level of efficiency. But beyond this, one might ask the purpose of such a
system. County jails originally were used for detention of persons charged
with crimes and awaiting sentence. They have evolved to their present range
of functions rather recently.
As A Temporary Holding Facility
A few persons view the county jail as a temporary holding facility --
somewhat as a compromise between release from custody and lengthy confine-
ment in a prison. In this instance, the expectation is not for the jail
to provide a correctional service. Examples of those who view jails in
this way might be judges who sentence offenders to very brief terms and
probation officers or parole agents who place their clients in custody for
brief stays "to get their attention".
As A Criminal Sanction
Most people seem to see the jail as the first level of a series of
sanctions which utilize incarceration as a controlling device. The jail
is viewed as a junior prison with less security, less harsh conditions, and
a shorter time of banishment from the community. When viewed in this con-
text, incarceration is expected to punish and to deter future criminal
behavior.
As A Behavior Modifier
During this century there has been a trend to change an offender's
behavior by methods other than punishment. These methods are generally
referred to as reformation, rehabilitation, or treatment. "Reformation"
carries the connotation of an evil disposition; "rehabilitation" implies
that the individual should be brought back to, or up to, a satisfactory
level; i.e., that his incapacity is due to a previous disadvantaged position;
and "treatment" alludes to a service supplied because of an illness. The
use of one of the three terms depends primarily on the correctional agent's
- 10 -
frame of reference, i.e., how he evaluates inmates and the process of
changing their illegal behavior.
III. THE SYSTEM OF JAILS IN CALIFORNIA
Administrative Organization
There are basically two types of administrative organization for
county jail and detention facilities in California. In the first type,
correctional facilities such as jails and camps fall directly under the
supervision and control of the sheriff. This is by far the most common
pattern, and exists in 52 counties throughout the State. In the second
pattern, which is found in the remaining 6 counties, minimum security
facilities for sentenced prisoners are administered by agencies other
than the sheriff's office. However, in all 58 counties, maximum security
facilities Tall under the direct authority of the sheriff's office. While
there are historical reasons as to why the sheriff administers the county
jails and camps, in recent years there has been growing concern over the
wisdom of placing correctional services under the direct authority of an
agency whose aim is law enforcement.
In 1969, there were 203 city-operated jails, and 2 city-operated
camps in the State. 2 In addition, the counties of the State operated a
total of 58 main county jails, 46 adult county camps and farms, and 62
other facilities including branch jails, work furlough facilities, medical
detention wards, and substation jails. All of these facilities are oper-
ated by city and county law enforcement officials. Because of the tremen-
dous variation that exists in the number and type of facility, the number
of employees, and the number of persons incarcerated in them, in reality
these correctiona' facilities cannot be said to comprise a "system".
Characteristics of Jails
County jails show tremendous variation in size, structure, number
and quality of staff, average daily population, and quality of management.
Until 1966, there was little in the way of reliable information on the
number of jails and employees throughout the nation. During that year, the
President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice
conducted a survey of local jails and lockups detaining persons for more
than 30 days. 4 Based on a probability sample of 250 counties, it was esti-
mated that there were 3,473 city and county jails, camps, workhouses, etc.,
in the United States. Of the 19,000 employees estimated to be working in
these facilities, only 500 (about 3%) performed rehabilitation duties.
Only 24% of the structures surveyed were 10 years old or less, while 35%
of them were fourd to be over 50 years old.
The characteristics of jails in the State of California are not
significantly different from those found in the national survey. For
- 11 -
example, in 3 recent survey of local detention facilities throughout the
State, it was determined that 31% of the jails surveyed were more than 20
years old. 5 A number of the structures were over 50 years old, and one
county jail was actually built in 1901. 6
The number of facilities to be found in individual counties also
varies greatly. In some counties there is only one detention facility--
the jail. In other counties, there are as many as 28 different facilities.
The former facilities process only 1 or 2 inmates a day, while the latter
process as many as 3,000 a day. 7 However, because the distribution of
jails is according to county boundaries rather than the distribution of
population, many jails are extremely overcrowded while others remain almost
totally unused. Jails that are located in sparsely populated counties of
the State are very expensive to operate on a 24 hour-per-day basis. In the
study cited above, fully 58% of the detention facilities surveyed were
located in areas with populations less than 100,000 persons, while 25% were
located in areas with 500,000 or more persons. 8
As a result of 1957 enabling legislation (Sec. 4115.5 P.C.), 21 of
the State's 58 counties have established formal inter-county agreements
whereby facilities and services are shared. Eight of the counties act in
a receiving capacity, holding prisoners from 13 other counties whose deten-
tion and correctional facilities are limited. 9 In light of limited services
and facilities, especially in the sparsely populated counties, coupled with
shrinking lccal financial resources, inter-county cooperation is a trend
that should be encouraged.
However, the above development should not obscure the fact that there
is a tremendous variation in local detention facilities throughout the State.
The number and quality of staff, the number and type of facility, and the
maintenance of minimal health and safety standards vary greatly from county
to county and from jail to jail. A recent study of California jails has
concluded that:
"The county-by-county pattern of organization allows
tremendous variation in management. It was found
that even everyday operations such as menu planning,
maintenance procedures, booking, and similar matters
differed from county to county, with those less-well-
off counties often encountering difficulties in
meeting normal operational demands. The independence
of counties, however, tends to isolate one county
from another and limits significantly inter-county
communications. Thus, aside from contiguous juris-
dictions occasionally trading an idea or two, there is
little exchange of essential information. 10"
- 12 -
Inspection of Jails
Officials charged with the administration of local detention facil-
ities are required by law to maintain minimal standards of health and safety
in their jails. The task of determining whether minimal standards are main-
tained has been assigned to a wide variety of agencies and officials on the
Federal, State, and local levels. For example, the Federal Bureau of Prisons,
while not expressly authorized by statute to inspect local detention facil-
ities, possesses the "implied authority" to inspect detention facilities
that have engaged in contractual agreements with the Bureau. 11 On the State
level, the Attorney General, Board of Corrections, Department of Public
Health, Fire Marshall, Youth Authority, State Division of Industrial Safety,
and other agencies have statutory authority to inspect jails. On the county
level, the Grand Jury, County Health Officer, County Building Inspector,
County Director of Public Works, and others have statutory authority to
inspect jails. Finally, on the municipal level, the City Health Officer,
Building Inspector, and Safety Committee have the authority to inspect jails.
Some of the above agencies and departments are required to inspect
jails in order to determine whether minimal health and safety standards are
being maintained. Others are authorized to inspect jails if they wish to
do SO. A recent study of the inspection of local detention facilities found
that mandatory inspections were generally made, while permissive inspections
were generally not made. 12 However, the study also found that required in-
spections were not always made by the agencies charged with the responsibility. 13
A review of the statutory provisions authorizing the inspection of
jails, lockups, and workhouses revealed that virtually none of the author-
ized agencies or officials possessed enforcement powers. Thus while in-
spection of jails is required by law, there are no provisions for bringing
about needed changes that might be discovered in the course of an inspec-
tion. 14 To illustrate the impotence of jail inspection laws of California,
one city jail in Central California has been receiving highly critical in-
spection reports since 1949. Yet this city has refused to make any of the
needed changes, and has housed thousands of prisoners for the past twenty
years. Detention facilities of several counties in the State have been the
object of special study by both the State and private groups, and yet no
observable change has been made. 15
It is paradoxical that city or county health, safety, or fire officials
possess the power to enforce minimal standards in almost all areas with the
exception of jails and other local detention facilities. The Committee to
Study Inspection of Local Detention Facilities has aptly observed that:
"Citizens are generally free to enter and leave
facilities such as restaurants and hospitals as
they choose, and their health and safety are constantly
protected by various enforceable statutes. Yet if
these same citizens are incarcerated in a local
detention facility and their freedoms of choice and
movement taken away, their protection under these
- 13 -
same laws is also substantially reduced. This
inconsistency seems ethically incompatible with
society's responsibilities to guard the health,
safety, and welfare of all its citizens. 16"
(Emphasis added.)
Jail Staff
In the fiscal year 1968-69, the 58 sheriff's departments employed
9,959 sworn personnel. 17 Of this number, 2,460 or 25%, were assigned to
jails and camps. Thus, one out of every four deputy sheriffs in the State
serve in detention and correctional facilities, and are likely to serve in
a strict custodial capacity. During the same fiscal year, there was a total
of 3,478 non-sworn personnel employed by the 58 sheriff's departments. Of
this number 1,422, or 41%, were employed in county jails and camps. The
break-down of civilian personnel included 860 (25%) clerks, maintenance
personnel, and cooks; 291 (8%) were non-sworn custodial officers; 223 (6%)
were medical personnel; and 48 (1%) were rehabilitative personnel such as
teachers, counselors, and social workers. In addition, there were 124 part-
time/on-call medical personnel, and 43 part-time/on-call rehabilitative
personnel. 18
Of the 223 full-time medical personnel, 179 (79%) were employed by
the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. Of the remaining 44 medical
staff, 35 were found to be employed by the next seven largest counties in
the State. Thus, in effect the remaining 50 counties had only 9 full-time
medical personnel employed in its jails. It was found that of the full-
time medical personnel outside of Los Angeles County, 12 were physicians,
31 were nurses and/or medical attendants, and one was a dentist. Of the
124 medical persons employed part-time or on a will-call basis, 50 were
physicians, 24 were nurses, and 50 were dentists. All were employed out-
side of Los Angeles County. 19 Additional information on staff character-
istics, obtained through the Jail Task Force survey, will be presented in
Chapter III.
Jail Population
The county jail population consists of many different categories of
persons. Some are detained in jail as a result of police arrest and custody.
These persons have not been convicted of any crime, but are awaiting court
proceedings. As seen below, this group has been steadily increasing in
recent years, so that in 1969 the unsentenced prisoners constituted 48% of
California's jail population. 20 Others have been convicted and are serving
a jail sentence, usually no longer than a year. The jail population con-
sists of adults as well as juveniles, males as well as females. The crimes
for which they have been incarcerated are extremely varied, ranging from
minor offenses such as intoxication in a public place and disturbing the
peace, to serious crimes of violence such as assault, robbery, and rape. In
short, persons incarcerated in county jails may have been convicted of
- 14 -
felonies or misdemeanors, and consequently could have been sentenced by
either a superior, municipal or justice court.
In some cases, once the jail sentence has been served, the individual
has paid his "debt" to society and is no longer under the jurisdiction of
the court. Commonly, however, jail is used as a condition of probation.
That is, the convicted person is required to serve a brief term in jail
before being released under the supervision of a probation officer, or on
summary (court) probation. In still other cases jail is used in lieu of a
fine, especially in those cases where the convicted person has been unable
to pay the amount of the fine that has been set by the court. Finally, jail
terms may be imposed in addition to a fine.
The Bureau of Criminal Statistics conducts a census of the population
in city and county jails on a given day each year. Table I shows the jail
population figures from 1960 through 1969. Several points are worth noting
about these data. First, the population in city and county jails throughout
the State has increased steadily since 1960. On September 29th of that year,
there were 24,035 unsentenced and sentenced persons in jail. This number
had increased to 27,918 on September 25, 1969, representing the largest jail
population in the United States. 21 Based on current arrest rates, jail ad-
ministrators project that approximately 1,000,000 persons will be processed
through California's jails in 1971. A second point worth noting is that the
observed increase in the jail population is due entirely to the increase in
the number of persons who have not been sentenced, i.e., who have not been
convicted of a crime. In 1960 there were 6,572 unsentenced persons in city
and county ja:ls, and in 1969 this number had almost doubled to 12,929. At
the same time, the number of sentenced persons has exhibited a steady decline.
Third, the declining sentenced jail population is due almost entirely to the
dramatic decreases that have taken place in the number of sentenced persons
serving time in the city jails. In 1960 there were 3,767 persons serving
their sentences in city jails. By 1969 this number had declined to 518. At
the same time, the number of sentenced persons in county jails has remained
fairly constant throughout the years.
Table Il divides the data collected in 1969 according to type of cus-
tody and sex. It can be seen that, of the 12,929 sentenced prisoners, the
great majority are adult males. Juveniles, while represented, constitute
a very small portion of the jail population. Females constitute approximately
10% of the adult sentenced jail population, with most of them serving their
time in county jails. Additional information on jail inmate characteristics,
gathered through the Task Force survey, will be presented in Chapter III.
IV. COSTS AND EFFECTIVENESS
The costs of operating and maintaining jails have been difficult to
ascertain. However, a recent survey of California jails obtained budget
figures which made possible the computation of per capita inmate costs. 22
This study indicated that, even without significant expenditures for re-
TABLE I
COUNTY AND CITY JAIL POPULATION REPORTED ON A SPECIFIED DAY OF YEAR, 1960-69
By Unsentenced and Sentenced Defendants
Percent of
All Jails
total
County jails
City jails
sentenced
Year and
Unsen-
Sen-
Unsen-
Sen-
Unsen-
Sen-
to city
day of survey
Total
tenced
tenced
Total
tenced
tenced
Total
tenced
tenced
jails
1960 Sept. 29
...
24,035
6,572
17,463
18,829
5,133
13,696
5,206
1,439
3,767
21.6
1961 Sept. 28
25,170
7,535
17,633
20,284
5,968
14,316
4,886
1,569
3,317
18.8
1962 Sept. 27
. .
24,215
6,747
17,468
20,705
5,413
15,292
3,510
1,334
2,037
11.7
1963 Sept. 26
24,446
8,221
16,225
21,286
6,734
14,552
3,160
1,487
1,673
10.3
1964 Sept. 24
..
23,586
6,484
17,102
20,896
5,639
15,527
2,690
1,115
1,575
9.2
1965 Sept. 23
25,996
9,099
16,897
24,091
7,890
16,201
1,905
1,209
696
4.1
1966 Sept. 22
23,638
8,504
15,134
21,794
7,460
14,334
1,844
1,044
800
5.3
1967 Sept. 21
24,165
9,659
14,506
21,785
7,875
13,910
2,380
1,784
596
4.1
1968 Sept. 26
27,325
11,438
15,887
24,974
9,617
15,357
2,351
1,821
530
3.3
1969 Sept. 25 ..
27,918
12,929
14,989
25,471
11,000
14,471
2,447
1,929
518
3.5
Source: Bureau of Criminal Statistics, Crime and Delinquency in California: 1969, State of
California (Sacramento, 1970), p. 41.
15 I I
- 16 -
TABLE II
STATUS OF JAIL AND CAMP INMATES
September 25, 1969
By Type of Custody and Sex
Adult
Juvenile
Type of Custody
Total
Male
Female
Male
Female
Total
27,918
25,830
1,839
203
46
Sentenced
14,989
14,274
684
29
2
Unsentenced
12,929
11,556
1,155
174
44
County jails
18,148
16,347
1,674
111
16
Sentenced
7,148
6,447
678
23
-
Unsentenced
11,000
9,900
996
88
16
County camps
7,323
7,323
-
-
-
Sentenced
7,323
7,323
-
-
-
Unsentenced
-
-
-
-
-
City jails
2,368
2,081
165
92
30
Sentenced
439
425
6
6
2
Unsentenced
1,929
1,656
159
86
28
City camps
79
79
-
-
-
Sentenced.
79
79
-
-
-
Unsentenced.
-
-
-
-
-
Source: Bureau of Criminal Statistics, Crime and Delinquency in
California: 1969, State of California (Sacramento, 1970),
p. 137.
- 17 -
habilitation, the daily cost is very high. Based on fiscal 1968-69 data,
the study found that for county jails the average cost per inmate per day
for the State was $6.44 ($4.64 for salaries and $1.80 for operations). For
county camps and farms, the cost was $6.87 ($4.11 for salaries and $2.76
for operations).
From a cost/benefit analysis framework, it may be unnecessarily costly
to pay approximately $6.50 a day per inmate in order to keep certain indiv-
iduals isolated without effecting lasting behavioral modification. For
example, it is not uncommon for a young, male, first-offender to receive a
sentence of six months in the county jail as a condition of probation for a
second degree burglary charge. Assuming that this person earned the full
amount of good time and work time credits, he would serve approximately one
hundred and thirty days at a cost to the county of $835.
For $835 the community buys the following "services" with varying
levels of benefits:
Dispositional Response To
Burglary
Level of Benefits
1. Isclation from community
High level of certainty.
2. Vengeance
Subjective dependent upon
the victim's evaluation.
3. Deterrence (prevention of future
Undetermined - highly
criminality by offender)
questionable.
4. Deterrence (prevention of others
Undetermined - may have some
from committing similar acts)
effect.
5. Correction
Undetermined.
With the exception of isolation, all other benefits remain highly
questionable or weigh on the negative side. Some of the side effects seem
to outweigh pussible benefits. There is evidence that lengthy sentences
may fail to deter. 23 Isolation may interfere with the offender's integra-
tion in the community to the extent that he may feel compelled to attack the
community symbolically, Incarceration may hasten an offender's identity with
a criminal subculture. 24
Inmates feel there is some level of retribution in serving time - they
say they are "paying for the crime committed". It seems doubtful that others
share this concept, in view of the stigma that the ex-offender carries after
he is released. There are no clear rites de passage back to first class
citizenship no formalized process to indicate that the "debt" has been
satisfied.
Simple incarceration provides no opportunity for restitution. If re-
stitution is to he made, it must be accomplished following release. Another
probable side effect of incarceration is that of the offender's losing his
job, if he was employed when arrested. As a result, restitution may be slow,
difficult or even impossible.
- 18 -
Projections, based on the present level of operation and criminal
statistics, indicate a need for immediate capital outlays running into tens
of millions of dollars for new or modified facilities. At the time of this
writing, one large county has committed itself to the construction of a
2,200 bed maximum security jail which will cost over $25 million. Another
county is considering the construction of a similar facility for $24 million.
25
It is apparent that the return for the correctional expense is less than
satisfactory. If this trend is to be halted, or even slowed, a radical re-
structuring of correctional services must be achieved.
Clearly, the county jail is not an isolate, either within the criminal
justice system or within the community. There has been an increasing trend
toward shifting the responsibility of providing correctional services to the
local level. The jail is perhaps the most important local correctional
facility. It processes the greatest number of offenders and therefore can
play a central role. Yet in large part the jail's role in reintegrating
offenders back into the community has remained undeveloped. This has been
due to the short-sightedness and neglect of county boards of supervisors as
well as members of local communities. Until these persons are willing to
develop its central role in community corrections, the jail will continue
to stand as one of man's greatest monuments to irrationality.
- 19 -
FOOTNOTES
1 This section is based on a discussion of the history of jails by
Paul W. Tappan, Crime, Justice, and Correction, (New York: McGraw Hill
Book Company, 1960), pp. 585-589.
2 Board of Corrections, A Study of California County Jails, State
of California (Sacramento, April, 1970), P. 11.
3 Ibid., p. 11.
⁴President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Justice, Task Force Report: Corrections, (Washington: U. S. Government
Printing Office, 1967), pp. 162-168.
5 Board of Corrections, Report of the Committee to Study Inspection
of Local Detention Facilities, State of California (Sacramento, February,
1969), p. 10.
⁶lbid., p. 10.
7 Board of Corrections files, State of California (Los Angeles County
Central Jail).
⁸Board of Corrections, Report of the Committee to Study Inspection
of Local Detention Facilities, op. cit., p. 10.
9 Board of Corrections, A Study of California County Jails, op. cit.,
pp. 29-31.
10 Ibid.. pp. 26-27.
11 Board of Corrections, Report of the Committee to Study Inspection
of Local Detention Facilities, op. cit., p. 13.
12 Ibid., p. 73.
¹³Ibid.
14 Ibid., pp. 73-77.
15Ibid., p. 76.
¹⁶Ibid.
17 Board of Corrections, A Study of California County Jails, op. cit.,
pp. 102-112.
18 Ibid., pp. 102-105.
- 20 -
19 Ibid., pp. 79-80.
20 Bureau of Criminal Statistics, Crime and Delinquency in California
1969, State of California (Sacramento, 1970), p. 10.
21 Corrections Digest, February 24, 1971, p. 2.
22 Board of Corrections, A Study of California County Jails, op. cit.,
P. 20.
23 California Assembly, Committee on Criminal Procedure, Crime and
Penalties In California, prepared by Robin Lamson, State of California
(Sacramento, 1968), summary.
24 Edwin M. Lemert, Human Deviance, Social Problems and Social Control,
(New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1967), pp. 40-64.
25 Board of Corrections files, State of California; Los Angeles and
Alameda Counties are in the process of constructing new county jails at a
total cost of $49,000,000.
CHAPTER III
THE PRESENT JAIL SYSTEM: SURVEY FINDINGS
The nature and quality of the services provided by the county jail
depend on the degree of support the jail receives by the county's board of
supervisors and the community that it serves. The effectiveness of jail
is also dependent on the staff, inmates, and physical structures. This
chapter presents data obtained from the Jail Task Force survey that bear
on these considerations. The data were obtained by interviews with the
jail administrators in each of the 15 study counties, and by questionnaires
that were completed by staff and inmates in these same counties. A variety
of topics were covered by the survey and are discussed in this chapter.
The chapter begins with a discussion of staff and inmate views regarding
the goals of jails, followed by sections presenting additional data on staff
and inmate characteristics. This is followed by a discussion of programs
aimed at minimizing confinement in jails. The next section deals with pro-
gram highlights, and is followed by a discussion of the need for financial
support of jails. The chapter concludes with a discussion of program eval-
uation.
I. PERCEPTIONS AND EVALUATIONS OF GOALS
The major goal of county jails is the protection of society by re-
ducing the probability that an offender will commit another crime. In fact,
this is the major goal for all corrections. Secondary goals include rehabil-
itation and reintegration, while tertiary goals are deterrence and incapac-
itation.
Staff Views
Staff members employed in county jails in the 15 study counties were
asked two questions: (1) "What is the main purpose of your jail for senten-
ced prisoners?" and (2) "What is the most important purpose of jail, as you
see it?" After tabulating the questionnaire responses to these items, it
was found that there was tremendous variation from county to county in the
perceptions and evaluations of goals. For example, in some counties vir-
tually none of the staff members felt that the actual main purpose of their
respective jails was to protect the community. In other counties, larger
percentages of staff felt that the actual main goal of their respective jails
was to protect the community. However, in no case did the proportion reach
even one-half. in counties where there was a sufficiently large number of
respondents to permit the computation of meaningful percentages, the figures
varied from 15% to 47%. Even a greater lack of agreement existed with respect
to the secondary goal (if rehabilitation. When the respondents were asked what
they personally saw as the second most important goal of jails, the figures
for counties selecting rehabilitation ranged from less than 10% to only 25%.
For the tertiary goals of deterrence and incapacitation there was again a
lack of agreement. In some counties, only about 5% of the staff personally
- 22 -
felt that the third most important goal was incapacitation or deterrence
while in other counties the figure rose to about 18%.
The type of facility in which the staff member was employed (maximum
security VS. minimum security) made little difference. Only 22% of those
employed in maximum security facilities and 21% of those employed in minimum
security facilities felt that the actual main goal of their respective jails
was the protection of the community. These percentages did not increase
significantly when staff were asked what they personally saw the goal to be.
Thirty percent of the maximum security staff and 24% of the minimum security
staff members personally defined the goal of their respective jails to be
the protection of the community. Lack of agreement also existed with respect
to the secondary goal of rehabilitation.
When the formal position of the line staff member was taken into
account, the variations in definition and evaluation of goals continued to
exist. Eighteen percent of the rectional officers and 24% of the deputy
sheriffs felt that the major goal was actually the protection of the commun-
ity. When these two groups were asked what was the major goal as they saw
it, 22% of the correctional officers and 30% of the deputies defined the
most appropriate goal to be the protection of the community. It is evident
that neither the correctional officers nor the deputies agree that the major
goal of the jail is actually to protect the community.
Perhaps the most significant finding of all was the administrators'
definitions and evaluations of goals for their respective jails. In answer
to the question, "In your opinion, what should be the purpose of the county
jail for sentenced prisoners?", the sheriffs' answers were as follows:
To protect society
3
To house prisoners
3
To punish
6
To deter
2
To rehabilitate
16
And to the question, "What is the purpose of the county jail for sentenced
prisoners (assuming that it differs from the preceding question)?" they
answered:
To protect society
3
To house prisoners
5
To punish
12
To deter
4
To rehabilitate
5
A dumping ground for
society's misfits
1
Even the top administrators in the 15 study counties who were inter-
viewed did not view either the actual goal or the ideal goal to be the pro-
tection of the community. The administrators tend to think in terms of either
punishment or treatment. Twelve of them saw the actual goal to be punishment,
while on the other hand 16 of them asserted that rehabilitation is the ideal
goal. There appears to be little doubt that widespread confusion exists with
respect to correctional goals. Some of this confusion is reflected in the
remarks made by several of the administrators:
- 23 -
"Tne county jail should be a place where we can in-
carcerate and satisfy the public for the crime com-
mitted, keep the man working and his family off
welfare, teach him the folly of his ways so he
doesn't become a repeater, teach him a trade if he
doesn't have one, get some work out of him for the
county where possible."
"The screening and placement of sentenced prisoners in
an acceptable development program which should include
prisoners with short sentences, to develop confidence
and purpose in the inmate for the return to the com-
munity. It should also provide a security area for
those inmates not amenable to rehabilitative programs."
"To carry out the mandate of the laws and the courts by
maintaining lawful custody of the sentenced offender,
and, hopefully, bring about a degree of rehabilitation
and sense of responsibility in the individual inmate."
In respect to the secondary goal of rehabilitation, there is consid-
erable doubt that the county jail can be effective. Thirty-seven sheriffs
and chiefs of police responded to the following question:
"Are you satisfied that jails and correctional facil-
ities are meeting their responsibility with regard
to what is commonly referred to as 'rehabilitation'?
If not, how can this responsibility be met? If so,
what seems to be the most effective in bringing about
'rehabilitation'?"
Twenty-nine responded that jails and correctional facilities were not
meeting rehabilitation goals. However, only 9 offered specific suggestions
on how rehabilitation could be accomplished. Eight suggested establishing
better educational and vocational training programs and one suggested com-
mitting those in need of "rehabilitation" to State prison. Of the 29 respon-
ding negatively, a number stated that the jail was not a place for rehabili-
tation:
"County jails are unique in the corrections system in
that they operate only as a way stop in the criminal
justice system. The primary effort should be temporary
and to direct the released inmate to proper facilities
in the community."
"There does not appear to be any agreement or factual
information as to the best way of accomplishing re-
habilitation."
Six responded that jails do rehabilitate and 1 of these 6 respondents
pointed out that purishment, which the jails do well, is rehabilitation if it
- 24 - -
prevents an offender from returning to another crime.
In short, it may be concluded that, while correctional authorities
throughout the country suggest that the major goal of corrections, including
the county jail, is to protect the community by reducing the likelihood of
recidivism, staff members employed in the various local jails, especially
the administrators, did not share their view. In fact, several of the admin-
istrators indicated during the course of the interviews that the county jail
is ill-equipped to provide correctional services. Some of their beliefs in
this regard were as follows:
"The county jail is not set up to handle any more
than the minor offender. The others should be sent
to the state prison where they're set up to handle
vocational training and that sort of thing."
"Jails are taking more problems than are appropriately
theirs. They are catch-alls. The original purpose
was to hold people for trial, then they became a
punishment arm of the court but they've lost their pur-
pose today."
"How can you rehabilitate a man in 22 days? Five years
ago the average time served was 61 days; now it's down
to 22 days in this county. It's due to the leniency of
the court."
Client Views
While the inmates were not asked specific questions regarding the
goals of the county jail, they were asked, "In your own terms, what does
rehabilitation mean to you?" Many of the answers reflected the view that
rehabilitation, while desirable, did not or could not take place in the
county jail. Some of the responses to the question are listed below:
"To assist a person in helping themselves and others."
"It means to help a person realize his own problems and
what he can do to help himself."
"Helping a person find himself. And not turning him into
something he is not. In other words, not to what people
think he ought to be but what he wants to be."
"It should take place outside."
"Frankly, nothing. One must be formally habilitated (i.e.,
have things 'going' for him propitiously in the 'free world')
before he can be rehabilitated."
"To live by the laws and standards set by society."
- 25 -
"To have a genuine respect for the law and realize you
can live comfortably within it."
"I fully understand the word (rehabilitation) but --
don't think it applies to any of your county correc-
tional units."
"Pay for the crime I did."
"Go forward and stop drinking. Get peace of mind with-
0ut drinking -- new friends."
"Helping a person find what he really wants out of life.
A trade center would be more help than just sitting or
doing county work which doesn't teach you anything."
"Becoming a square, instead of a hip person. To carry
a lunch pail and punch a time clock instead of selling
dope. Just living a normal healthy life with fellow-
ship, with person or persons sharing same ideas."
"Whatever it means I haven't found it yet. I am still
looking for something to help me with my problems."
"Preparing an individual to return to society as an asset
instead of a liability."
From the above quotes, it is evident that there is as much confusion over
the meaning of rehabilitation among the clients, as there is regarding agency
goals among jail staff. Additional information on the types of rehabilita-
tion programs made available to jail inmates will be presented in a sub-
sequent section of this chapter.
II. THE STAFF OF THE JAIL SYSTEM
As mentioned in Chapter II, the jails and correctional facilities of
the 58 counties are staffed by 2,460 deputy sheriffs and 1,422 non-sworn
personnel. Of the latter, 860 are cooks, clerks, and maintenance staff; 291
are correctional officers; 223 are medical personnel; and 48 are rehabili-
tation staff, composed of counselors, teachers, and social workers.¹ A total
of 1,627 employees from all categories staffed the 31 facilities in the 15
study counties.
Questionnaire responses were received from 489 deputies (representing
almost 20% of the State's entire deputy sheriff jail staff), 207 correctional
officers (representing more than 70% of the county level correctional officers
in the State), and 148 support, medical, and rehabilitation staff, (13% of the
support personnel throughout the State). In terms of the 15 study counties,
the responses from staff, totalling 1,627, represented a 60% sample.
- 26 -
Staff Characteristics
Table III presents tabulated questionnaire data regarding the age,
race, education, training, and experience of the staff members employed in
the jails and correctional facilities located in the 15 study counties. The
data clearly suggest several generalizations. First, the deputy sheriffs
are the youngest group, followed by the correctional officers, supervisors,
and administrators in that order. All of the administrators are over 35
years of age. Minority groups are under-represented on the staffs when
compared to the State's ethnic composition and even more so when compared
to the ethnic composition of the inmate population. The jail staff is
relatively inexperienced in corrections, due primarily to the fact that
most sheriffs' departmentsuse the jail as a training ground for incoming
peace officers. The educational level of the staff is relatively high with
35% having completed two years of college and 31% being presently involved
in education. With regard to participation in P.O.S.T. (the Commission on
Peace Officers' Standards and Training) or institutes dealing with training
for the corrections task, over half had not participated. Significant dif-
ferences occurred in virtually every category between the deputy sheriffs
and the correctional officers. The correctional officer is typically older
than the deputy, but has more experience in corrections. His formal educa-
tion is less than that of the deputy and fewer are enrolled in education
courses. A comparison of these two classifications is made in Table IV.
A discussion of the significant differences between these two classifications
will appear later in this section where additional differences have been
covered.
Staff Roles
The deputy sheriff. Typically, the deputy assigned to the county
jail has been employed for only a few months. He does not view himself as
a correctional officer, no:- does he view corrections as a long-term career.
He tends to resign himself to the fact that the jail assignment is a "neces-
sary evil" before he can be re-assigned to patrol or to some other more
"glamorous" role. In contrast to their administrators, the deputy sheriffs
frequently expressed disagreement with the idea that "corrections is a part
of law enforcement". They preferred to transfer corrections to another
agency or at least to the correctional officers within the sheriff's depart-
ment.
The correctional officer. This job classification was established
originally to save money by staffing jails with personnel paid less than
the law enforcement officer. The correctional officer (or correction officer)
is paid approximately $100 per month less than the deputy. In all counties
presently using this classification, it is a "dead-end" position. There
are no promotions because supervisors are persons drawn from the ranks of
10
sergeants and lieutenants who are deputy sheriffs.
- 27 -
TABLE III
CHARACTERISTICS OF COUNTY JAIL STAFF
IN THE 15 STUDY COUNTIES
(Percentage Distribution of Employees¹)
Correctional
Deputy
Officer
Supervisor
Administrator
Characteristic
(N=492)
(N=208)
(N=67)
(N-29)
Age
Under 25
31
15
0
0
25 - 35
48
27
36
0
36 - 50
18
40
57
86
Over 50
3
18
7
14
Race
Caucasian
87
82
94
100
Negro
10
14
2
0
Mexican-American
4
3
5
0
Oriental
2
1
0
0
American-Indian
4
0
0
0
Education Completed
High School Diploma
58
67
43
14
2 Year Co:lege Degree
37
29
42
52
4 Year College Degree
4
3
12
35
Graduate Study
1
1
3
0
College Major 2
Police Science
39
30
51
61
Public Administration
9
17
13
18
Education
9
9
9
0
Criminology
5
3
11
0
Psychology/Sociology
10
13
0
7
1 Columns may not total 100% because of rounding.
2 Only the most frequently stated college majors are listed.
- 29 -
TABLE IV
COMPARISON OF
DEPUTY SHERIFF AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
IN THE 15 STUDY COUNTIES
31
Average age
38
C
0
42%
College Education
33%
R
D
R
E
E
37%
Attending College
24%
P
C
U
T
T
I
Y
6 Months or Less
31%
3%
0
Experience in Jails
N
A
S
L
Open
Promotional Opportunities*
None
H
E
R
0
I
2,460
Approximate Number*
291
F
F
In County Corrections
F
F
I
C
$100 More
Salaries
$100 Less
E
Per Month
Approximately
Per Month
R
31%
Plan A Career
57%
In Corrections
*Statewide
- 30 -
There 1S no clear indication as to the future of this classification.
Some counties are considering expanded use of the correctional officer, and
some are about to discontinue the classification. At least one county has
terminated all hiring of correctional officers. One of the largest counties
in the study, however, is planning to establish supervisory levels in the
series to provide a career ladder. In the opinion of the Jail Task Force,
if the classification of correctional officer is retained, then salary scales
and promotional opportunities should be made available to this group.
The female deputy. In most counties, the female deputy is a dis-
tinct minority, frequently working in more austere surroundings than her
male counterpart. In some counties, she is paid less than males for com-
parable duties. The Task Force found that of 940 persons responding to the
questionnaire, 212 (23%) were females, and 728 (77%) were males. Of the
212 females, 155 (32%) were employed as deputy sheriffs; only 2 (1%) were
employed as correctional officers; 19 (28%) were supervisors; and 7 (24%) were
administrative staff. In general, the females were found to be younger, and
to have less employment experience in local jails and correctional facilities.
However, they had about the same amount of education as their male counter-
parts. Interestingly, the females were more likely, than were the males,
to recommend corrections as a career to a young person (64% vs. 44%). They
were also more likely to be planning a career in corrections (45% vs. 39%),
although a significantly greater proportion of them were also uncertain about
a future in corrections (39% VS. 26%).
Factors in Job Satisfaction
A section of the Task Force survey dealt with factors related to the
job satisfaction of the various categories of staff members employed in the
jails of the 15 study counties. Table V presents the results of this section
of the questionnaire. When asked if they were planning a career in correc-
tions, none of the staff responded overwhelmingly in the affirmative. The
most positive group was the correctional officers. Fifty-six percent as-
serted that they were planning to make a career in corrections. But this
certainly is no clear-cut majority. In fact, 69% of the deputies, 61% of
the supervisors, and 55% of the administrators either stated that they
were not planning to make a career in corrections or they were not sure.
Even though advancement opportunities might be made more readily available,
the staff continued to express reluctance about a career in corrections.
The clearest majority was seen in the lowest status group--the correctional
officers. Seventy-eight percent of them asserted that corrections would be
a career if advancement opportunities were made available; even though only
19% expressed satisfaction with the promotion system as it is currently
structured in the county jails.
When asked if officers should be allowed to be transferred to other
correctional agencies at the same rank and salary, and without an examination,
it is clear that the iower echelon staff would favor such a policy, while
the supervisors and administrators were considerably more conservative on
- 31 -
TABLE V
JOB SATISFACTION AMONG COUNTY JAIL STAFF
IN THE 15 STUDY COUNTIES
(Percentage distribution)
Correctional
Deputy
Officer
Supervisor
Administrator
Characteristic
(N=492)
(N=208)
(N=67)
(N=29)
Plan to make a career in
corrections?
Yes
31
56
39
45
No
40
23
34
24
Not Sure
29
21
27
31
If advancement opportunities
were available, would you
stay in corrections?
Yes
44
78
51
63
No
56
22
49
37
Satisfied with promotion
system in your agency?
Yes
72
19
67
65
No
28
81
33
35
Should officers be allowed
to transfer without exams?
Yes
60
66
33
45
No
40
34
62
55
Should there be a series of
ranks for line workers that
are parallel to supervisors?
Yes
61
76
57
45
No
16
11
33
41
Not sure
23
13
10
14
Is your work load marageable?
Completely
36
58
27
38
More or less
60
40
72
62
Unmanageable
4
2
1
--
Is your salary:
Good
62
52
54
87
Fair
34
44
39
10
Poor
4
4
7
3
Generally, how are your working
conditions?
Good
55
66
63
83
Fair
36
29
31
17
Poor
9
4
6
--
- 32 -
the matter. The same trend is apparent when the staff was asked whether
they would favor the creation of a new series of ranks, comparable to those
that now exist. among supervisors, for line personnel. Sixty-one percent of
the deputies and 76% of the correctional officers answered in the affirm-
ative, while 43% of the supervisors and 55% of the administrators stated
that they would be opposed to such a change, or were not sure of the wisdom
of the change. Thus, on matters of transferring and promotion, the upper
echelon jail staff were clearly more conservative.
Finally Table V shows that, when they were asked about the adequacy
of their salaries and working conditions, the administrative staff were
almost in complete accord among themselves. Eighty-six percent of the admin-
istrators fel: that their salaries were good, and 83% felt that their working
conditions were good. However, the data clearly suggest that the other cate-
gories of staff were not nearly as satisfied with either their salaries or
their working conditions.
The overall trend in Table V is clear. None of the jail staff, from
administrators to correctional officers, expressed unequivocal enthusiasm
for the field of corrections. The only instances where clear majorities
existed were in regards to salary and working conditions. But the majority
was not among those staff who come into daily contact with clients, but
rather from the sheriff's and jail managers who are scmewhat removed from
the day-to-day operations of their correctional facilities. The situation
is very likely tn be exacerbated by the fact that both supervisors and admin-
istrators were not entirely in favor of providing additional promotional
opportunities by restructuring ranks and salaries for staff in subordinate
positions. It is clear that the situation for the correctional officer em-
ployed in the county jail is considerably less than adequate. As stated
earlier, his position is a "dead-end" and he knows it.
Staff Evaluation of Quality of Management
The hallmark of any effective organization is the existence of clear
and accurate communication. If the communication of policies is incomplete
or inaccurate, staff performance operates at a less-than-optimal level. A
number of items in the Jail Task Force staff questionnaire dealt with the
communication, decision-making, and general "climate" of the agency as per-
ceived by the staff. Responses to these items were tabulated, and the re-
sults are presented in Table VI.
The first thing to note is that none of the different categories of
staff overwhelmingly felt that the philosophy and policies of their respec-
tive agencies were clearly stated. This finding is consistent with the gen-
eral lack of consensus among staff in defining agency goals that was found
in the first section of this chapter. While about two-thirds of the super-
visors and administrators felt that philosophy and policies were clearly
stated, they are by no means in complete agreement on this item. In addi-
tion, only 42% of the correctional officers, and 51% of the deputy sheriffs
asserted that their agency philosophy and policies were clear. Responses
- 34 -
TABLE VI (Continued)
STAFF EVALUATION OF JAIL MANAGEMENT
IN THE 15 STUDY COUNTIES
(Percentage distribution)
Correctional
Characteristic
Deputy
Officer
Supervisor Administrator
Do you have a voice in decision-
making in your agency?
Strong voice
7
6
29
57
Moderate voice
28
21
32
25
No voice
65
73
39
18
How progressive and "risk-
taking" is your agency?
Progressive
26
26
39
43
Fairly progressive
39
38
39
39
Conservative
45
46
22
12
Does your agency encourage
flexibility and creativity?
Encourages
31
29
34
50
Encourages moderately
43
38
46
36
Discourages
26
33
20
14
How high is the morale in
your agency?
High
40
32
42
46
Fair
35
39
48
38
Low
25
29
10
17
- 35 -
to this item strongly suggest that the various county jails are not doing
as good a job as they might in the realm of specifying agency philosophy,
policies, and goals.
Additional strength for this view is gained when specific items,
dealing with the quality of inter-rank and intra-rank communication, were
answered by the staff. No matter what the level of staff rank, there was
virtually no clear agreement that the quality of communication was "good".
For example, the highest percentage of staff evaluating the quality of
"downward" communication, as "good" was found among the supervisors (55%);
the highest percentage claiming that "upward" communication was "good" was
found among the supervisors (46%); and the highest percentage claiming
that "lateral" communication was "good" was found among the deputy sheriffs
(66%). But these percentages cannot be considered to reflect overwhelming
agreement among jail staff that the quality of communication in their re-
spective jails is good.
In general, the data do suggest that the staff evaluated "lateral"
communication as being the "best", followed by "downward" communication.
"Upward" communication was evaluated as being "poor". The data also suggest
that the lower echelon personnel generally evaluated the quality of commun-
ication, especially inter-rank communication, as being "poorer" than did
the supervisory and administrative staff. For example, 22% of the correc-
tional officers, compared to 17% of the administrators, asserted that the
quality of "downward" communication was "bad". However, while the data
suggest that staff in the lower ranks were less happy with the quality of
communication than their superiors, the overall conclusion should not be
obscured: the quality of communication, either inter-rank or intra-rank,
was not evaluated very high.
The above conclusion takes on added significance when it is seen
that only 7% of the deputies, 6% of the correctional officers, and 29%
of the supervisors asserted that they had a strong voice in decision-making.
In fact, only 57% of the administrators--the sheriffs and jail managers--
felt that they had a strong voice in decision-making. Administrators must
contend with their respective boards of supervisors and county managers if
they wish to establish and implement new programs and policies. The data
strongly suggest that the boards of supervisors and county managers do not
encourage their various administrative jail officials to have sufficient
latitude and decision-making authority. Additional evidence for this con-
clusion is seen in the administrators' responses to questions dealing with
"how progressive and risk-taking is your agency?", and "does your agency
encourage flexibility and creativity?" Only 43% of the jail administrators
asserted that their respective agencies were "progressive" and "risk-taking",
and only 50% claimed that their agencies encouraged flexibility and creativ-
ity. Thus, the data leave the strong overall impression that the "hands of
the administrators are tied" by their superiors--the county boards of super-
visors and county managers, and ultimately by the local communities. The
restrictive and generally conservative "climate" found in county jails spills
down to the correctional officers where only 26% of this group saw their re-
spective agencies as being "progressive", and only 29% felt that "flexibility
- 36 -
and creativity" were encouraged.
The net result of being employed in agencies where philosophy and
policies are not clearly stated, where the quality of communication is poor,
where there is little or no voice in decision-making, and where a generally
conservative attitude prevails, is to have a staff that is demoralized.
Table VI shows that this is indeed the case. No matter what the rank of
the staff member, only a minority of each group claimed the morale in its
agency to be high.
Thus, the Jail Task Force must conclude that staff members employed
in county jails, from administrators to correctional officers, evaluated
the quality of management of the jails and correctional facilities in the
15 counties surveyed as poor and in need of definite improvement. It is
unlikely that the quality of management of the jails in the counties not
surveyed is significantly different.
The Jail and the Community
It is the position of the Jail Task Force, and indeed all of the
corrections Task Forces, that society is normally best protected by rehab-
ilitating and reintegrating the sentenced offender back into the community.
Correctional facilities must immediately begin processes of reintegrating
as soon as possible after the person is sentenced. As stated in Chapter III
of the Juvenile Institution Task Force Report, the offender must, in a sense,
never leave the community. The community must permeate the functioning of
the county jail to which the convicted person has been sentenced. Basic to
processes of reintegration are community involvement and support. Without
community support, any correctional program or objective is ultimately des-
tined to fail. If processes of reintegration fail, then the jail must ex-
amine its relationsnips with the community and do whatever it can to strength-
en them.
The Task Force survey obtained information on staff attitudes toward
community involvement, as well as staff perception of community support of
corrections. The appropriate data are presented in Table VII.
Use of para-professionals. The use of indigenous workers, including
ex-offenders, ir providing correctional services has received widespread
endorsement not only by groups such as the President's Commission on Law
Enforcement and Administration of Justice, but also by State and local
officials in California. As pointed out in the Juvenile Institution Task
Force Report, para-prcfessionals enrich correctional services, not as re-
placements but as supplements for the regular line workers. Para-profess-
ionals, especially "New Careerists", have been utilized by the correctional
field services more than by the institutional facilities. However, it
should not be concluded that the "New Careerist" cannot perform meaningful
correctional services to offenders who have been sentenced to institutions,
including county jaiis. While the Task Force did not obtain specific in-
formation on whether or not the agencies surveyed actually employed any
- 37 -
TABLE VII
COUNTY JAIL STAFF PERCEPTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY
IN THE 15 STUDY COUNTIES
(Percentage distribution)
Correctional
Characteristic
Deputy
Officer
Supervisor Administrator
Could you use aides (New
Careerists, etc.) to help
you in your normal work?
Yes
44
31
40
31
No
56
69
60
69
Could you use volunteers to
help you in your normal work?
Yes
32
13
37
43
No
68
87
63
57
Assuming arrungements could be
made, is there a community
agency or group that could be
helpful to you?
Yes
38
28
41
64
No
62
71
58
36
What use does your agency make
of community resources?
Good use
29
31
27
31
Fair use
60
53
61
65
Poor use
11
16
11
3
How well do you think the general
public understands corrections?
Well
2
2
--
--
Fair
13
16
24
10
Doesn't
85
82
76
90
How strongly do you think the
general public supports
corrections?
Strongly
7
7
3
:
Moderately
30
29
30
21
Doesn't
63
64
67
79
- 38 -
para-professicnals, especially ex-offenders, employed in jails throughout
the counties of California. However, the Task Force staff did ask the
following question: "Could you use aides who do not currently meet the
qualifications of your line officers (e.g., "New Careerists" or other sub-
professionals) to help you in your normal work?" The results, which are
shown in Table VII, are clear. None of the staff, irrespective of rank,
was very enthusiastic over the idea of employing para-professionals. This
is in sharp contrast to the staff of local and State juvenile institutions
where approximately two-thirds of those queried endorsed the idea of em-
ploying para-professionals. Thus, in spite of the fact that para-profess-
ionals have been utilized with a fair degree of success elsewhere in the
correctional spectrum, staff members in the county jails are quite clearly
opposed to the idea.
The use of volunteers and other community resources. A significant
link between the community and the county jail, as well as for other correc-
tional facilities, is the volunteer worker providing services to the offen-
der. At times the volunteer can play a crucial role in reintegrating the
offender back into the community. Yet, the use of volunteers has been slow
in gaining acceptance by those employed in various correctional agencies.
Their reluctance generally has been based on the assumption that "outsiders
really do not know anything about corrections". However, in recent years
the use of volunteers has increased, so that at the present time, many cor-
rectional agencies have volunteer programs.
When the county jail staff was asked whether they could use volunteers
to help them in their normal work, the results are again clear. Only 13%
of the correctional officers, 32% of the deputies, 37% of the supervisors,
and 43% of the administrators favored the use of volunteers in their respec-
tive jails.
Correlatively, when asked if there was a community agency or group
that could be helpful, assuming that financial arrangements could be worked
out, the response was again substantially the same. Only a few of the cor-
rectional officers (28%), deputies (38%), and supervisors (41%) felt that
there was an agency or group in their respective communities that could be
of help to them. Sixty-four percent of the administrators felt that such
an agency or group could be useful, which, perhaps, indicates that these
top officials have a greater knowledge of the types of resources available
in the community.
Yet it is important to note that, at the same time, county jail staff
felt that their agencies were not making good use of the various resources
that were available in their respective communities. Thus, a significant
paradox emerges: on the one hand, staff in county jails feel that their
respective facilities are not making full use of community resource; yet
on the other hand, they do not believe that para-professionals, volunteers,
or community agencies would be particularly helpful in their work. This
paradox takes on added significance by inspecting the staffs' perceptions
of the public's understanding and support of corrections.
- 39 -
Perception of the public's view of corrections. Table VII also
presents information on how staff views the public's position vis-a-vis
corrections. The findings are extremely revealing. When asked whether
the public knows anything about corrections or is willing to support it,
almost none of the county jail staff responded affirmatively. The data
show unequivorally that the staff viewed the public as lacking in both
understanding and support. It is thus clear that the staff of county
jails have adopted a somewhat exclusionary attitude toward the use of
community resources such as para-professionals, volunteers, and various
agencies. At the same time, they believe that the public lacks any real
understanding of corrections and is unwilling to support it. The ironic
fact is that the public is obviously not going to understand or support
corrections as long as it is excluded from involvement.
Major Concerns of the Jail Staff
The staff role. A prime concern had to do with the role of the
jail staff in corrections. The staff often expressed a sense of futility
and asked, "Does anything really correct?" Some indicated that they could
do a better job if inmates were sentenced to longer terms. Others obser-
ved that jailing would never really correct as long as it isolated the
inmate from his real problems on the streets. Involved in this concern
over their role was the definite impression that law enforcement, the
courts, and corrections were working toward opposing goals and that they
(the jail staff) were caught in the middle.
Inadequate training. Another concern expressed was the inadequate
or virtually non-existent training for the corrections task. An extreme
example of inagequate training in detention and corrections was provided
during a visit to one minimum security facility in which two officers were
in charge on the four-to-midnight shift. One officer had four months of
experience and had trained the second officer, who had one month's exper-
ience. Both officers indicated that their training was virtually non-
existent and that questions posed by inmates humiliated them because they
knew none of the answers.
Overcrowded facilities. A third concern expressed by the staff was
overcrowded conditions that existed in their respective jails. In one county
the cell blocks were so overcrowded that at times in the past some staff
members were afraid to venture in them to provide supervision. Much of the
overcrowded conditions, as stated elsewhere in this Report, has been due to
the vast numbers of unsentenced persons incarcerated while awaiting trial.
It should also be pointed out that fully 43% of the sentenced inmates in the
15 study counties were serving a jail term as a condition of probation. Thus,
while the probation subsidy program has generally had the effect of diverting
persons from the State's prisons, the courts are now sentencing these persons
to periods of confinement in the county jails prior to their period of pro-
bation in the "streets".
- 40 -
Not suited for corrections. A fourth concern expressed by the staff
was the fact that they had obtained employment in the sheriff's office and
trained to become peace officers, not jail guards. Most of these persons
were very anxious to be assigned to patrol or other duties directly related
to law enforcement.
Troublesome offenders. Also of concern was the observation that in-
creasing numbers of troublesome offenders were being committed to county
jails rather than to the State's prison facilities (e.g. aggressive offen-
ders, and those with mental disorders).
Salaries. While the subject of salaries was not a particular con-
cern in many counties, it nevertheless is significant to note that in one
small county the chief jailer had to "moonlight" as a truck driver. The
deputies in this county also qualified for food stamps.
Jail facilities. Although it is apparent. that there has been a gen-
eral upgrading of Gails in the State since the Adams-Burdman study of 1957,
there remain a number of antiquated, overcrowded, and unsafe maximum secur-
ity jails in both large and small counties. However, the Jail Task Force
recommends against construction of maximum security central jails until an
assessment har been made of all available jail space within a county (and
within a reasonable distance thereof), and until a county is certain that
the people in jail actually require confinement for the protection of the
community. The questions a county should ask itself are: How many existing
jail beds are available and is optimum use being made of them? Are alcoholics
being diverted to a more appropriate setting? Are any prisoners who do not
pose a threat to the community being held pending trial, simply because they
are unable to raise bail? Could adequate facilities and services be better
made available on a regional basis, or by contract with adjoining counties?
III. THE INMATE IN THE JAIL SYSTEM
A stratified sample of inmates were administered a questionnaire and
a sampling of those completing the questionnaire were later interviewed in
group sessions.
One thousand six hundred and sixty-four (1,664) inmates responded to
the questionnaire. This sample constiutes 27% of the sentenced inmates in
the 15 study counties, and represents 11% of the sentenced inmates in county
jails throughout the State. Approximately 400 inmates were interviewed in
group sessions.
- 41 -
Summary of Inmate Characteristics
Salient inmate characteristics are summarized in Table VIII. The
following generalizations can be made about the 15 study counties.
Sentenced inmates in county facilities were young (43% are 25 or
younger). Over 50% were Black, Mexican-American, or American-Indian. The
racial and ethnic distribution takes on added significance when it is re-
called that only 13% of the staff were drawn from these same groups.
Eighteen percent did not consider the county in which they had been con-
fined to be their county of residence, and almost half of the inmates, when
released, claimed they would be living with family members. With regard
to sex differences, females were younger than males, all were housed in
maximum security facilities, and a greater percentage of females were drawn
from ethnic minurity groups. The average inmate had spent three to four
months in custody, typically serving a sentence of less than 90 days. One
out of four was serving his first term in jail. Twenty-two out of every
100 inmates had served at least one term in State prison.
The survey also found that females typically served shorter sentences
and they were more likely, than the males, to be serving their first jail
sentence.
Jail Activities and Plans for the Future
Efforts were made by the Task Force to determine the inmates' per-
ception of jail programs. The Task Force found that 23% of the inmates were
idle (this figure climbed to 34% for inmates housed in maximum security
facilities). One of the reasons for maximum security housing is the number
of detainers pending from other agencies. Fifteen percent of the sample
had such "holds"; and of these inmates, 41% had detainers for misdemeanors.
Eighty-cne percent of the inmates stated they were not participating
in a rehabilitation program (again, this figure rose to 87% for those housed
in maximum security units). Only 3 out of 10 inmates could identify an
activity which had been particularly helpful while incarcerated. Very few
of these activities were sponsored by the jail administration itself. Seventy-
five percent felt that they could be helped through some sort of counseling
program, especially individual and group counseling. In respect to prior
employment and plans for employment on release, 54% indicated that they were
working when charged with the crime for which they were confined. Of these,
only 40% claimed they could return to their previous employment, while 60%
stated that they could not return or did not know.
Forty-three percent would be leaving jail under probation supervision;
53% would be leaving without any post-institution assistance; and 4% stated
that they did not know whether jail was a condition of probation. Of those
who would be on probation when released from the county jail, 61% had not
seen the probation officer since they had started their sentence.
- 42 -
TABLE VIII
CHARACTERISTICS OF SENTENCED INMATES
IN THE 15 STUDY COUNTIES
(Percentage distribution)
Characteristics
Total
Male
Female
(N=1,664)
(N=1,477)
(N=187)
Age
18 to 20
14
13
15
21 to 25
30
29
37
26 to 30
15
15
19
31 to 50
31
32
27
Over 50
10
11
3
Race
Caucasian
49
49
47
Negro
22
21
31
Mexican American
20
22
11
Oriental
1
1
0
American Indian
6
6
7
Other
3
2
5
Prior Jail Term
None
25
23
40
One
18
18
17
Two or three
24
24
24
Four or more
33
35
19
Length of Sentence
5 days or less
1
1
2
6 to 30 days
12
11
15
31 to 60 days
11
11
15
61 to 90 days
15
15
16
4 to 6 months
29
29
32
Over 6 months
32
33
20
- 43 -
TABLE VIII (Continued)
CHARACTERISTICS OF SENTENCED INMATES
IN THE 15 STUDY COUNTIES
(Percentage distribution)
Characteristics
Total
Male
.
Female
With whom will you be living
when released?
Close Family
48
48
49
(Parents, Spouse, etc.)
Friends
7
6
11
Alone
22
23
16
Don't Know
23
23
23
Is this County your normal
place of residence?
Yes
82
83
79
No
18
17
21
Were you employed when arrested?
Yes
54
56
38
No
46
44
62
Are you serving this jail term
as a condition of probation?
Yes
43
43
42
No
53
52
54
Don't Know
4
4
3
- 44 -
Seventy-eight percent indicated that they had not been receiving
services from any agency or group such as Mental Health, Social Welfare,
Human Resources Development Agency, or the Salvation Army. Of those in-
dicating that they had been receiving services, most were females. The
agency most frequently mentioned as a source of aid was the county welfare
department.
When asked to specify how they would like their lives to be in the
future, virtually all of the respondents described a life built around a
traditional middle class value system which included a home, job, and family.
Reflecting a somewhat optimistic view, 6 out of 10 inmates felt that they
would achieve this, while 4 were not sure or felt that they would not see
their "dreams" come about.
Significant Differences
From a racial viewpoint, jail populations generally have a consid-
erably higher proportion of minorities than the general county population.
In two of the 15 study counties, Blacks represented a majority of the jail
population. In two other counties Mexican-Americans represented a majority.
American Indians represented a majority in a fifth county. The remaining
10 counties had a Caucasian majority in their jails.
Maximum security facilities held a slightly younger population than
the minimum security facilities. This is due to the large numbers of "re-
volving door" alconolics, who typically are over 35 years of age, and are
usually assigned to minimum security farms and road camps. Black inmates
comprised 25% of the population of maximum units and only 19% of the mini-
mum security population.
Twenty-six percent of maximum security inmates had "holds" on them
or were wanted by other law enforcement agencies. However, 41% of those
with such detainers were wanted for misdemeanors. This compared with 6%
of inmates in minimum security facilities having "holds", probably most
or all of which were for misdemeanors.
IV. MINIMIZING CONFINEMENT IN THE COUNTY JAIL
In recent years the trend toward establishing alternatives to incar-
ceration has become increasingly apparent. This trend has been spurred by
the belief among experts that the offender must remain in the community if
his ties with it are to be established and strengthened. As already stated
in the Juvenile Institution Task Force Report, correctional institutions,
including the county jail, are unnatural, dehumanizing "dumping grounds"
where persons are incarcerated on an involuntary basis. Other than post-
poning crime, institutions have done little to "cure" the crime problem.
Relatively unsophisticated offenders, incarcerated in jail settings, have
emerged as bitter persons who have learned more effective crime-committing
- 45 -
techniques. For these and other reasons, efforts are being made either to
completely divert offenders from the county jail, or to minimize their con-
tact with it. This section deals with a number of attempts currently being
made in California in this regard.
Release On Own Recognizance
Although this Task Force was charged with studying only the sentenced
jail prisoner, and making recommendations which are related to the effective-
ness of correctional efforts aimed at him, O.R. (release on own recognizance)
and citation are discussed in this Report because both are programs that can
effectively divert persons from the county jail. This is especially crucial
in light of the fact that the increasing jail population has been due almost
entirely to the increase in the number of unsentenced prisoners. Given the
extremely limited resources that are available in county jails, the Jail
Task Force believes that they should be provided primarily to prisoners who
have been sentenced. If greater numbers of unsentenced persons were O.R.'d
or given citations, the serious strain on facilities and resources would be
alleviated.
The idea of O.R. projects received its major impetus in 1961 with the
establishment of the Manhattan Bail Project in New York City. 3 In this pro-
ject law students from New York University interviewed persons who had been
arrested and gathered information on their residential stability, employment
history, family contacts, and prior criminal record. If the person in cus-
tody scored a sufficient number of points, based on the data collected, the
staff of the project recommended to the court that the person be granted a
pre-trial release without having to post a cash bond. With the Manhattan
Bail Project, the Vera Foundation, now the Vera Institute of Justice, clearly
demonstrated the feasibility of releasing a person from custody simply on
his word that he would appear in court on his scheduled date. O.R. projects
have rapidly spread throughout most jurisdictions in the United States.
All of the 15 counties surveyed by the Jail Task Force had established
O.R. programs, although some counties were using it more extensively than
others. One of the major counties in the Bay Area recently published a re-
port on its O.R. project, and the results showed that it is possible, with
appropriate screening procedures, to release persons on their own recog-
nizance and that they will appear in court on the scheduled date. 4 Between
August, 1964, and October, 1970, a total of 11,876 persons were O.R.'d 5 in
this county. Cf this number, only 372 or 3% failed to appear in court.
In 1969, the non-appearance rate for felony defendants was even lower with
a rate of only 2%. The significance of these figures is heightened when
they are compared with the non-appearance rate of persons who posted bail
during 1969. For this group the non-appearance rate was higher (5%) than
for the group that had been
Releasing a person on his own recognizance not only minimizes the
negative contacts and influences of the county jail, but it also results in
substantial savings. In the study cited above, during 1969 there was an
average of 429 defendants out on O.R. release. The sheriff's office deter-
- 46 -
mined that on the average it cost $4.29 a day to keep a prisoner in the
county jail. Even with this very conservative figure, the O.R. project
resulted in a savings of over $330,000 for the year.
O.R. projects have been relatively inexpensive to operate because
they have often used VISTA volunteers as well as community volunteers to
interview O.R. candidates. In light of the success of O.R. programs, their
use should be greatly expanded by all of the counties in the State.
Organizationally, some O.R. programs have had their own directors
and have been separate entities. In other cases, O.R. programs have been
a part of the probation department. For example, one of the counties in
the study group had assigned a probation officer to the jail to review cases
for O.R. Whatever the organizational pattern of O.R. programs, it is very
clear that their use should be greatly expanded by all of the counties in
the State.
Misdemeanor Citations
Prior to 1967, if a person was arrested for an alleged misdemeanor,
he was booked into jail, and if he was unable to post bail, he awaited court
disposition in a cell. In 1967, the Legislature authorized counties to issue
citations in the case of those suspected of committing a misdemeanor. However,
the Jail Task Force found that only a few counties in the study group were
using citations as a means of diverting misdemeanants from jail. It was also
not possible to determine how extensively law enforcement officers were issuing
citations in those counties that had established the policy.
In one of the study counties, arrests and bookings had grown to such
proportions in 1968 and 1969 that the jail was dangerously overcrowded, and,
in fact, there had been a number of sexual assaults upon prisoners by other
prisoners. The county had already approved the expansion of the jail, but
the sheriff could not wait until its construction to alleviate the problem.
Therefore, the administration decided that a concerted effort would be made
to cite all possible misdemeanants and to encourage the courts to make better
use of O.R. programs.
The sheriff requested that all county law enforcement agencies use
misdemeanor citations as frequently as possible. However, because of re-
sistence to change, citations were being issued only infrequently. At the
same time that law enforcement officers were asked to use citations, the
county jail instituted the same program. In discussing the problems involved,
an administrator asserted that during the initial period his staff found very
few inmates eligible for release by citation. However, upon review of the
jail bookings each morning, it was apparent that there were far more eligible
persons in jail tran his staff had identified. The administrator came to the
conclusion that his staff was extremely hesitant to cite a prisoner who had
already been booked, because it feared the consequences that might result
should the released person commit another crime. A training program was
established which aimed at dispelling such fears. This was accomplished, in
- 47 -
part, by illustrating that with less than $25 to pay bail fees, any one of
those persons held would be released.
Gradually, the number of citations issued increased, but a conservative
attitude continued to prevail among the staff regarding their use. The admin-
istrator then instituted a new policy. Instead of the staff justifying the
release of a person on the citation, they were now asked to justify keeping
him. For every prisoner eligible, but not released by citation, the adminis-
trator expected the staff to specify the justification. At the time of the
Task Force survey, the number of citations issued in this county was increas-
ing and fewer persons accused of a misdemeanor were being held in jail. Ac-
cording to the clerk of this county's municipal court, cited misdemeanants
were appearing at their scheduled court hearing at a satisfactory rate. Un-
fortunately, the number of persons released from jail by citation was not
available, but there is little doubt that the program is a success. At the
same time, there has been substantial savings in tax dollars, and the pro-
gram has relieved the overcrowded condition that had previously existed in
the jail.
Diverting the Alcoholic from the County Jail
Almost one-third of all arrests made in the United States are for
drunkenness in public places. 8 It is not unusual to find the person taken
into custody fcr drunkenness to have been arrested for the same offense 20,
30, or 50 times before. The situation in the State of California is not
very different from those elsewhere in the nation. For example, in one of
the Bay Area counties, the police made 59, 104 arrests in 1969. Of this num-
ber, 16,112 of the arrests (27%) were for drunkenness.⁹ The sheriff in this
county reported that 41% of the inmates incarcerated in the jail were there
as a result of drunk arrests.
In recent years, serious question has been raised about the continued
criminalization of conduct that is essentially "victimless" and non-violent.
The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice
has recommended that:
"Drunkenness should not in itself be a criminal offense.
Disorderly and other criminal conduct accompanied by
drunkenness should remain punishable as separate crimes.
The implementation of this recommendation requires the
development of adequate civil detoxification procedures. "10
Likewise, in the county mentioned above, a committee to study problems of crime
and criminal justice in the local community recently concluded that:
II ..opinion has generally come around to recognizing
that drunkenness must not be handled as it tradition-
ally has been, although the method of handling it is
still in a state of transition. Many people would
deal with it as a public health problem, and the Crime
- 48 -
Committee approves that concept. ... 'Drunkenness'
should be taken out of the criminal process en-
tirely. "11
Between September-December 1970, Task Force staff interviewed pre-
siding superior court judges, county supervisors (normally the Board chair-
man), and county administrative officers in each of the 15 counties under
study. Eighty-nine percent of these local officials urged that the "common
drunk" be removed from criminal justice, including removal from the local
jail. Seventy-one percent of these officials urged that responsibility for
the care of "common drunks" be transferred to the health department or a
mental health unit.
However, despite this widespread support for removing drunks from the
criminal justice system, the Jail Task Force by no means found unanimity of
opinion among the 36 jail administrators interviewed regarding the possibil-
ity of "de-criminalizing" public drunkenness and diverting the drunk from
the county jail. While 21 of the administrators favored the idea of divert-
ing him from jail, 13 expressed opposition to the idea, and 2 were not sure.
Some of the jail administrators opposed the idea because they felt that jail
was the most economical way of processing the common drunk. Others were
opposed because they felt that the drunks provided a labor pool for jail
work assignments which would otherwise be difficult to fill.
However, it is the position of the Jail Task Force that economic con-
siderations alone cannot justify the continued criminal processing of persons
who could be more effectively (and economically) handled in other ways. There
can be little justification for consuming only 7% of a county jail budget for
41% of those who are incarcerated in it. T2 Nor is the fact that drunks con-
stitute a large labor pool sufficient justification for their continued incar-
ceration. The Jail Task Force has found that the work assigned to those who
have been sentenced to jail as a result of drunkenness is not of the type
that will substantially contribute to their rehabilitation, or help them in
the labor market in the free community. In the large county jails, the drunk
typically is assigned only the menial work tasks. In a recent study of the
skid row alcoholic in a Bay Area city, a captain in the county jail stated
that:
"The alcoholics do excellent work in culinary work.
They do well in janitorial work. They will do the
dirty work others won't handle.
Do you know what would happen if the alcoholics no
longer came here? They are 90% of the farm labor.
If we lost them, we'd have to close this place down.
Once in a while, I think what would we do without
them? I don't know. It would take a complete re-
organization. "13
This study also found that the jailed alcoholics were similarly denied what-
ever rehabilitation and correctional services existed. The study concluded
- 49 -
that even though the alcoholic is committed for what is possibly the least
serious crime, he is reduced or degraded to the lowest of the jail inmates. 14
In 1969 the Bay Area Social Planning Council conducted a study of the
alcoholic in one of the 15 study counties. This study recommended transfer-
ring the responsibility for care and treatment of chronic drunk offenders
from the criminal justice system to the county health officials. 15 The Jail
Task Force urges that all counties explore similar diversionary programs and
facilities for the alcoholic.
Diverting Other Types of Offenders from Jail
Administrators were also queried regarding the diversion of offenders
who were mentally handicapped, and narcotics addicts. The following is a
summary of their responses.
Offenders with mental disorders. A number of the administrators
pointed out the ambiguity of the term "mentally handicapped", as used during
the course of the interview. However, 22 favored diverting this type of
offender to other agencies, while 8 expressed opposition to the idea, and 6
were not sure. Two administrators did not answer this question. Most of the
sheriffs interviewed mentioned that the problems involved in managing the
mentally handicapped are immense because these persons require segregation
both for their own protection and for the protection of others. They also
require constant medical attention which is not available in most jails.
Recent changes in the State's mental health statutes appear to make it in-
creasingly difficult to refer the mentally disturbed to the appropriate
county agency.
The narcotic addict. Eighteen out of 36 respondents opposed the
diversion of the narcotic addict from jail. Seventeen favored diversion
and one was not sure. Four of the administrators opposing diversion in-
dicated they would favor such a plan if some provision were built into the
plan to prevent using addiction as an excuse for criminal behavior.
Summary. Almost all respondents favoring the diversion of the above
two types of offenders indicated that they would support such a plan only
if controls were provided to prevent using alternative treatment resources
as a cover for criminal behavior.
As with alcoholics, local correctional agencies should make greater
use of available medical and mental health resources both to supplement
their correctional programs and to divert, when possible, those offenders
who appear to need only medical or mental health types of services.
- 50 -
Sentence Modification
Although county parole is, in fact, a modification of sentence, the
court also has the authority to modify a sentence once it has been imposed.
A court may retain jurisdiction simply by suspending a portion of the jail
term imposed. This strategy allows the court to review the case and to
modify the original sentence. The number of sentenced prisoners released
from county jails in California by sentence modification is far greater
than the number released to county parole. According to the Bureau of
Criminal Statistics, in the 11 study counties reporting figures, 1,954 (17%)
of those offenders released prior to the expiration of their sentence had
their terms modified by the courts. 16
Each of the 15 counties in the Jail Task Force survey were employing
sentence modification (although only 11 of them were reporting figures to
the Bureau of Criminal Statistics), to release jail prisoners early. How-
ever, the procedures that had been established to allow review of a case
by the court varied greatly from county to county. In some of the counties,
only the court and the inmate are involved in the process. The inmate ap-
peals to the judge in writing and the court makes its decision on the basis
of the letter and court records. In other counties, jail prisoners request
a modification of sentence through the county jail staff. The staff in turn
submits a recommendation to the court for the final decision on the request.
In yet other counties, requests are referred to the probation department;
in turn, the probation department reviews the prisoner's records, interviews
him, and makes its recommendation to the court. If the court grants the
request for a modified sentence, the released prisoner is then supervised
by the probation department.
In one of the 15 study counties, the welfare department has assigned
2 social workers to the jail complex. The social workers are involved with:
(1) identifying inmates in need of services and programs, (2) referral for
work furlough, (3) coordination of volunteer services, (4) study and recommen-
dation for sentence modification, (5) referrals to community agencies, and
(6) assistance in development of post-release plans.
Over a two and one half year period, since the existence of this program,
the social workers in this county have identified, evaluated, and recommended
to the court 561 inmates for early release. Of the 532 that were released
early, only 92 (17%) have returned to jail on other charges. The social
workers did not report the extent of modification or the number of days of
incarceration time saved. However, if it is assumed that each prisoner was
released 30 days early, and also assumed that the jail saved only the food
costs ($1.00 per day average) for the "successful inmates", then a savings
of $13,200 was realized. Less conservative figures would bring the total
costs closer to $120 per month per inmate, thus yielding a savings of $52,800.
The savings in food alone reimburses the county for two and a half years of
the social workers' salaries.