The State of Tennessee’s Jails
John G. Morgan
Comptroller of the Treasury
Office of Research
State of Tennessee
August 2003
STATE OF TENNESSEE
John G. Morgan COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY
Comptroller
STATE CAPITOL
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37243-0264
PHONE (615) 741-2501
August 29, 2003
The Honorable John S. Wilder
Speaker of the Senate
The Honorable Jimmy Naifeh
Speaker of the House of Representatives
and
Members of the General Assembly
State Capitol
Nashville, Tennessee 37243
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Transmitted herewith is a report prepared by the Office of Research concerning
conditions in Tennessee county jails. The study analyzes overcrowding, jail
inspections, and jail funding, and provides recommendations for consideration.
Comptroller of the Treasury, Office of Research. Authorization Number 307308, 600 copies,
August 2003. This public document was promulgated at a cost of $2.20 per copy.
The State of Tennessee’s Jails
Margaret Rose
Senior Legislative Research Analyst
and
Brian Doss
Associate Legislative Research Analyst
Ethel R. Detch, Director
Douglas Wright, Assistant Director
Office of Research
505 Deaderick Street, Suite 1700
Nashville, Tennessee 37243-0268
615/401-7911
www.comptroller.state.tn.us/orea/reports
John G. Morgan
Comptroller of the Treasury
August 2003
i
Executive Summary
Over the past several decades, courts have found that conditions of confinement in many
U.S. jails violate constitutional rights contained in the Eighth Amendment (banning cruel
and unusual punishment) and the Fourteenth Amendment (which guarantees due process
rights). In some cases, including in Tennessee, courts have ordered counties to make
extensive changes, costing extraordinary amounts, to deal with matters such as medical
care, staffing, overcrowding, sanitation, religion, nutrition, recreation, safety, and
security.
Although state law gives sheriffs responsibility to manage county jails, some state
agencies impact their operations—most frequently, the Tennessee Corrections Institute,
the Department of Correction, and the Department of Mental Health and Developmental
Disabilities. The Tennessee Corrections Institute inspects jails; the Department of
Correction holds some state inmates in jails; and the Department of Mental Health and
Developmental Disabilities is responsible for serving inmates with mental illnesses.
This report concludes:
Many Tennessee jails are overcrowded. Overcrowding presents many implications for
governments. It strains county and state budgets and severely limits a facility’s capacity
to provide adequate safety, medical care, food service, recreation, and sanitation. The
total number of inmates in Tennessee’s jails increased 56 percent, from 13,098 in fiscal
year 1991-92 to 20,393 in fiscal year 2002-03. Local jails held an average of 2,301
Department of Correction inmates awaiting transfer to state prisons during FY02-03.
By June 2003, the department had 1,956 inmates awaiting transfer.
During fiscal year 2000-01, 47 Tennessee county facilities operated at an average
capacity of 100 percent or greater and 12 operated at an average capacity of 90-99
percent. The number operating at 100 percent or greater rose to 60 in fiscal year 2001-02,
and declined to nine operating at an average capacity of 90-99 percent.
A National Institute of Corrections publication states that jail crowding is a criminal
justice system (emphasis added) issue, and its roots lie with decisions made by officials
outside the jail, such as police, judges, prosecutors, and probation officers. Like some
other communities, Shelby and Davidson Counties have created criminal justice
coordination committees to examine jail crowding and other criminal justice issues. The
committees provide a forum for key justice system professionals (such as law
enforcement officials, judges, prosecutors, and public defenders) and other government
officials to discuss justice system challenges. Committees analyze the implications that
individual agency decisions impose on the entire criminal justice system. (See pages 7-
10.)
Tennessee’s continuing failure to provide adequate capacity in state prisons has
contributed to overcrowding in some jails. Tennessee statutes address only state
prison overcrowding, but offer no contingencies for overcrowded local jails. Inmate
lawsuits against Tennessee resulted in several pieces of legislation that allowed the state
to respond to prison overcrowding. These laws specify that the governor can declare a
state of overcrowding under certain conditions and may direct the Commissioner of
ii
Correction to notify all state judges and sheriffs to hold certain inmates until state
facilities have lowered their population to 90 percent of capacity. The department has
operated under this statute continuously since the 1980s. (See pages 10-11.)
Tennessee statutes governing the transfer of state prisoners from county jails
conflict with each other. T.C.A. 41-8-106 (g) requires the department to take into its
custody all convicted felons within 14 days of receiving sentencing documents from the
court of counties not under contract with the County Correctional Incentives Program. On
the other hand, T.C.A. 41-1-504 (a)(2) allows the department to delay transfer of felons
who had been released on bail prior to conviction for up to 60 days until prison capacity
drops to 90 percent.
In 1989, Hamilton, Davidson, Knox, and Madison Counties sued the state for shifting its
overcrowding burden onto their facilities. A federal court placed certain limits on the
number of inmates that each of those jails could hold. The Department of Correction
takes inmates from those facilities before those from other jails when transferring inmates
to state facilities. (See pages 11-12.)
In spite of T.C.A. 41-4-141, which allows two or more counties to jointly operate a
jail, no Tennessee counties have done so. As a result, some counties miss the
opportunity to save county funds and to lower their liability risks. A regional jail is
defined as a correctional facility in which two or more jurisdictions administer, operate,
and finance the capital and operating costs of the facility. (See page 12.)
Comptroller’s staff observed unsafe and unsanitary conditions in some of the jails
visited during this study. Comptroller’s staff visited 11 jails during this study. Staff
selected rural, urban, and medium sized counties in all three grand divisions of the state.
Additionally, staff chose some counties recommended as model facilities and others
described as substandard. Two of the jails were new with no visible problems. In others,
however, research staff observed conditions that pose danger or violate standards. (See
pages 13.)
The Tennessee Corrections Institute has no power to enforce its standards, resulting
in conditions that endanger inmates, staff, and the public. In 2002, 25 county jails
failed to meet certification standards. Without sanctions, counties often fail to correct
conditions that may be dangerous and likely to result in costly lawsuits. Several other
states impose an array of sanctions for facilities that do not meet standards. In 2001 the
General Assembly considered, but did not pass, a bill that would have given TCI more
enforcement authority. House Bill 398/Senate Bill 764 would have allowed TCI to:
• issue provisional certifications;
• decertify facilities;
• exclude counties from participating in the County Correctional Incentives Act of
1981; and
• ask the Attorney General and Reporter to petition circuit courts to prohibit
inmates from being confined in facilities that do not meet standards or impose
threats to the health or safety of inmates.
iii
At least 53 sheriffs report that inmates have sued their facilities in the last five calendar
years, but that most suits are frivolous and eventually dismissed. As of calendar year
2001, at least nine jails are under a court order or consent decree. (See pages 13-14.)
TCI continues to certify inadequate and overcrowded jails that do not meet state
standards. State law prohibits TCI from decertifying deficient facilities if the county
submits a plan within 60 days of the initial inspection to correct deficiencies related to
square footage and or/showers and toilets as well as jail capacity. Many counties delay
implementing their plans indefinitely, yet TCI continues to certify the facilities. (See
pages 14-15.)
TCI standards do not appear to meet the level of quality mandated by T.C.A. 41-4-
140. The law requires that TCI standards approximate, as closely as possible, those
standards established by the inspector of jails, federal bureau of prisons, and the
American Correctional Association. However, TCI standards are minimal and are not as
comprehensive as those of the American Correctional Association. TCI omits ACA
standards dealing with monthly fire and safety inspections, prerelease programs,
population projections, staffing patterns, and administrators’ qualifications. (See page
15.)
TCI has not developed minimum qualification standards for local correctional
officers and jail administrators. Few local correctional officer positions are civil
service. Newly elected sheriffs usually hire new officers. TCI standards require that
correctional officers receive 40 hours of basic training within the first year of
employment. According to several jail administrators and sheriffs, newly hired
correctional officers frequently report on their first day with no experience or training on
how to perform their duties or handle unruly inmates and emergencies. (See pages 15-
16.)
The Tennessee Corrections Institute appears to have inadequate staff to fulfill its
mandate. TCI reduced its staff from 26 positions in 1982 to 11 positions in 2002 because
of forced budget cuts. The agency’s staff now consists of only six inspectors, an
executive director, and clerical staff. The six inspectors must cover all 95 county jails,
nine county jail annexes, 14 city jails, and eight correctional work centers. The lack of
staff contributes to conditions that negatively affect the quality of jail inspections.
The six inspectors provide training and technical assistance to jail staff as well as
conducting inspections. Mixing regulatory and assistance functions can result in a lack of
objectivity by inspectors. (See pages 16-17.)
TCI inspection practices appear inadequate to ensure safe and secure jails. Office of
Research staff observed several problems with TCI’s inspection practices during jail
inspections, including differences in interpreting standards, timing of inspections,
assigning inspectors, and quality of inspections.
Although TCI inspections are unannounced, they generally occur within the same or an
adjacent month of the previous year’s inspection. As a result, jail staff can anticipate
inspections and present themselves in ways during the inspections that do not reflect their
normal routines and practices. (See pages 17-18.)
iv
TCI inspectors provide minimal training to correctional officers (jailers), who must
attend 40 hours of basic training during their first year of employment. TCI
provides no training to sheriffs and jail administrators. As a result, some correctional
officers begin work with no preparation and, in fact, may never receive training,
increasing the potential of liability. Training is critical to protect both inmates and
correctional officers. Newly elected sheriffs without previous law enforcement
certification must attend training provided by the Peace Officers Standards and Training
Commission. However, most of this training relates to law enforcement activities, with
little time devoted to jail management. (See pages 18-19.)
The state does not evaluate the reimbursement process for housing state inmates in
local correctional facilities as required by T.C.A. 41-1-405, enacted in 1983. Although
the various reports submitted by counties to determine reimbursements are reviewed, the
overall reimbursement process is not continually evaluated. The statute explains the
General Assembly’s intent: “a continuing evaluation of the impact of the state correction
system upon local correction systems is essential to determine the method and amount of
assistance, financial or otherwise, necessary to equitably compensate such local systems
for their continuing role in the overall correction system of this state.” The statute
suggests that a “task force composed of all facets of the criminal justice system” conduct
the evaluation. Because the process has not been continually reviewed the current method
may not comply with the General Assembly’s intent to equitably compensate local
correctional systems. Any evaluation should include an analysis of marginal and fixed
costs which can help to determine if the reimbursement process is equitable to the
counties and the state. (See pages 19-20.)
Low funding for jails contributes to unsafe facilities, high correctional officer
turnover, and staff shortages in some jails. Most sheriffs interviewed by Office of
Research staff noted strained relationships with county executives and county
commissions regarding jail funding. The sheriffs believe that these county officials have
other budgetary priorities and do not fully appreciate the liability issues caused by
underbudgeting. Inadequate funding usually leads to unsafe conditions, including critical
understaffing or physical plant deterioration that endangers inmates and jail personnel.
Most sheriffs report a high correctional officer turnover rate because of low salaries. (See
pages 20-21.)
No state agency enforces or monitors compliance with T.C.A. 41-8-107 (c), which
requires non-certified facilities to use 75 percent of the state reimbursement to
improve correctional programs or facilities. These facilities may remain in poor and
uncertifiable conditions. In FY 2001-02, DOC paid $3,515,426 to county jails that were
not certified; 75 percent of this amount is $2,636,569. (See page 22.)
The Criminal Justice/Mental Health Liaison program helps divert inmates with
mental illnesses from jail in specific areas of the state. Statewide, however,
Tennessee continues to lack adequate community services and institutional
placements for inmates with mental illnesses held in jail. Both mental health
professionals and sheriffs agree that some inmates with mental illnesses would be better
served by community resources than by placing them in jails for minor offenses possibly
v
caused by manifestations of their illnesses. Other offenders may need the treatment
environment of a mental health facility. In at least one case, a Davidson County judge
ruled that the right to a speedy trial for an inmate with a mental illness had been violated
after the inmate spent over a year in jail awaiting a competency hearing.
In an attempt to relieve jails housing inmates who need treatment in mental health
institutes, Public Chapter 730 of 2002 specifies that the Commissioner of Mental Health
and Developmental Disabilities (DMHDD) must exert all reasonable efforts to admit
such an inmate within five days of receiving a commitment order.
The Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities (DMHDD) established
a Criminal Justice/Mental Health Liaison pilot project to improve communication and
coordination among the community, the criminal justice system, and the mental health
system, and to establish diversion activities. Although the liaison program is too new to
determine the impact of its criminal justice activities, many jail staff told researchers that
the program is an asset. (See pages 22-24.)
Office of Research staff were unable to determine whether sheriffs comply with
federal and state special education mandates. In 2003, the Department of Education
sent a copy of the department’s Policy and Procedure for Incarcerated Children with
Disabilities to all county sheriffs and local education agencies (LEAs). State policies and
procedures follow the directives of the federal law. The policy applies to all students with
disabilities, who are legally mandated to receive an education in Tennessee through their
22
nd
birthday. Most sheriffs and jail administrators denied that they hold inmates who are
eligible for special education services. However, most smaller jails do not use a
classification system to identify eligible inmates. Thus, some eligible students may not
receive services to which they are entitled. Providing special education programming
could help such inmates as well as protect jail staff from suits for failing to ensure that
they identify such children. (See pages 24-25.)
Most jails do not help inmates access social or health services upon release. Most
jails do not offer help to inmates to prepare them to reenter society, often resulting in
inmates who are unprepared for the challenges they encounter. On the other hand,
Davidson County officials are committed to assisting inmates scheduled for release to
help them avoid reincarceration. Officials expressed concerns about inmates being
disenrolled from TennCare upon incarceration and the difficulties in reenrolling them
upon release. They also believe that the Department of Human Services should be more
involved in assisting released inmates to access its services, such as food stamps, TANF,
or vocational rehabilitation. An American Correctional Association standard recommends
prerelease planning.
An ACA non-mandatory standard suggests facilities adopt a written policy, procedure,
and practice to provide continuity of care from admission to discharge from the facility,
including referral to community care. Some criminal justice and mental health
professionals expressed concern that inmates with mental illnesses receive services in
jails, but upon release, are not always linked to community resources to provide
continued services. Because of a potential lapse in services, these same persons may
return to the criminal justice system. (See page 25.)
vi
Recommendations begin on page 26.
Legislative Recommendations
• The General Assembly may wish to authorize the Tennessee Corrections Institute
to ask the state’s Attorney General and Reporter to petition circuit courts to close
jails that fail to correct unsafe conditions.
• The General Assembly may wish to enact legislation prohibiting state prisoners
from being held in facilities that are not certified by TCI because of safety issues.
• The General Assembly may wish to clarify statutory language regarding the
transfer of state prisoners from county jails.
• The Select Oversight Committee on Corrections may wish to review the current
process to reimburse local governments for housing state inmates in local
correctional facilities.
Administrative Recommendations
• Local governments should establish ongoing avenues of communication such as
councils or committees composed of criminal justice agencies to seek solutions to
problems such as overcrowding.
• The Department of Correction should make every effort to transfer state inmates
held in non-certified jails as quickly as possible
• The Department of Correction should not contract with overcrowded jails to hold
state inmates.
• Some Tennessee counties should consider the feasibility of establishing regional
jails.
• The Tennessee Corrections Institute should review its standards and inspection
practices annually, revising them as needed to adequately protect jails from
liability.
• The Tennessee Corrections Institute should provide training to sheriffs, jail
administrators, and other supervisory personnel.
• The Tennessee Corrections Institute should request reinstatement of the positions
it lost because of budget reductions in the 1980s and 1990s.
• The Tennessee Corrections Institute should establish two distinct divisions within
the agency – one for inspections and the other for training and technical assistance
because mixing regulatory and assistance functions can reduce inspectors’
objectivity.
vii
• The Tennessee Corrections Institute should vary its inspection cycle and rotate
inspector assignments from year to year.
• The state should enforce the statute requiring counties with noncertified jails to
use 75 percent of their DOC reimbursements to improve correctional programs
and facilities.
• The Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities should
determine the impact of its criminal justice activities in local jails. If warranted,
DMHDD should seek additional federal funds to expand the Mental Health
Liaison Program statewide and increase the availability of mobile crisis teams.
• The Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities should
prioritize bed space to ensure that inmates awaiting competency hearings are
evaluated in a timely manner.
• Sheriffs and jail administrators should provide discharge planning for inmates
with mental illnesses who need continued care upon release.
• Sheriffs and jail administrators should report all inmates who may be eligible for
special education services to the LEA.
• State agencies such as the Bureau of TennCare and the Department of Human
Services should work more closely with jail personnel to reinstate benefits
inmates lose while incarcerated.
Agency responses to this report are in Appendices G-J.
Table of Contents
Introduction..........................................................................................................................1
Objectives ................................................................................................................1
Methodology............................................................................................................2
Why examine conditions in local jails? ..................................................................2
Background..............................................................................................................4
Analysis and Conclusions....................................................................................................7
Overcrowded Jails....................................................................................................7
Jail Conditions, Standards, Inspections, and Training...........................................13
Conditions........................................................................................................13
Standards..........................................................................................................13
Inspections .......................................................................................................16
Training............................................................................................................18
Jail Funding............................................................................................................19
Mental Illness, Special Education, and Post-Release Issues..................................22
Recommendations..............................................................................................................26
Legislative..............................................................................................................26
Administrative........................................................................................................26
Appendices.........................................................................................................................29
Appendix A: Office of Research Jail Survey.........................................................29
Appendix B: County Jails Not Certified in 2002 by TCI ......................................35
Appendix C: Average Total Population and Average Total Rated Beds of
Tennessee Local Correctional Facilities during FY 2001 and FY 2002................36
Appendix D: Rates Paid by the Tennessee Department of Correction To House
State Inmates in Local Facilities in Fiscal Year 2001............................................39
Appendix E: Amount Paid by TDOC to House State Inmates in
Non-Certified Facilities .........................................................................................41
Appendix F: Criminal Justice/Mental Health Liaisons..........................................42
Appendix G: Response from the Tennessee Department of Correction................43
Appendix H: Response from the Tennessee Corrections Institute ........................44
Appendix I: Response from the Tennessee Department of Education ..................47
Appendix J: Response from the Tennessee Department of Mental Health and
Developmental Disabilities....................................................................................49
Appendix K: Persons Interviewed .........................................................................51
1
If the public, through its judicial and penal system, finds it necessary to
incarcerate a person, basic concepts of decency, as well as reasonable respect
for constitutional rights, require that he be provided a bed.
Judge William P. Gray
Stewart v. Gates, 1978
1
Introduction
Contrary to Judge Gray’s opinion, some Tennessee jails are unable to furnish a bed for each
inmate. Overcrowding is only one issue that places some Tennessee counties at risk of lawsuit by
inmates.
Over the past several decades, courts have found that conditions of confinement in many U.S.
jails violate constitutional rights contained in the Eighth Amendment (banning cruel and unusual
punishment) and the Fourteenth Amendment (which guarantees due process rights). In some
cases, including in Tennessee, courts have ordered counties to make extensive changes, costing
extraordinary amounts, to address medical care, staffing, overcrowding, sanitation, religion,
nutrition, recreation, safety, and security.
The Tennessee Constitution requires each county to elect a sheriff and other officials, whose
qualifications and duties are determined by the General Assembly.
2
T.C.A. 41-4-101 places
sheriffs in charge of county jails and all their prisoners. The sheriff may appoint a jailer, but the
sheriff is civilly responsible for the jailer’s acts. Tennessee jails hold inmates who:
• have been committed for trial for public offenses,
• have been sentenced to a penitentiary, but await transfer to the prison,
• have been committed for contempt or on civil process,
• have been committed for failure to give security for their appearances as witnesses in
criminal cases,
• have been charged with or convicted of criminal offenses against the United States,
• are awaiting transfer to a mental health facility, or
• have otherwise been committed by authority of law.
3
Objectives
The Office of Research undertook this study with the following objectives:
• to determine the nature and extent of conditions in Tennessee jails that leave counties at
risk of lawsuits;
• to determine risks these conditions pose to inmates and the public;
• to determine the extent that state practices contribute to such conditions;
• to determine whether county jails have adequate funding to provide sufficient staff,
essential inmate services, and safety precautions; and
• to examine best practices shown to protect both inmates and the public.
1
Wayne N. Welsh, Counties in Court, Temple University Press, 1995, p. 3.
2
Constitution of the State of Tennessee, Article VII, Section 1.
3
T.C.A. 41-4-103.
2
Methodology
The conclusions reached and recommendations made in this report are based on the following:
• review of state statutes related to county jails,
• interviews with state officials, including the Tennessee Corrections Institute (TCI),
the Department of Correction (DOC), the Department of Mental Health and
Developmental Disabilities (DMHDD), and the Tennessee County Technical
Assistance Service (CTAS),
• interviews with selected sheriffs and jail administrators,
• interviews with others knowledgeable about jail conditions, including the American
Civil Liberties Union, a consultant to the Select Oversight Committee on Corrections,
and plaintiffs’ attorneys,
• on-site visits to selected jails,
• observations of selected jail inspections,
• review of jail standards and analysis of Tennessee Corrections Institute (TCI)
inspection reports,
• analysis of Department of Correction population projection reports,
• review of court settlements related to jail conditions, and
• review of various journals and newspaper articles.
In May 2002, researchers mailed surveys to 95 sheriffs responsible for 106 jails and workhouses
on the following issues:
• facility construction/expansion plans,
• facility beds and population,
• federal inmates,
• TCI certification,
• funding/budgets,
• staff issues,
• legal actions,
• inmate programs, and
• safety issues.
County officials returned 79 (75 percent) survey forms. A copy of the survey is in Appendix A.
Survey results are included throughout the analysis section of this report.
Why examine conditions in local jails?
The Office of Research staff undertook this study after reading numerous newspaper articles
highlighting problems in Tennessee’s jails. In some cases, the U.S. Department of Justice
investigated allegations of unconstitutional conditions. In addition, several local jails have been
involved in federal suits because of overcrowding and other safety issues. Shelby and Morgan
Counties have both been involved in long-term legal action because of safety issues. In some
cases, lawsuits may be more costly to counties than correcting the underlying conditions.
Tennessee Corrections Institute staff have the duty to inspect local correctional facilities and
recommend certification or non-certification to the TCI Board of Control. Facilities meeting all
TCI standards are certified. During calendar year 2002, TCI did not certify 25 county
correctional facilities.
3
Shelby County
The Shelby County Criminal Justice Center, which has not been certified since 1989, is under a
consent decree because of a suit, Darius D. Little vs. Shelby County, et al., stemming from
situations that include rape by gang members; absence of guards to assist inmate Little while he
was raped; rare presence of guards to observe inmates; overcrowding; failure to properly classify
inmates before deciding which inmates should be housed together; gang violence, such as
beatings and stabbings; and inmates posting orders and rules in the cell block that are imposed on
other inmates.
4
The court ordered the jail to classify inmates within 90 days of entry, never house inmates
classified as violent in a cell with more than one other inmate, assign a separate cell block officer
to each of the cell blocks in which inmates are incarcerated, and continuously observe inmates
directly.
5
Other Shelby County inmates filed suits for unconstitutional conditions, mostly because of
violent gang activity in the jail. In August 2000, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) notified
the county that it would investigate conditions pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized
Persons Act.
6
The allegations centered around:
• inadequate supervision of inmates;
• excessive levels of violence;
• inadequate mental health and medical care; and
• deficient sanitation and environmental health.
The DOJ toured the facility with expert consultants in prison security, correctional health care,
mental health care, and environmental health and safety. The investigation concluded that certain
jail conditions violated inmates’ constitutional rights. The investigation found:
• deficient security and supervision and protection from harm (e.g., inmate-on-inmate
violence; inmates not supervised adequately; failure to classify inmates effectively;
failure to discipline inmates who violate jail rules; failure to control dangerous
contraband, tools, or keys; and excessive use of force),
• constitutionally deficient mental health and medical care (e.g., deficient access to care;
deficient medication administration; inadequate suicide precautions; and medical safety
and related security concerns), and
• inadequate food, clothing, and shelter (e.g., unsafe food handling and food service;
inadequate pest control and sanitation; inadequate lighting, sanitation, and laundry
service in housing units; improper storage and handling of hazardous materials; deficient
4
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Support of Order Granting Injunctive Relief to Remedy
Unconstitutional Conditions in the Shelby County Jail, Darius D. Little vs. Shelby County, et.al., Western District of
Tennessee, United States District Court, Civil Action No. 96-2520 TUA.
5
Order Granting Injunctive Relief to Remedy Unconstitutional Conditions in Shelby County Jail, Darius D. Little
vs. Shelby County, et.al., Western District of Tennessee, United States District Court, Civil Action No. 96-2520
TUA.
6
“The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act,” U.S.C.A., Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter I-A, § 1997,
accessed July 27, 2001, http://www.ncd.gov/resources/cripa.html
.
4
fire safety and prevention; insufficient access to the courts; and insufficient access to
exercise.)
7
In August 2002, the DOJ announced an agreement to drop its lawsuit against Shelby County
because the county had initiated efforts to remedy deficiencies at the jail, especially related to
inmate supervision and revision of the jail’s policies and procedures.
8
Morgan County
The Justice Department had also filed suit against Morgan County for failing to maintain proper
living and health care standards. The DOJ and Morgan County subsequently entered a joint
motion for conditional dismissal of the suit in June 2000. The agreement required Morgan
County to:
• renovate or replace the jail to ensure adequate health, safety, and sanitation;
• construct an addition to contain cells and showers for women inmates a multipurpose
area for visitation, indoor recreation, and medical examinations;
• ensure compliance with life safety and fire protection codes;
• provide adequate staff and supervision;
• ensure that all jailers receive adequate training;
• allow inmates to be given exercise five days a week for one hour a day;
• provide adequate access to legal materials;
• provide medical and dental care;
• provide adequate mental health care;
• maintain the jail in a clean and safe physical condition and provide adequate clothing,
bedding, hygiene, and cleaning materials;
• ensure that inmates are not subject to unreasonable uses of force or chemical agents; and
• revise the jail manual to explicitly define and prohibit sexual misconduct and sexual
harassment.
9
The Morgan County sheriff indicates the suit has cost Morgan County in excess of $2 million.
10
Background
Although state law gives sheriffs responsibility to manage county jails, some state agencies
impact their operations—most frequently, the Tennessee Corrections Institute (TCI), the
Department of Correction (DOC), and the Department of Mental Health and Developmental
Disabilities (DMHDD.)
7
Letter from Department of Justice to Shelby County Mayor Jim Rout re Investigation of Shelby County Jail.
(accessed via web on August 28, 2001; accesses no longer available.)
8
News Release, U. S. Department of Justice, “Justice Department Reaches Agreement with Shelby County
Tennessee, Concerning Conditions of Confinement at Shelby County Jail,” August 12, 2002.
9
United States of America vs. Morgan County, Tennessee, et.al., Eastern District of Tennessee, United States
District Court, Civil Action No. 3:00 – CV 89.
10
Telephone conversation with Morgan County Sheriff, Bobby Clinton, October 16, 2002.
5
The General Assembly created the Tennessee Corrections Institute in 1974 to:
• train correctional personnel to deliver correctional services in state, municipal, county,
and metropolitan jurisdictions,
• evaluate correctional programs in state, municipal, county, and metropolitan jurisdictions,
and
• conduct studies and research in the area of corrections and criminal justice to make
recommendations to the Governor, the Commissioner of Correction, and the General
Assembly.
11
In 1980, the legislature gave TCI the additional responsibility to inspect all county and state
penal institutions, jails, workhouse detention facilities, or any other correctional facility.
12
The
1984 General Assembly removed TCI’s responsibility for inspecting state facilities and training
their staffs.
13
TCI staff inspect local correctional facilities using standards approved by the Board
of Control, the agency’s governing body. Staff recommend to the Board certification or non-
certification based on compliance or non-compliance. TCI staff told researchers that non-
certified facilities are likely less defensible in a lawsuit and could lose insurance coverage.
14
Exhibit 1 illustrates those counties with non-certified jails. A list of non-certified county jails is
in Appendix B. The 2002-03 budget for TCI is $691,500.
15
The Department of Correction pays local jails to house inmates for various reasons. In some
cases felons await transfer to penitentiaries to serve their sentences, but remain in local facilities
for extended periods because state facilities lack space. The Department of Correction also
contracts with some local jails to hold state prisoners to alleviate overcrowding in state facilities.
In other cases, judges sentence felons to serve their terms in county facilities. In FY 2002, DOC
paid $104,266,652 to 102 local facilities.
Sheriffs report that the number of local inmates with mental illnesses or disabilities and/or
substance abuse has increased. The Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities
(MHDD) is responsible for court ordered forensic evaluations to determine a defendant’s
competency to stand trial and/or mental condition at the time of the offense. Regional Mental
Health Institutes, administered by DMHDD, serve pre-trial individuals from jails who meet
emergency involuntary commitment standards. Defendants ordered for forensic evaluations or
other pre-trial defendants are admitted without regard to bed availability upon meeting standards
for emergency involuntary commitment. DMHDD has created a diversion program with
community mental health centers to serve inmates in selected areas of the state.
16
In these
programs, criminal justice/mental health liaisons work to find alternative placements and
services for inmates with mental illnesses. The program’s budget is $770,000 ($294,000 in state
funds, and $476,000 in federal block grant funds).
17
In addition, mental health mobile crisis
teams conduct evaluations in jails, but responsiveness varies from team to team.
11
Public Chapter 733, Acts of 1974.
12
Public Chapter 913, Acts of 1980.
13
Public Chapter 938, Acts of 1984.
14
Interview with Roy Nixon, former Executive Director, Tennessee Corrections Institute, July 31, 2001.
15
TCI 2002-03 Budget.
16
Interview with Liz Ledbetter, Mental Health Specialist, Department of Mental Health and Developmental
Disabilities, July 26, 2002.
17
TDMHDD 2002-03 Budget.
6
Exhibit 1: County Jails Not Certified in 2002 by TCI
Source: Map created by Office of Research using Tennessee Corrections Institute Jail Inspection List.
Department of Education policy, in compliance with federal regulations, requires local education
agencies (LEAs) to provide special education services to eligible students, including those who
are incarcerated. The department has developed a procedure for sheriffs to identify affected
students and to notify the school system.
18
The director of special education for the Department
of Education indicated that the department does not have data on the number of special education
students served in county jails, but that it employs a staff person to monitor jails to ensure that
students with disabilities receive an appropriate education.
19
Special education criteria are found
at http://www.state.tn.us/education/speced/index.htm
18
Interview with Joe Fisher, Director of Special Education, Department of Education, August 26, 2002.
19
Email to Margaret Rose, Office of Research, from Joe Fisher, Director of Special Education, Department of
Education, Feb. 5, 2002.
7
Analysis and Conclusions
Overcrowded Jails
Many Tennessee jails are overcrowded. Overcrowding presents many implications for
governments. It strains county and state budgets and severely limits a facility’s capacity to
provide adequate safety, medical care, food service, recreation, and sanitation. In 1992, 27
percent of the nation’s large jails (those with 100 inmates or more) were under court order to
reduce overcrowding and/or improve general conditions of confinement.
20
• The number of inmates in Tennessee’s local correctional facilities increased 56 percent, from
13,098 in fiscal year 1991-92 to 20,393 in fiscal year 2002-03.
21
This increase is the result of
various factors, including:
o DOC inmates awaiting transfer to the penitentiaries
o some judges not allowing bail for pre-trial misdemeanants,
o some judges requiring sentenced misdemeanants to serve their full sentences,
o changes in law enforcement practices leading to more arrests,
o increase in the number of felons ordered to serve their sentences locally, and
o trial/hearing postponements.
• During fiscal year 2000-01, 47 Tennessee county facilities operated at an average capacity of
100 percent or greater, and 12 operated at an average capacity of 90-99 percent. The number
operating at 100 percent or greater rose to 60 in fiscal year 2001-02. The number operating at
an average capacity of 90-99 percent declined to nine.
22
The number of rated beds ranges
from 7 in Pickett County to 2,797 at the Shelby County Criminal Justice Center. (See
Appendix C.)
• In fiscal year 2002-03, local jails held an average of 2,301 DOC inmates awaiting transfer to
state prisons. According to the June 2003 Tennessee Jail Summary Report, DOC had 1,956
inmates awaiting transfer from jails to state facilities.
23
• The total number of state and local inmates in county jails has increased by almost 56 percent
since fiscal year 1992. Although DOC prisoners awaiting transfer to penitentiaries have
increased by about 13 percent since 1992, local felons have increased by almost 58 percent.
Exhibit 2 shows the increase in jail inmates from FY1991-92 through FY2002-03.
20
Wayne N. Welsh, Counties in Court, Temple University Press, 1995, p. 4.
21
Tennessee Department of Correction Monthly Jail Reports. Data in the TDOC monthly jail report is received from
each of the county jails. On the third Friday of every month, each of the county jails in Tennessee completes and
submits a monthly jail report form to the district Parole Officer. The officer then faxes each of the jail reports
without modification to the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC) and the information is recorded and
reproduced without modification.
22
TDOC Monthly Jail Report. TDOC maintains data on facilities in Johnson City and Kingsport but these were
excluded from analysis because they are municipal facilities and this project focused on county operated facilities
and facilities in which the county contracts with a private prison company.
23
Tennessee Department of Correction, Tennessee Jail Summary Report, June 2003, accessed July 15, 2003,
http://www.state.tn.us/correction/pdf/jail_jun03.pdf
.
8
• Even if the Department of Correction removed all its prisoners awaiting transfer, some
counties would be overcrowded. (See Exhibit 3.)
• According to a 2002 Office of Research survey of sheriffs, overcrowding is one condition
named in at least 19 percent of lawsuits brought against facilities and in six percent of
consent decrees or court orders. Of the 79 responding sheriffs, 48 (61 percent) believe that
overcrowding is one of the most important issues facing jails in the next five years. Federal
courts have ordered a number of counties, including Shelby, Madison, Knox, Hamilton, and
Davidson, to reduce the number of inmates.
o An attorney who sued Knox County in 1986 because of jail overcrowding announced
in October 2002 that he expects to ask the U.S. District Court to hold the county and
its sheriff in contempt of court because the jail repeatedly exceeded a mandated 215-
prisoner limit.
In 1997, a judge found the county in contempt for violating the cap and threatened to
fine the county until it found a solution. Attempts to build a new justice center have
collapsed.
24
o The Hamilton County jail could lose its certification because it failed to relieve
overcrowding. The average population in FY 2002 was approximately 578 with an
average capacity of 497.
25
TCI has repeatedly certified the facility because officials
promised to correct the problems. In 2001, TCI certified the facility based on a
planned expansion of the Silverdale Workhouse for federal prisoners, which is
expected to be completed in 2003.
26
A Hamilton County general sessions judge,
citing concerns regarding overcrowding and safety in the jail, began delaying the date
some non-violent offenders must report to the jail to serve their sentence and placing
these offenders in community corrections programs until the inmate population at the
jail decreases.
27
The Chattanooga police chief announced a new alternative
sentencing program called Project Transformation that offers drug offenders
counseling and job training classes rather than jail time.
28
o In Davidson County, federal court supervision ended in March 2002, 12 years after
the court imposed population limits on two of its facilities. However, in October
2002, the Davidson County General Sessions Court began conducting Saturday
sessions to move misdemeanants through the system more quickly because the
facility was becoming overcrowded again. The Saturday sessions handle offenders
who are arrested on the weekend, but must appear before a judge to have bail set.
Before the court began weekend sessions, defendants who might otherwise be out on
bail were held in the overcrowded jail.
29
24
Randy Kenner and Jamie Satterfield, “Full Jail Puts County on Spot,” Knoxville News-Sentinel, October 18, 2002.
25
Tennessee Department of Correction Monthly Jail Reports.
26
“Hamilton Jail Recertification May Be In Trouble Because of Overcrowding,” Knoxville News-Sentinel, October
23, 2002.
27
Telephone interview with Judge Bob Moon, Hamilton County General Sessions Judge, March 24, 2003.
28
“Hamilton Jail Tries Alternative Sentencing With Drug Offenders,” Knoxville News-Sentinel, October 25, 2002.
29
“Saturday Court is Helpful,” Tennessean, October 25, 2002.
9
Davidson County has also established a drug court that offers treatment as an
alternative to incarceration.
30
Davidson County has funded approximately $38 million
toward the renovation of and addition to the Criminal Justice Center and the
Correctional Work Center for an additional 1,000 beds.
31
• From 1996-2001, 24 counties increased jail capacity by building new jails, 19 counties
renovated existing facilities, and 14 added new space to existing facilities.
• According to the officials responding to the survey, 10 counties have immediate plans to
construct new jails, 14 counties plan to expand existing jails, and 11 will renovate existing
jail space. Over the years, some counties have added to their capacities by converting non-
traditional space, such as chapels, recreation areas, a library, and hallways, into dorms.
Exhibit 2 includes the statewide Tennessee jail population by inmate category from FY 91-92 to
FY 01-02. Analysis of this data can help identify past trends and anticipate future needs.
Exhibit 2: Jail Inmates from FY1991-92 through FY2002-03
Fiscal Year TDOC
Backups
Local
Felons
Other
Convicted
Felons
Others Convicted
Mis-
demeanants
Pre-trial
Felons
Pre-trial
Mis-
demeanants
Total
FY 91-92
2,041 2,638 1,222 285 3,098 3,000 814 13,098
FY 92-93
1,227 2,725 989 289 3,192 2,638 831 11,890
FY 93-94
1,156 2,920 1,073 273 3,371 2,756 904 12,451
FY 94-95
1,773 3,221 937 346 3,712 3,225 1,063 14,277
FY 95-96
2,042 3,350 1,082 330 3,956 3,452 1,287 15,499
FY 96-97
1,894 3,447 1,010 496 4,415 3,563 1,572 16,397
FY 97-98
1,617 3,515 1,070 632 4,613 3,972 1,739 17,160
FY 98-99
1,941 3,758 1,125 623 4,944 4,267 1,732 18,390
FY 99-00
1,927 3,917 1,136 797 4,821 4,538 1,802 18,935
FY 00-01
1,737 3,743 634 730 4,659 5,123 1,881 18,507
FY 01-02
2,143 4,137 555 811 4,982 5,333 2,158 20,118
FY 02-03
2,301 4,159 459 811 4,780 5,652 2,232 20,393
Change from
FY 91-92 to
FY 02-03
13% 58% -62% 185% 54% 88% 174% 56%
Source: Tennessee Department of Correction, Tennessee Jail Summary Report, June 2003, accessed July 15, 2003,
http://www.state.tn.us/correction/pdf/jail_jun03.pdf
.
A National Institute of Corrections publication states that jail crowding is a criminal justice
system (emphasis added) issue, and its roots lie with decisions made by officials outside the jail,
such as police, judges, prosecutors, and probation officers.
32
Like some other communities,
Shelby and Davidson Counties have created criminal justice coordination committees to examine
30
Telephone interview with David Byrne, Director of Court Annexed Programs, Davidson County Drug Court,
March 25, 2003.
31
Memorandum to Margaret Rose, Office of Research, from Karla Crocker, Communications Manager/Legislative
Liaison, Davidson County Sheriff’s Office, Feb. 6, 2003.
32
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections (Mark Cuniff- National Association of Criminal
Justice Planners), Jail Crowding: Understanding Jail Population Dynamics, January 2002, p. 16.
http://www.nicic.org/pubs/2002/017209.pdf
. (accessed February 1, 2002).
10
jail crowding and other criminal justice issues. The committees provide a forum for key justice
system professionals (such as law enforcement officials, judges, prosecutors, and public
defenders) and other government officials to discuss justice system challenges. Committees
analyze the implications that individual agency decisions impose on the entire criminal justice
system. Office of Research staff interviewed representatives from the two Tennessee committees
and a similar group in Louisville. Members usually serve the same persons in the criminal justice
system, albeit in different capacities. Communities often form this type of committee in response
to a crisis rather than as a preventive measure.
Exhibit 3: Overcrowded Jails (Excludes DOC Backups)
Facility Percent Capacity
Excluding DOC
Backups
Facility Percent Capacity
Excluding DOC
Backups
Bedford
108%
Houston
113%
Bledsoe
189%
Humphreys
102%
Bradley
163%
Jackson
114%
Campbell
260%
Jefferson
118%
Carter
192%
Johnson
129%
Claiborne
182%
Lawrence
165%
Davidson CJC
104%
Loudon
204%
Davidson HD1
102%
Marshall
111%
Davidson CWC
103%
Monroe
109%
Davidson CCA
143%
Perry
106%
Fentress
115%
Pickett
133%
Gibson
114%
Polk
133%
Greene
153%
Roane
126%
Hamblen
110%
Scott
119%
Hamilton Jail
127%
Sequatchie
113%
Hardin
187%
Sumner
139%
Hawkins
102%
Warren
191%
Henderson
115%
Wayne
179%
Hickman
102%
Note: Only includes June 2003 data.
Source: Tennessee Department of Correction, Tennessee Jail Summary Report, June 2003, accessed July 15, 2003,
http://www.state.tn.us/correction/pdf/jail_jun03.pdf.
Tennessee’s continuing failure to provide adequate capacity in state prisons has
contributed to overcrowding in some local jails. Tennessee statutes address only state
prison overcrowding but offer no contingencies for overcrowded local jails. Inmate lawsuits
against Tennessee resulted in several pieces of legislation that allowed the state to respond to
prison overcrowding. These laws, combined with “The Reduction of Prison Overcrowding Act,”
specify that the governor can declare a state of overcrowding when the prison population exceeds
95 percent of capacity for 30 days or when there are reasonable grounds to believe that within 30
11
days capacity will be 95 percent. The statute allows the governor to direct the Commissioner of
Correction to notify all state judges and sheriffs to hold certain inmates until state facilities have
lowered their population to 90 percent of capacity.
33
The department has operated under this
statute continuously since the 1980s. The County Correctional Incentives Program (CCIP)
provides financial incentives for counties to hold felony offenders locally.
34
T.C.A. 41-4-140 (b)(2) and (e) specify that TCI cannot deny certification solely because of
overcrowding caused by DOC prisoners held in local jails. When determining compliance with
certain standards, TCI does not count DOC inmates awaiting transfer if the number is greater
than six percent of the county’s total average prisoner population over the preceding 90 days.
35
In Michigan, the County Jail Overcrowding State of Emergency Statute requires sheriffs to
notify judges, county executives, and other officials when the county jail population exceeds 100
percent of capacity for seven consecutive days. The Michigan statute outlines actions that
officials may take to reduce the population.
36
Tennessee statutes governing the transfer of state prisoners from county jails conflict with
each other. T.C.A. 41-8-106(g) requires the department to take into custody all convicted felons
within 14 days of receiving sentencing documents from the courts of counties not under contract
with the County Correctional Incentives Program. On the other hand, T.C.A. 41-1-504 (a)(2)
allows the department to delay transfer of felons who had been released on bail prior to
conviction for up to 60 days until the prison capacity drops to 90 percent. As a result, some
counties operate overcrowded facilities and often request other counties to hold some of their
inmates.
In the 1989 case, Dalton Roberts et. al v. Tennessee Department of Correction, et al., Hamilton,
Davidson, Knox, and Madison Counties sued the state for shifting its overcrowding burden to
their facilities. The Middle Tennessee District of the U.S. District Court placed certain limits on
the number of inmates that could be held in those facilities.
37
Because of the suit, the Department
of Correction gives priority to inmates in those facilities when deciding which inmates to transfer
to state facilities.
In late October 2002, the department began placing inmates in the Whiteville Correctional
Facility.
38
The Whiteville Correctional Facility in Hardeman County is owned by Corrections
Corporation of American (CCA).
33
T.C.A. 41-1-501 et.seq.
34
T.C.A. 41-8-101 et.seq.
35
Rules of the Tennessee Corrections Institute, Correctional Facilities Inspection, Chapter 1400-1 Minimum
Standards for Local Correctional Facilities, pp. 2-3 accessed July 27, 2001
http://www.state.tn.us/sos/rules/1400/1400-01.pdf
.
36
Michigan Compiled Laws § 801.55 and 801.56.
37
Dalton Roberts, et.al. v. Tennessee Department of Correction, et.al., United States District Court Middle
Tennessee District, Nashville Division, 1989, No. 3-89-0893.
38
Email to Brian Doss, Office of Research, from Howard Cook, Director of Classification and Acting Assistant
Commissioner of Operations, Tennessee Department of Correction, March 24, 2003.
12
Other recent additions to DOC capacity include:
• 1,536 new beds by construction at West Tennessee in 1998,
• 188 new beds by construction at DeBerry Special Needs Facility in 1998,
• 500 beds by expanding the Hardeman County contract in 1999,
• 256 beds by construction at the Tennessee Prison for Women in 2001, and
• 170 beds by double-celling at the Northeast Correctional Facility in 2002.
39
DOC and the Department of Finance and Administration have unsuccessfully attempted to locate
a suitable site for a new prison to increase capacity for a number of years. Plans being considered
are contingent on sites being conducive to construction and occupation. Administration officials
will report back to the Select Oversight Committee on Corrections when recommendations are
final.
In spite of T.C.A. 41-4-141, which allows two or more counties to jointly operate a jail, no
Tennessee counties have done so. As a result, some counties miss the opportunity to save
county funds and to lower their liability risks. A regional jail is defined as a correctional facility
in which two or more jurisdictions administer, operate, and finance the capital and operating
costs of the facility.
40
Authorities in other states use various approaches to operating regional jails; for example, in
some areas the agreement may specify that one jurisdiction may actually operate the facility, but
all participating jurisdictions equally share policy and decision-making responsibilities. In other
jurisdictions, adjoining counties may contract with a single county to house their prisoners and
relinquish their authority regarding policy and decision-making. Another option occurs when
each participating county operates its own facility for pre-trial inmates, but joins with other
jurisdictions for post-conviction incarcerations.
Sheriffs and county executives in some Tennessee counties have discussed the possibility of
creating regional jails, but could not reach agreement. Any attempt to establish a regional jail
calls for an examination of several issues. Some of these issues are:
• a perceived loss of authority by some county officials;
• a perception that not all counties are contributing equally;
• differing management styles;
• an increase in transportation costs;
• attorney complaints; and
• disagreements over the location of the facility.
39
Telephone conversation with Sendy Parker, Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Tennessee Department of
Correction, October 24, 2002.
40
National Institute of Corrections, Briefing Paper: Regional Jails, January 1992, p.1
http://www.nicic.org/pubs/1992/010049.pdf
(accessed February 4, 2002).
13
Jail Conditions, Standards, Inspections, and Training
Conditions
Comptroller’s staff observed unsafe and unsanitary conditions in some of the jails visited
during this study. Comptroller’s staff visited 11 jails during this study. Staff selected rural,
urban, and medium sized counties in all three grand divisions of the state. Additionally, staff
chose some counties recommended as model facilities and others described as substandard. Two
of the jails were new with no visible problems. Researchers observed the following conditions
that pose danger or violate TCI standards in some of the other facilities:
• overcrowding with inmates sleeping on the floor in cell areas or in hallways, blocking
exits;
• lack of clear markings for emergency exits;
• lack of male/female sight and sound separation;
• lack of sight and sound separation for juveniles;
• inability to separate inmates classified as violent from those determined to be non-
violent;
• excessive personal items;
• items that could be used for suicide or assaults, such as ropes for hanging towels, glass
mirror in maximum security cells, exposed television cords and cables, other electrical
cords;
• bare light bulb with exposed wiring hanging from ceiling;
• darkened cell blocks;
• no visual contact except during walk-throughs;
• lack of adequate exercise areas; and
• faulty plumbing.
Standards
The Tennessee Corrections Institute has no power to enforce its standards, resulting in
some jail conditions that endanger inmates, staff, and the public. In 2002,
25 county jails failed to meet certification standards. Without sanctions, counties often fail to
correct conditions that may be dangerous and likely to result in costly lawsuits. Fifty-three
sheriffs (67 percent of respondents) reported on the Comptroller’s survey that inmates have sued
their facilities within the last five calendar years. According to most sheriffs and jail
administrators interviewed, many suits are frivolous and eventually dismissed; however as of
calendar year 2001, nine sheriffs (11 percent) stated their jails are under a court order or consent
decree.
However, T.C.A. 41-7-101 et. seq., which created TCI, does not stipulate sanctions against
facilities not meeting standards. T.C.A. 41-4-140(a)(4) states that TCI has the power to establish
and enforce procedures to ensure compliance with its standards to guarantee the welfare of
persons in institutions. TCI personnel define that enforcement authority as the denial of
certification.
41
Non-certified facilities are likely less defensible in a lawsuit and could lose
insurance coverage.
41
Telephone conversation with Peggy Sawyer, Assistant Director, Tennessee Corrections Institute, Oct. 2, 2002.
14
Other Tennessee regulatory staff, including nursing home inspectors, food establishment
inspectors, and fire marshals, have authority to penalize non-compliant facilities with sanctions
such as fines, restricted admission, or closure.
Sanctions imposed in other states for non-certification vary. For example,
• Kentucky can close facilities.
• Louisiana places the facility on a 120-day notice and removes inmates if non-
compliance continues.
• Maryland requires jails to develop a compliance plan and reassesses the facility after
six months with continued follow-ups until the facility is in compliance; ultimately
the state can close facilities.
• Nebraska can terminate state reimbursements for inmates or close facilities.
• South Carolina employs a range of intermediate sanctions and can ultimately close
facilities.
• Virginia may place facilities on probation, decertify them, or close them.
42
In 2001 the General Assembly considered, but did not pass, a bill that would have given TCI
more enforcement authority. House Bill 398/Senate Bill 764 would have allowed TCI to:
• issue provisional certifications;
• decertify facilities;
• exclude counties from participating in the County Correctional Incentives Act of 1981;
and
• ask the Attorney General and Reporter to petition circuit courts to prohibit inmates from
being confined in facilities that do not meet standards or impose threats to the health or
safety of inmates.
TCI continues to certify inadequate and overcrowded jails that do not meet state
standards. T.C.A. 41-4-140(d) prohibits TCI from decertifying deficient facilities if the county
submits a plan within 60 days of the initial inspection to correct its “fixed ratio deficiencies.”
Fixed ratio deficiencies refer to square footage and/or showers and toilets as well as jail capacity.
TCI accepts plans that include:
• transferring inmates to the Department of Correction,
• asking judges to grant early release of some inmates,
• lowering bonds of some inmates,
• contracting with other counties to house inmates,
• renovating to add beds,
• adding to an existing facility, or
• building a new facility.
43
42
Judith T. Nestrud and Thomas A. Rosazza, Rosazza Associates, Inc., State Inspection and Standard Program
Survey, July, 1999, p. 19-21.
43
Memorandum from Peggy Sawyer, Assistant Director, TCI, to Brian Doss, Office of Research, October 3, 2002.
15
Many counties delay implementing their plans indefinitely, yet TCI continues to certify the
facilities. For example, the Department of Correction might be unable to accept enough inmates
to eliminate an overcrowding deficiency or judges might refuse to grant early releases or lower
bonds. Plans to build a new facility or expand housing units in an existing jail may be postponed
for years because of a lack of funding, yet TCI certifies the facility because county officials
submit evidence of discussing the issue.
The Knox County Grand Jury of the November-December 2002 term visited the Knox County
Jail and documented several areas of concern including no emergency lighting in the pods, an
easily accessible waste receptacle containing used needles in the medical area, and the need for
an upgraded ventilation system.
44
The county scrapped plans to build a new facility in 2000.
45
Regardless, TCI certified this facility in calendar year 2002.
TCI standards do not appear to meet the level of quality mandated by T.C.A. 41-4-140. This
section requires that: “Such standards shall be established by the Tennessee Corrections Institute
and shall approximate, insofar as possible, those standards established by the inspector of jails,
federal bureau of prisons, and the American Correctional Association's Manual of Correctional
Standards, or such other similar publications as the institute shall deem necessary.”
However, TCI standards are minimal and not as comprehensive as those of the American
Correctional Association. For example, ACA standards include items that TCI standards omit,
such as:
• a written policy, procedure, and practice for monthly inspections by a qualified fire and
safety officer for compliance with safety and fire prevention standards;
• programs to prepare inmates for release;
• population projection plans to anticipate future needs;
• formulas to determine the number of staff needed for essential positions; and
• qualifications for jail administrators.
As a result, Tennessee jails may be substandard in comparison to jails that comply with ACA
standards.
46
TCI has not developed minimum qualification standards for correctional officers and jail
administrators. Few local correctional officer positions are civil service. Newly elected sheriffs
usually hire new officers. TCI standards require that correctional officers receive 40 hours of
basic training within the first year of employment. According to several jail administrators and
44
Knox County Grand Jury, Report of the Knox County Grand Jury of Their Visits of Knox County Institutions and
Knox County-Operated Facilities During the November –December 2002 Term, p. 1.
45
Randy Kenner, “Report: County Jail Has Health, Security Woes,” The Knoxville News-Sentinel, October 31, 2002.
46
To be ACA accredited, a facility must comply with 100 percent of all applicable mandatory standards and at least
90 percent of all non-mandatory standards. The ACA Adult Local Detention Facilities manual has 440 standards (41
mandatory and 399 non-mandatory standards.) For those non-mandatory standards not in compliance, there must be
a plan of action to bring them into compliance within a reasonable time or a request for the noncompliance to be
waived.
16
sheriffs, newly hired correctional officers frequently report on their first day with no experience
or training on how to perform their duties or handle unruly inmates and emergencies.
Inspections
The Tennessee Corrections Institute appears to have inadequate staff to fulfill its mandate.
TCI gradually reduced its staff from 26 positions in 1982 to 11 in 2002 because of forced budget
cuts.
47
The agency’s staff now consists of only six inspectors, an executive director, and clerical
staff. The lack of staff results in the following conditions that affect the quality of jail
inspections:
• The six inspectors provide training and technical assistance to jail staff as well as
conducting inspections. Mixing regulatory and assistance functions can result in a lack of
objectivity by inspectors.
• Inspectors may have inadequate time to perform quality inspections within statutory time
limits. The six inspectors must cover 14 city jails, 95 county jails, nine jail annexes, and
eight correctional work facilities within each calendar year. If a facility fails its initial
inspection, inspectors must revisit the facility within 60 days to assess whether the jail
has corrected violations.
48
To comply with the law, inspectors must complete all initial
inspections by November 1. In addition to conducting inspections, TCI staff train
correctional officers, testify in court, provide technical assistance to jail administrators,
and approve plans for new facility construction or renovation.
• Having so few positions prevents TCI from employing staff with specialized
qualifications. The inspectors cannot be expected to have expert knowledge in all aspects
of jail management and facility design, such as reading blueprints, wiring, and plumbing.
• The low number of staff can also result in less than thorough inspections. TCI staff
evaluate facilities on 136 standards: physical plant; administration and management;
personnel; security; discipline; sanitation and maintenance; food services; mail and
visitation; medical services; inmate supervision; classification; hygiene; programs and
activities; and admissions, records, and release.
49
• Office of Research staff accompanied TCI inspectors on three inspections, each
completed in approximately four hours by a single inspector. Because of the numerous
standards, four hours may not be sufficient to complete a comprehensive inspection.
Under these conditions, staff may not be able to thoroughly examine compliance with
each standard.
• Lone TCI inspectors conduct most jail inspections. Working in teams can result in a
more thorough inspection and discovery of standards violations. A team of two may
inspect larger facilities. However, in such instances the inspectors examine different
47
Interview with Roy Nixon, former Executive Director, and Peggy Sawyer, Assistant Director, Tennessee
Corrections Institute, Sept. 19, 2002.
48
T.C.A. 41-4-140 (b)(1).
49
Rules of the Tennessee Corrections Institute, Correctional Facilities Inspection,
http://www.state.tn.us/sos/rules/1400/1400-01.pdf
(accessed July 27, 2001).
17
aspects of the facility. In other words, one inspector observes the physical plant while the
other inspector reviews records.
50
Inspectors in 13 other states inspect jails alone;
inspectors in 11 states inspect jails in teams; and in six states either one inspector or a
team inspects jails.
51
TCI inspection practices appear inadequate to ensure safe and secure jails. Office of
Research staff observed several problems with TCI’s inspection practices during jail inspections:
• Inspectors conduct their examinations and interpret agency standards in various ways.
TCI’s executive director allows the inspectors to interpret the standards as they
understand them as long as they can defend their decisions in court. Non-uniform
interpretation of standards may result in inconsistency across the state and the
certification of some facilities that may not fully meet standards. Office of Research staff
members accompanied inspectors to three jails and observed that the tone and
thoroughness of the inspections varied.
•
Although TCI inspections are unannounced, they generally occur within the same or an
adjacent month of the previous year’s inspection. As a result, jail staff can anticipate
inspections and present themselves in ways during the inspections that do not reflect their
normal routines and practices.
•
TCI generally assigns inspectors to the same jails every year. This practice can result in
close relationships with jail staff that may compromise the integrity of inspections and
certification. The TCI director explained that inspectors live across the state and
generally inspect facilities in the regions where they live, with the exception of their
home counties. This practice reduces travel time and expenditures.
• When researchers accompanied TCI staff on inspections, some inspectors exhibited a
lack of attention to detail. For example, on one inspection, TCI staff did not point out
numerous safety hazards, such as exposed wiring, nor did that inspector advise jail
personnel to remove dangerous objects. Both the inspector and the jail administrator
acknowledged that the facility was uncertifiable because of physical plant conditions. In
spite of this, both parties should take steps to ensure the safety of staff and inmates.
Staff in one jail indicated that the local fire and health departments and the county risk manager
also conduct annual inspections to ensure that the facility is safe regardless of TCI’s report. Fire
department staff examine inmate living areas, office space, and chemical storage to advise jail
staff of potential fire hazards. The health department inspects inmate living areas, heating and
ventilation units, food services, and pharmaceutical control. The county risk manager primarily
screens for interests such as equipment safety and electrical hazards.
52
50
Interview with Roy Nixon, former Executive Director, and Peggy Sawyer, Assistant Director, Tennessee
Corrections Institute, Sept. 19, 2002.
51
Judith T. Nestrud and Thomas A. Rosazza, State Inspection and Standard Program Survey, July 1999,
p. 18.
52
Telephone conversation with Jim Hart, Chief of Corrections, Hamilton County Sheriff’s Department, October 23,
2002.
18
The former sheriff of Shelby County, forced to spend millions of dollars as a result of court
action, told researchers that the impact of the lawsuit could have been lessened if TCI had been
more thorough in its inspections.
53
The U.S. Department of Justice cited the facility for
numerous violations not recorded by the jail inspector. Other sheriffs, however, commented on
improvements in TCI practices in the last two years.
Training
TCI inspectors provide minimal training to correctional officers (jailers), who must attend
40 hours of basic training during their first year of employment. TCI provides no training
to sheriffs and jail administrators. As a result, some correctional officers begin work with no
preparation and, in fact, may never receive training, increasing the potential of liability.
Although the American Correctional Association requires 120 hours of first-year training for all
offender supervision staff, TCI requires only 40 hours. The Tennessee Department of Correction
requires state correctional officers to attend six weeks of pre-service training before working in
an institution.
One jail administrator in an uncertified facility told researchers that she had not sent her staff to
training for the past four years. Lack of training in proper restraint of unruly or disturbed inmates
could result in injury to officers, inmates, or the public.
Exhibit 4 compares American Correctional Association (ACA) training standards with those of
TCI.
Exhibit 4: Comparison of ACA and TCI Training Hours
ACA TCI
Type of Staff Orientation First year Annual Orientation First year Annual
All offender
supervision staff
40 120 40 Not
specified
40 40
Administrative
Management
Personnel
Not
specified
40 40 Not
specified
None None
Source: American Correctional Association, 2002 Standards Supplement, 2002, and TCI Minimum Standards.
Training is critical to protect both inmates and correctional officers. Failure to train can result in
federal litigation for violation of constitutional rights and abuse of inmates. Of the 79 sheriffs
responding to the Office of Research survey, 53 (67 percent) reported that they believe that
correctional officers received adequate training to manage inmates. On the other hand, at least
three sheriffs’ departments provide their own training academies because they do not believe
TCI training quality and quantity is sufficient. At least two facilities require correctional officers
to complete 10 weeks of pre-service and on-the-job training. TCI staff annually train (including
basic and in-service) approximately 2,000 jail staff.
54
TCI’s Executive Director said he would
provide more training if he had more staff.
53
Interview with A.C. Gillis, former Shelby County Sheriff, August 13, 2002.
54
Interview with Roy Nixon, former Executive Director, and Peggy Sawyer, Assistant Director, Tennessee
Corrections Institute, Sept. 19, 2002.
19
Newly elected sheriffs without previous law enforcement certification must attend training
provided by the Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (POST). However, most of
this training relates to law enforcement activities, with little time devoted to jail management.
55
Jail Funding
The state does not evaluate the reimbursement process for housing state inmates in local
correctional facilities as required by T.C.A. 41-1-405, enacted in 1983. Although the various
reports submitted by counties to determine reimbursements are reviewed, the overall
reimbursement process is not continually evaluated. T.C.A. 41-1-401 stresses the need for
statutory policies regarding certain important correctional issues such as inmate labor,
classification system, sentencing, and the impact on local correction systems to guide present and
future correction administrations. Further, “the general assembly also encourages the department
to initiate innovative programs, administrative policy, and management techniques...”
T.C.A. 41-1-405 explains the General Assembly’s intent for “a continuing evaluation of the
impact of the state correction system upon local correction systems is essential to determine the
method and amount of assistance, financial or otherwise, necessary to equitably compensate such
local systems for their continuing role in the overall correction system of this state.” The statute
suggests that a “task force composed of all facets of the criminal justice system” conduct the
evaluation. Because the process has not been continually reviewed the current method may not
comply with the General Assembly’s intent to equitably compensate local correctional systems.
Any evaluation should include an analysis of marginal and fixed costs which can help to
determine if the reimbursement process is equitable to the counties and the state.
The Department of Correction varies reimbursement rates for counties housing state inmates.
Twenty-four county facilities contract with the department to hold state prisoners under the
County Correctional Incentive Program.
56
Sixteen of the county facilities under contract agree to
a flat, or fixed, rate ranging from $20 to $35 per prisoner per day.
57
Eight county facilities under
contract submit reports detailing their actual expenses and the state pays their “reasonable and
allowable” costs, not to exceed $35 a day.
58
However, DOC paid the Shelby Penal Farm $47.82 a
day and the Davidson County Detention Facility $38.10 a day in fiscal year 2001. Corrections
Corporation of America manages the Davidson County Detention Facility.
The department pays 69 other facilities through board bills. The amount is based on reasonable
55
Tennessee Law Enforcement Training Academy, New Sheriff School, Session 1050, 08/19/02 – 08/23/02.
56
Counties can request to contract with the state, but the state determines if it is in the state’s best interest to contract
with a county. Email to Brian Doss, Office of Research, from Judy Lambert, Judicial Cost Accountant, Tennessee
Department of Correction, May 15, 2003. The Department also contracts with the Johnson City jail.
57
The flat rate is the amount the county charges the state and is not based on actual costs. Email to Brian Doss,
Office of Research, from Judy Lambert, Judicial Cost Accountant, Tennessee Department of Correction, May 16,
2003.
58
Reasonable and allowable costs are defined as “actual, reasonable, and necessary costs incurred by a county in
operating a local jail, workhouse, or penal farm, adjusted for unallowable costs…” State of Tennessee, Department
of Correction and Comptroller of the Treasury, Guidelines For Determining Reasonable and Allowable Cost For
State Prisoners, April 2001, p. 4.
20
and allowable costs, but capped at $35.
59
Eight county commissions adopted resolutions not to
participate in the County Correctional Incentive Act. They are paid as follows:
• $18 per diem if the TCI rated capacity is less than 100,
• $20 per diem if the TCI rated capacity is 100 or more.
60
A DOC budget official told researchers that the department annually reviews cost reports
submitted by counties but has not adjusted a $35 per diem cap placed on most contracts. The per
diem paid to each county is included in Appendix D.
All sheriffs interviewed agreed that medical and dental costs for state prisoners cause them to
overspend their budgets. Counties must ensure that inmates receive medical care or risk liability
for not doing so.
61
T.C.A. 41-4-115 (b) stipulates that the state is “liable for expenses incurred
from emergency hospitalization and medical treatment rendered to any state prisoner
incarcerated in a county jail or workhouse, provided such prisoner is admitted to the hospital.”
62
Inmates are not eligible for Tenncare benefits.
63
As a result, sheriffs must absorb these costs or
risk liability for not providing medical services.
Contracted counties include some medical care in cost reports to determine their reasonable and
allowable costs. In twenty-two counties which contract, the county is responsible for providing
routine medical, mental health, and dental services at a cost not to exceed $1,000 per inmate per
year. The state is responsible for providing services which exceed $1,000. Non-contracted
counties paid through board bills can include some medical care costs to determine their
reasonable and allowable costs. DOC staff state that they transfer chronically ill patients to a
state facility as quickly as possible.
64
Low funding for jails contributes to unsafe facilities, high correctional officer turnover, and
staff shortages in some jails. The 79 officials responding to the Office of Research survey
reported budgets ranging from $70,000 in Perry County to $74.6 million in Shelby County
facilities operated by the sheriff. The workhouse run by the Shelby County mayor reported a
$43.6 million budget.
The operating budget in Sequatchie County is so low that the sheriff leaves the night shift
unmanned and relies on the dispatcher to call in deputies to handle any disturbances or
59
Letter from former TDOC Commissioner Christine Bradley to County Executives and Sheriffs, February 28,
1994.
60
State of Tennessee, Department of Correction and Comptroller of the Treasury, Guidelines For Determining
Reasonable and Allowable Cost For State Prisoners, April 2001, p. 24.
61
T.C.A. 41-4-115(a).
62
Emergency hospitalization is defined as “services required for alleviation of severe pain; or immediate diagnosis
and treatment unforeseen medical conditions which, if not immediately diagnosed and treated, would lead to
disability and/or death.” State of Tennessee, Department of Correction and Comptroller of the Treasury, Guidelines
For Determining Reasonable and Allowable Cost For State Prisoners, February 2001, p. 11.
63
An inmate is defined as an individual confined for a criminal offense in a local, state, or federal prison, jail, youth
development center, or other penal or correctional facility, including a furlough from such facility. Rules of
Tennessee Department of Finance and Administration, Bureau of TennCare,
http://www.state.tn.us/sos/rules/1200/1200-13/1200-13-12.pdf
(accessed May 20, 2003).
64
Interview with Judy Lambert, Judicial Cost Account, Department of Correction, July 26, 2001.
21
emergencies. If inmates need assistance, they must bang on the cell bars and yell to get the
attention of a dispatcher who in turn calls a deputy in from rounds.
65
Several other counties
schedule a single correctional officer to work alone during a shift, leaving him/her without
backup for assistance if overtaken by inmates.
Sheriffs responding to the survey reported average correctional officer tenure ranging from three
months to ten years. Sheriffs ranked low salaries as the most prevalent reason for high turnover
rates. Beginning salaries ranged from $11,440 to $27,060; average salaries ranged from $14,227
to $32,555; and maximum salaries ranged from $14,500 to $38,781.
Exhibit 5 compares local correctional officer salaries in Tennessee to national figures.
Exhibit 5: Comparison of Local Jail Correctional Officer Salaries
in Tennessee and the U.S.
Salary Tennessee State
Range
Tennessee State
Average
United States
Average
Beginning $11,440 - $27,060 $19,502 $26,078
Average $14,227 - $32,555 $21,047 $31,260
Maximum $14,500 - $38,781 $23,588 $38,944
Source: Tennessee data obtained from Office of Research Survey, May 2002. United States data found in The
Criminal Justice Institute, “The Corrections Yearbook 2000 Jails”, pp. 80-84.
Many Tennessee jails suffer staff shortages because of underfunding. The 79 facilities that
responded to the Office of Research survey reported 4,043 full-time officers, including
supervisors, in charge of an average daily population of 17,246. Researchers did not attempt to
calculate staff to inmate ratios because of variations in the numbers of shifts jails use. A
Hamilton County General Sessions judge announced that he would defer sentencing nonviolent
offenders to the county jail until conditions improve, calling his decision a matter of safety. He
said that it is dangerous and unreasonable to expect one corrections officer to supervise and
control 150 inmates in that jail.
66
Most sheriffs interviewed by Office of Research staff noted strained relationships with county
executives and county commissions regarding jail funding. The sheriffs believe that these county
officials have other budgetary priorities and do not fully appreciate the liability issues caused by
underbudgeting. Inadequate funding usually leads to unsafe conditions, including critical
understaffing or physical plant deterioration that endangers inmates and jail personnel.
Several sheriffs interviewed explained that county executives and commissioners often complain
about having to subsidize the state’s overcrowding problem. The Office of Research survey
showed that 27 of 79 sheriffs responding (34 percent) have asked for supplemental
appropriations from their county commissions at least once in the last five years. The number of
sheriffs needing additional local funds rose from 14 in 1997 to 26 in 2001.
65
Interview with Brian Cagle, Chief Deputy, Sequatchie County Sheriff’s Department, August 20, 2002.
66
“Judge Defers Sentences Because of Crowded Jail,” The Oak Ridger Online, October 16, 2002.
22
No state agency enforces or monitors compliance with T.C.A. 41-8-107(c), which requires
non-certified facilities to use 75 percent of the state reimbursement to improve correctional
programs or facilities. Therefore, these jails may remain in poor and uncertifiable condition.
The General Assembly passed the County Correctional Incentives Program not only to help
reduce overcrowding in state prisons, but to assist counties in upgrading local facilities and
programs. The law allows certified facilities to use their entire reimbursement for current
operating expenses.
67
In FY 2001-02, DOC paid $3,515,426 to county jails that were not certified; 75 percent of this
amount is $2,636,569.
68
Appendix E shows the amounts that DOC paid to each noncertified jail
and the 75 percent that should have been used to correct deficiencies.
Mental Illness, Special Education, and Post-Release Issues
The Criminal Justice/Mental Health Liaison program helps divert inmates with mental
illnesses from jail in specific areas of the state. Statewide, however, Tennessee continues to
lack adequate community services and institutional placements for inmates with mental
illnesses held in jail.. A Comptroller’s Office Performance Audit from 2001 reports that the
large number of incarcerated persons with mental illness is attributed to several factors including
a lack of community services and the lack of a statewide program to help divert persons with
mental illnesses from the criminal justice system.
69
Both mental health professionals and sheriffs
agree that some offenders with mental illnesses would be better served by community resources
than by placing them in jails for minor offenses possibly caused by manifestations of their
illnesses. Other offenders may need the treatment environment of a mental health facility. In at
least one case, a Davidson County judge ruled that the right to a speedy trial for an inmate with a
mental illness had been violated after the inmate spent over a year in jail awaiting a competency
hearing.
In an attempt to relieve jails housing inmates who need treatment in mental health institutes,
Public Chapter 730 of 2002 specifies that the Commissioner of Mental Health and
Developmental Disabilities (DMHDD) must exert all reasonable efforts to admit such an inmate
within five days of receiving a commitment order. The General Assembly passed the bill because
of sheriffs’ complaints about the length of time inmates wait in jail for transfer to the institutes,
but DMHDD does not have enough bedspace to readily admit such inmates. If, while pending
admission to an institute, an inmate’s condition deteriorates to the standards for emergency
admission, the law requires the commissioner to admit the inmate immediately upon receiving
the commitment order.
70
Nationally, 16 percent of inmates in local jails reported having either a mental condition or an
overnight stay in a mental hospital.
71
A 2002 survey of Tennessee jails found that approximately
67
T.C.A. 41-8-101 et.seq.
68
Data obtained from Judy Lambert, Judicial Cost Accountant, Tennessee Department of Correction.
69
Performance Audit, "Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation and the Board of Trustees,"
Comptroller of the Treasury Division of State Audit, February 2001, p. 19
http://comptroller.state.tn.us/sa/reports/pa99105.pdf
(accessed March 27, 2003).
70
Conversation with Joy Spivey, Director of Forensic/Juvenile Services, Department of Mental Health and
Developmental Disabilities, November 4, 2002.
71
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Mental Health and Treatment of Inmates and
Probationers, July 1999, p. 1. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/mhtip.pdf
(accessed September 24, 2002).
23
18 percent of Tennessee’s inmates have a serious mental illness.
72
Sixty-four of the 79 sheriffs
responding to the Office of Research survey reported that the population of inmates with mental
illnesses has increased in the last five years.
In most cases, Tennessee’s local correctional officers are not adequately trained to deal with
prisoners who suffer from mental illnesses and may not respond appropriately. Consequently,
many inmates with mental illnesses are not afforded suitable treatment. To address this issue, the
Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities (DMHDD) established a Criminal
Justice/Mental Health Liaison pilot project in FY2000-01. The department created the project to
improve communication and coordination among the community, the criminal justice system,
and the mental health system, and to establish diversion activities. The program initially served
17 counties, but expanded by four counties in FY2002-03. Exhibit 6 shows those counties served
by liaisons. A list of the counties and providers is in Appendix F.
Liaison responsibilities include:
• assessing adults with mental illnesses who are incarcerated or who are at risk of
becoming incarcerated;
• fostering communication among the criminal justice and mental health systems and the
community;
• managing cases for adults with mental illness involved with the criminal justice system;
and
• providing training for jail personnel.
Although the liaison program is too new to determine the impact of its criminal justice activities,
many jail staff told researchers that the program is an asset. Liaisons are often able to locate
other, more appropriate, placements such as supportive living facilities or alcohol and drug
treatment centers for some inmates.
TennCare’s Behavioral Health Organizations contract with community mental health centers to
provide a variety of community services, including mobile crisis teams which perform mental
health evaluations in jails. Sheriffs and jail administrators mostly agreed that mobile crisis teams
are responsive, but others told researchers that the teams are located over an hour away from the
jail and cannot arrive in time to help significantly. Other jail personnel think that mobile crisis
teams place their priorities on other populations, such as the homeless, and do not respond
quickly to requests from the jails. One interviewee told researchers that the mobile crisis team
members in her catchment area consider inmates to be “safe” in jail because they have food and
a place to sleep. The interviewee, however, considers jail to be unsafe for inmates with mental
illnesses because overcrowded conditions can exacerbate mental disorders.
72
Sita Diehl and Elizabeth Hiland, “A Survey of County Jails in Tennessee: Four Years Later, A Descriptive Study
of Services to People with Mental Illness and Substance Abuse Problems,” February 2003, p. 5.
24
Exhibit 6: Counties Served by TDMHDD Liaison Positions As of 2001-2002
Source: Map created by Office of Research using information provided by the Tennessee Department of Mental
Health and Developmental Disabilities.
Office of Research staff were unable to determine whether sheriffs comply with federal and
state special education mandates. Most sheriffs and jail administrators interviewed denied that
they hold inmates who are eligible for special education services. However, most smaller jails do
not use a classification system to identify inmates eligible for special education services. Thus,
some eligible students may not receive services to which they are entitled. Providing special
education programming could help such inmates as well as protect jail staff from suits for failing
to ensure that they identify such children. According to the 2001 Annual Report of the Tennessee
Council of Family and Juvenile Court Judges, at least 194 juveniles were held in adult jails prior
to an adjudicatory hearing, but it is not known how many were eligible for special education
services.
In 2003, the Department of Education sent a copy of the department’s Policy and Procedure for
Incarcerated Children with Disabilities to all county sheriffs and local education agencies
(LEAs). State policies and procedures follow the directives of the federal law. The policy applies
to all students with disabilities, who are legally mandated to receive an education in Tennessee
through their 22
nd
birthday. The state’s policy specifies that if a person will be detained for 10
days or longer, the local facility must implement a referral process to assure that persons with
disabilities or who are suspected of having disabilities are referred to the LEA. The policy
includes a form for the jail to forward to the LEA, which is responsible for providing educational
services to eligible inmates who desire the service.
TCI standard 1400-1-.14 requires the facility to complete an intake form for each person
admitted to the facility. This form must contain items such as the person’s name, address, age,
occupation, and education. According to TCI staff, this standard requires only that jail staff ask
inmates to provide their level of education and does not require them to screen for persons who
25
may be eligible for special education services. TCI standard 1400-1-.17 (1) requires jails to
classify inmates according to the level of custody required, housing assignment, and participation
in correctional programs. Correctional programs include work release, trustee programs, and
Alcoholics Anonymous, but education is omitted. TCI staff were unaware of the state’s special
education policy until questioned by researchers. When training jail staff, TCI employees instruct
them that they have a responsibility to notify the school board only of inmates subject to the
mandatory attendance laws (those under age 18) and must provide room for instruction.
73
Most jails do not help inmates access social or health services upon release. An ACA non-
mandatory standard suggests facilities adopt a written policy, procedure, and practice to provide
continuity of care from admission to discharge from the facility, including referral to community
care.
74
Some criminal justice and mental health professionals expressed concern that inmates
with mental illnesses receive services in jails, but upon release, are not always linked to
community resources to provide continued services. Because of a potential lapse in services,
these same persons may return to the criminal justice system.
Most jails do not offer help to inmates to prepare them to reenter society. On the other hand,
Davidson County officials are committed to assisting inmates scheduled for release to help them
avoid reincarceration. Officials expressed concerns about inmates being disenrolled from
TennCare upon incarceration and the difficulties in reenrolling them upon release. They also
believe that the Department of Human Services should be more involved in assisting released
inmates to access its services, such as food stamps, TANF, or vocational rehabilitation. The
Sheriff’s Department has attempted to organize a network of community service providers,
including mental health agencies, to help inmates, but has met with mixed results.
American Correctional Association non-mandatory standards recommend that facilities provide
pre-release programs for all inmates.
75
According to the Office of Research survey, most jails
offer some education, mental health, and other programs to inmates; however, few counties
provide pre-release programs. One exception is the Davidson County Sheriff’s Anti-Violence
Effort (SAVE) program, a six-week program for violent offenders involving group sessions,
guest speakers, and other activities. The program includes assessment for chemical dependency,
job readiness, and GED programs. An aftercare coordinator assists inmates in accessing
employment, mental health services, halfway houses, and other services before they are released.
Inmates who successfully complete the in-house program are referred to a 52-week Day
Reporting Center program upon release.
76
73
Telephone conversation with Peggy Sawyer, Assistant Director, Tennessee Corrections Institute, Oct. 10, 2002.
74
American Correctional Association, Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities, Third Edition, 1991, p. 89.
75
Ibid, p. 107.
76
Davidson County Sheriff’s Office, Inmate Program Details, http://www.nashville-
sheriff.net/inmate_programs_details.htm (accessed August 28, 2002).
26
Recommendations
Legislative
The General Assembly may wish to authorize the Tennessee Corrections Institute to ask
the state’s Attorney General and Reporter to petition circuit courts to close jails that fail to
correct unsafe conditions. Although jails inherently present some risks, county officials
frequently fail to ensure that staff and inmates are not subjected to unnecessary threats. Some
county officials resist building new facilities or spending additional county funds on jail
operations. Nonetheless, lawsuits are more likely to result in expenditures that would exceed
preventive measures. Moreover, county governments have a legal obligation to provide humane
and sanitary conditions for inmates.
The General Assembly may wish to enact legislation prohibiting state prisoners from being
held in facilities that are not certified by TCI because of safety issues.
Such action would reduce the risk of costly suits against the state as well as help protect state
inmates from injury or death. Researchers observed several problems such as overcrowding, lack
of sight and sound separation for juveniles, inability to separate violent inmates from the non-
violent, unsanitary conditions, and items that could be used for suicide or assaults.
The General Assembly may wish to clarify statutory language regarding the transfer of
state prisoners from county jails. T.C.A. 41-8-106(g) requires the department to take into its
custody all convicted felons within 14 days of receiving sentencing documents from the courts in
counties not participating in the County Correctional Incentives Program. On the other hand,
T.C.A. 41-1-504 (a)(2) allows the department to delay transfer of felons released on bail before
their convictions for up to 60 days until the prison capacity drops to 90 percent. The state thus
shifts its burden of overcrowded facilities to local governments.
The Select Oversight Committee on Corrections may wish to review the current process to
reimburse local governments for housing state inmates in local correctional facilities. In
T.C.A. 41-1-405, he General Assembly stated its intent to continually evaluate the impact of the
state correction system on local correction systems, which includes the method and amount of
financial or other assistance to compensate local systems. This evaluation should include an
analysis of marginal and fixed costs which can help to determine if the reimbursement process is
equitable to the counties and the state.
Administrative
Local governments should establish avenues of communication such as councils or
committees composed of criminal justice agencies to seek solutions to problems such as
overcrowding. Jail crowding is a criminal justice system issue. Criminal justice coordination
committees can effectively examine jail crowding and other criminal justice issues by analyzing
the implications that individual agency decisions impose on the entire criminal justice system.
Community groups can seek alternatives to pre-hearing incarceration, such as pretrial diversion,
house arrest, electronic monitoring, and other avenues to reduce overcrowding.
The Department of Correction should make every effort to transfer state inmates held in
non-certified jails as quickly as possible. State inmates are at risk of harm in some county jails
and some pose a threat to other local inmates. The administration should make adding bed space
27
in its prison system a priority so that state inmates can be transferred to state facilities in
accordance with the law.
The Department of Correction should not contract with overcrowded jails to hold state
inmates. Because these facilities already hold too many inmates, incarcerating state inmates in
these facilities only exacerbates overcrowding and contributes to unsafe conditions.
Some Tennessee counties should consider the feasibility of establishing regional jails. A
regional jail is defined as a correctional facility in which two or more jurisdictions administer,
operate, and finance the capital and operating costs of the facility. Regional jails could result in
cost savings and lowered risk for liability.
The Tennessee Corrections Institute should review its standards and inspection practices
annually, revising them as needed to adequately protect jails from liability. Reviewing
standards and inspection practices could help TCI improve its operations and better assist in
protecting jails, their inmates, and staff. TCI last revised its standards in June 2000. TCI should
include a standard requiring jail staff to screen inmates to determine eligibility for special
education services. TCI should ensure that its sanitation and fire safety standards are consistent
with health and fire codes.
The Tennessee Corrections Institute should provide training to sheriffs, jail administrators,
and other supervisory personnel. The state provides limited jail management training to
sheriffs through the POST Commission, but the majority of POST training deals with law
enforcement activities. Jail administrators and other supervisory personnel receive no training
other than that offered to line correctional officers. TCI’s Executive Director said he would
provide more training if he had enough staff.
The Tennessee Corrections Institute should request reinstatement of the positions it lost
because of budget reductions in the 1980s and 1990s. Increasing the number of TCI staff
would allow the agency to reorganize into separate divisions for inspections and training as well
as allow staff to conduct more thorough inspections. TCI reduced its staff from 26 in 1982 to 11
positions in 2002 because of forced budget cuts. The agency’s six staff members inspect 14 city
jails, 95 county jails (some of which have annexes) and eight correctional work
centers/workhouses/penal farm, reinspect facilities when necessary, conduct basic and annual in-
service training for correctional officers, and provide technical assistance on varied subjects. Jail
inspections average four hours each, plus travel, report-writing, and follow-up; additional staff
would offer more time for thoroughness.
The Tennessee Corrections Institute should establish two distinct divisions within the
agency – one for inspections and the other for training and technical assistance.
Such action would eliminate a potential appearance of bias and provide for staff specialization.
TCI may better serve the local correctional system by creating two distinct divisions as long as it
employs qualified staff to ensure improved expertise when providing guidance for jail staff.
The Tennessee Corrections Institute should vary its inspection cycle and rotate inspector
assignments from year to year. This change would reduce close relationships between
inspectors and jail personnel and improve the integrity of the inspection process. Inspectors live
28
across the state and generally inspect facilities located in the regions where they live, with the
exception of their home counties. Even though inspections are unannounced, they generally
occur within the same or an adjacent month of the previous year’s inspection. Hence, jail staff
can anticipate inspections and present themselves in ways during the inspections that do not
reflect their normal routines and practices.
The state should enforce the statute requiring counties with noncertified jails to use 75
percent of their DOC reimbursements to improve correctional programs and facilities. In
spite of state and county budget constraints, the state is obligated to ensure the safety and
security of its citizens. Overcrowded, unsanitary, and dilapidated conditions in some jails place
communities at both physical and financial risk.
The Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities should determine the
impact of its criminal justice activities in local jails. If warranted, DMHDD should seek
additional federal funding to expand the Mental Health Liaison Program statewide and
increase the availability of mobile crisis teams. Although the liaison program is too new to
determine the impact of its criminal justice activities, many jail staff told researchers that the
program is an asset. Liaisons are often able to locate other, more appropriate, placements such as
supportive living facilities or alcohol and drug treatment centers for some inmates. Through their
activities, the liaisons help to reduce the jail population and potentially reduce the likelihood of
inmates returning to jail.
The Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities should prioritize bed
space to ensure that inmates awaiting competency hearings are evaluated in a timely
manner. However, DMHDD does not have enough bed space in its institutes to readily admit
such inmates. At least one judge dismissed charges against an inmate who was incarcerated for
over one year awaiting a competency hearing. The judge ruled that the inmate’s right to a speedy
trial was violated.
Sheriffs and jail administrators should provide discharge planning for inmates with mental
illnesses who need continued care upon release. Some jails arrange for inmates with mental
illnesses to receive services in jails, but rarely link them with community resources to provide
continued services upon release. Because of a lack of stability in services, these inmates are
likely to recidivate.
Sheriffs and jail administrators should report all inmates who may be eligible for special
education services to the LEA. Department of Education policy and federal regulations apply to
all students with disabilities who are legally eligible to receive an education in Tennessee
through their 22
nd
birthday. Providing special education programming could help such inmates in
general as well as protect jail staff from suits for failing to ensure that they identify such
children.
State agencies such as the Bureau of TennCare and the Department of Human Services
should work more closely with jail personnel to reinstate benefits inmates lose while
incarcerated. In many cases, inmates are released with no assistance from community agencies.
Some inmates are unable to function or succeed in a free environment without assistance.Helping
inmates access services upon release from jail could help prevent them from reoffending.
29
Appendix A: Office of Research Jail Survey
STATE OF TENNESSEE
COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH
505 Deaderick Street, Suite 1700
Nashville, Tennessee 37243-0268
Phone 615/401-7911
Fax 615/532-9237
May 17, 2002
Dear Sheriff:
The Office of the Comptroller is conducting a study of conditions in local correctional facilities.
The enclosed survey will provide a centralized source of data regarding jails and workhouses and
allow our staff to better understand some of the challenges facing Tennessee’s jails and
workhouses.
Please complete the enclosed survey and return it to our office by June 10, 2002. Although
multiple staff members may help in compiling information, please designate only one person to
complete the survey. The survey can be returned in the enclosed business reply envelope. If
more than one facility in the county is under your authority, please complete a survey form
for each facility. Please feel free to attach additional sheets as needed.
If you have questions about the survey, please feel free to contact Brian Doss at (615) 401-7873
or Margaret Rose at (615) 401-7884. We appreciate your assistance.
With kind regards,
Ethel Detch
Director
30
Name of county______________________________________________________________________
Name of sheriff______________________________________________________________________
Name of facility ______________________________________________________________________
Name, title, and phone number of person completing
survey______________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
I. Facility
1. Does the county have immediate plans to construct a new jail? ____ Yes ____ No
If yes, what is the number of anticipated beds? ______________________
When is the anticipated completion date? __________________________
2. Does the county have immediate plans to expand an existing jail? ____ Yes ____ No
If yes, what is the number of anticipated beds? _____________________
When is the anticipated completion date? __________________________
3. Does the county have immediate plans to renovate existing jail space? ____ Yes ____ No
If yes, when is the anticipated completion date? ___
_______________
II. Facility Beds and Population
A. General
Type Average Daily Population
(during calendar year 2001)
Rated TCI Capacity
(during calendar year 2001)
Beds Planned/Under
Construction (if applicable)
General Population – Male
General Population – Female
Special Purpose – Male
Special Purpose – Female
Total
4. Does the facility ever hold inmates who are under 18 years of age? ____ Yes ____ No
If yes, what was the monthly average during calendar year 2001? ___________________
B. Federal Inmates
5. Does the facility ever house inmates for federal authorities? ____ Yes ____ No (If no, go to # 9)
31
If yes, what was the monthly average during calendar year 2001? _______________
6. Has this number significantly increased over the past five calendar years? ____ Yes ____ No
7. For which federal authorities does the facility house inmates? (check all that apply):
____ U.S. Marshals Service ____ Bureau of Prisons ____ Immigration and Naturalization Service
____ Other (please specify):
________________________________________________________________________________________
8. How much compensation did you receive during calendar year 2001 to house inmates for federal authorities per day?
___________________________
III. Tennessee Corrections Institute (TCI) Certification
9. Was the facility certified in calendar year 2001? ____ Yes ____ No
If no, what were the violations from the 2001 TCI inspection?
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
How have the violations been addressed?
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
IV. Funding/Budget
10. What is the facility’s total operating budget for fiscal year 2001? ______________________
11. Has the county appropriated additional dollars for the jail to complete a fiscal year’s operations within the last five fiscal
years? ____ Yes ____ No
If yes, for which fiscal years? _____ 1997 _____ 1998 ______ 1999 ______ 2000 ______ 2001
32
V. Staff Issues
A. Correctional officers
12. How many full-time correctional officers did you employ during calendar year 2001? _____________________
13. How many full-time correctional officers left during calendar year 2001? (include retirements, resignations, terminations)
________________________________
14. What is the average length of employment (in years) for full-time correctional officers? ______________________
15. Please describe reasons contributing to turnover.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
16. Does your department have a plan to determine needed jail staffing ratios? _____ Yes _____ No
17. What is the beginning salary for a full-time correctional officer?___________________
18. What is the maximum salary for a full-time correctional officer?___________________
19. What is the average salary earned by full-time correctional officers? ____________________
B. Training
20. Do you believe your correctional officers receive adequate training to manage inmates? ____Yes ____ No
If no, in which of the following areas is more training needed? (choose all that apply):
____ Intervention with mentally ill inmates
____ Intervention with mentally retarded inmates
____ Restraint of inmates/ use of force
____ Disturbance control
___ Inmates with communicable diseases
____ Other (please specify)____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
VI. Legal actions
21. Has any inmate(s) initiated legal proceedings against the facility within the past five calendar years? ____ Yes ____ No
Please check the applicable allegations made in such legal proceedings:
____ Overcrowding ____ Lack of medical treatment ____ Education or training programs
____ Security ____ Other (please specify):
____________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
33
22. Is the facility under a Federal, State, or local court order or consent decree related to specific conditions of confinement? _____
Yes _____ No
If yes, what are the specific conditions (mark all that apply)
____ Overcrowding ____ Lack of medical treatment ____ Education or training programs
____ Security ____ Other (please specify):
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
**Please include copies of court orders and/or consent decrees.
VII. Inmate Programs
A. Education
23. Does the facility provide educational programs to inmates? ___ Yes ___ No
If yes, what types of educational programs are offered?
_____ Basic adult education _____ GED _____ Special education _____ Vocational education
_____ Other (please explain) __________________________________________________________
B. Mental health
24. What was the average monthly number of diagnosed mentally ill inmates in your jail during calendar year 2001?
____________________
(For this survey, mentally ill is defined as inmates receiving:
• psychotropic medication,
• mental health therapy or counseling services, or
• 24-hour mental health care in a special housing or a psychiatric unit on or off jail grounds)
25. Has the population of mentally ill inmates increased in the past five calendar years? ____ Yes ____ No
26. Are mental health services provided to inmates? ____ Yes _____ No (If no, go to # 29)
27. If yes, what types of mental health services are provided? (check all that apply)
____ Screening at intake ____ Psychiatric or psychological evaluations _____ Therapy
____ Other (please specify):
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
28. Do you believe that mental health services in your facility are adequate? _____ Yes _____ No
If no, please explain.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
29. Is training provided for correctional officers to manage inmates with mental illnesses? ____ Yes ____ No
34
C. Other programs
30. Please list any other programs offered to inmates:
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
VII. Safety issues
31. Does your jail keep records of incidents that result in harm to the staff and/or inmates? ____ Yes ____ No
If yes, please provide copies of incident summary reports your facility maintains for calendar years 1997-2001.
VIII. Other
32. What do you foresee as the most important issues facing jails in the next five years?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Please return by June 10, 2002 to:
Margaret Rose or Brian Doss
State of Tennessee
Comptroller of the Treasury
Office of Research
505 Deaderick Street, Suite 1700
Nashville, Tennessee 37243-0268
35
Appendix B: County Jails Not Certified in 2002 by TCI
Source: Tennessee Corrections Institute.
Facility Name
Bledsoe County Jail Johnson County Jail
Bradley County Jail Marion County Jail
Campbell County Jail McNairy County Jail
Claiborne County Jail Perry County Jail
Clay County Jail Pickett County Jail
Cocke County Jail & Annex Polk County Jail
Decatur County Jail Sequatchie County Jail
Grainger County Jail Union County Jail
Grundy County Jail Van Buren County Jail
Hardin County Jail Warren County Jail
Hickman County Jail Wayne County Jail
Humphreys County Jail White County Jail
Jackson County Jail
36
Appendix C: Average Total Population and Average Total Rated Beds of
Tennessee Local Correctional Facilities during FY 2001 and FY 2002
Facility
Average
Total Jail
Population
FY 2001
Average
Total
Beds*
FY 2001
Percent
Capacity
FY 2001
Average
Total Jail
Population
FY 2002
Average
Total
Beds* FY
2002
Percent
Capacity
FY 2002
Anderson County Jail 103 208 50% 129 207 62%
Bedford County Jail 123 88 140% 151 91 166%
Benton County Jail 51 92 56% 64 92 70%
Bledsoe County Jail 16 9 174% 21 9 238%
Blount County Jail 274 295 93% 305 350 87%
Bradley County Jail 167 123 135% 198 123 161%
Campbell County Jail 81 48 168% 87 48 183%
Cannon County Jail 37 42 87% 38 42 91%
Carroll County Jail 75 112 67% 114 112 102%
Carter County Jail 139 88 158% 159 88 180%
Cheatham County Jail 105 120 88% 122 120 101%
Chester County Jail 20 24 85% 26 24 111%
Claiborne County Jail 45 33 136% 56 33 171%
Clay County Jail 11 18 61% 10 18 58%
Cocke County Jail 117 116 101% 115 116 99%
Coffee County Jail 119 132 90% 169 137 123%
Crockett County Jail 47 62 76% 59 62 95%
Cumberland County
Jail
106 122 87% 102 122 84%
Davidson Justice Center 635 691 92% 631 613 103%
Davidson Hill
Detention (HD1)
315 333 95% 429 486 88%
Davidson Work Center 553 600 92% 604 600 101%
Davidson HD2** 25 163 15% 0 163 0%
Davidson CCA 1,145 1,113 103% 1,212 1,095 111%
Decatur County Jail 14 24 58% 18 24 77%
DeKalb County Jail 48 46 103% 52 47 110%
Dickson County Jail 177 170 104% 181 173 104%
Dyer County Jail 106 88 121% 131 88 150%
Fayette County Jail 81 97 84% 86 97 89%
Fentress County Jail 28 20 138% 33 20 164%
Franklin County Jail 63 108 58% 111 107 104%
Gibson County Jail 153 149 102% 170 149 114%
Giles County Jail 84 89 94% 107 81 132%
Grainger County Jail 25 18 138% 27 18 153%
Greene County Jail 179 159 113% 250 159 157%
Grundy County Jail 35 34 103% 38 34 112%
37
Facility
Average
Total Jail
Population
FY 2001
Average
Total
Beds*
FY 2001
Percent
Capacity
FY 2001
Average
Total Jail
Population
FY 2002
Average
Total
Beds*
FY 2002
Percent
Capacity
FY 2002
Hamblen County Jail 157 157 100% 155 157 99%
Hamilton Jail 572 498 115% 578 497 116%
Hamilton Penal Farm CCA 514 683 75% 604 674 90%
Hancock County Jail 114 99 115% 119 100 119%
Hardeman County Jail 70 74 94% 76 75 101%
Hardin County Jail 57 38 149% 69 38 183%
Hawkins County Jail 43 64 67% 53 63 84%
Haywood County Jail 96 136 70% 106 136 78%
Henderson County Jail 55 52 106% 57 52 109%
Henry County Jail 100 72 139% 116 80 144%
Hickman County Jail 49 48 102% 52 48 109%
Houston County Jail 19 17 111% 31 17 186%
Humphreys County Jail 46 44 104% 48 48 101%
Jackson County Jail 22 26 85% 23 26 88%
Jefferson County Jail 69 52 133% 96 52 186%
Johnson County Jail 50 38 131% 50 38 131%
Knox Justice Center 194 215 90% 233 215 108%
Knox Detention Center 462 676 68% 532 677 79%
Knox Work Release
Center
72 188 38% 49 178 27%
Lake County Jail 26 32 80% 43 32 133%
Lauderdale County Jail 104 139 74% 108 144 75%
Lawrence County Jail 46 34 136% 50 34 147%
Lewis County Jail 40 45 89% 39 45 87%
Lincoln County Jail 86 117 73% 107 117 92%
Loudon County Jail 72 56 129% 84 56 150%
Macon County Jail 38 32 118% 62 39 159%
Madison County Jail 302 320 94% 327 326 100%
Madison Penal Farm 86 112 76% 73 112 65%
Marion County Jail 61 38 160% 84 45 188%
Marshall County Jail 63 63 100% 73 63 116%
Maury County Jail 142 186 77% 155 186 84%
McMinn County Jail 116 202 58% 137 200 68%
McNairy County Jail 67 86 78% 78 86 91%
Meigs County Jail 35 36 98% 39 36 109%
Monroe County Jail 82 72 114% 104 72 145%
Montgomery County 328 296 111% 347 294 118%
Moore County Jail 15 20 75% 15 20 73%
Morgan County Jail 22 27 81% 24 27 89%
Obion County Jail 75 150 50% 86 150 58%
Overton County Jail 28 20 139% 90 30 297%
38
Facility
Average
Total Jail
Population
FY 2001
Average
Total
Beds*
FY 2001
Percent
Capacity
FY 2001
Average
Total Jail
Population
FY 2002
Average
Total
Beds*
FY 2002
Percent
Capacity
FY 2002
Perry County Jail 12 16 75% 13 16 79%
Pickett County Jail 5 7 68% 5 7 65%
Polk County Jail 40 35 113% 44 35 127%
Putnam County Jail 147 172 86% 168 175 97%
Rhea County Jail 61 53 115% 86 62 140%
Roane County Jail 62 57 109% 70 57 123%
Robertson County Jail 172 212 81% 168 212 79%
Rutherford County Jail 549 484 113% 729 510 143%
Rutherford Work House 152 260 58% 187 255 73%
Scott County Jail 34 42 80% 46 42 109%
Sequatchie County Jail 16 31 51% 19 31 61%
Sevier County Jail 170 156 109% 189 156 121%
Shelby County Jail 2,380 2,797 85% 2,122 2,792 76%
Shelby County Work
Center
2,662 3,570 75% 2,722 3,569 76%
Smith County Jail 33 34 98% 31 34 90%
Stewart County Jail 14 21 65% 11 21 54%
Sullivan County*** 418 253 165% 447 296 151%
Sumner County Jail 304 213 143% 332 213 156%
Tipton County Jail 83 124 67% 105 124 85%
Trousdale County Jail 29 37 77% 33 37 89%
Unicoi County Jail 35 46 77% 34 46 73%
Union County Jail 30 26 117% 33 26 125%
Van Buren County Jail 26 30 87% 23 30 79%
Warren County Jail 177 107 164% 184 108 170%
Washington County Jail 368 320 115% 384 322 119%
Wayne County Jail 24 24 99% 34 24 143%
Weakley County Jail 65 125 52% 79 125 63%
White County Jail 84 42 199% 107 52 206%
Williamson County Jail 273 446 61% 286 446 64%
Wilson County Jail 132 124 107% 155 124 126%
Total 18,507 20,944 88% 20,118 21,162 95%
Source: Office of Research compilation of Tennessee Department of Correction Monthly Jail Reports for Fiscal
Year 2001 and 2002.
*The total number of beds as rated by The Tennessee Corrections Institute may increase or decrease during the
course of a year.
**HD1 was combined with HD2 during the above time period.
***The Tennessee Department of Correction Monthly Jail Reports separates the Sullivan County Jail from the
Workhouse. However a Sullivan County Jail official explained the workhouse is a considered an annex and for
purposes of this report, annexes are not considered separate facilities.
39
Appendix D: Rates Paid by the Tennessee Department of Correction To House
State Inmates in Local Facilities in Fiscal Year 2001
Facilities Contracting With DOC
Flat Rate Negotiated Between DOC
and County
Reasonable and Allowable Rate Determined
by DOC
Facility Name Rate Paid Facility Name Rate Paid
Carter County Jail $29.40 Davidson County Detention
Facility
1
$38.10
Cocke County Jail $20.00 Fentress County Jail $28.86
Fayette County Jail $26.53 Greene County Jail $35.00
Hamblen County Jail $20.00 Haywood County Jail $31.35
Hancock County Jail $31.00 Overton County Jail
2
$35.00
Hickman County Jail $25.00 Sevier County Jail $32.14
Johnson County Jail $26.00 Shelby County Work Center $47.82
Lake County Jail $35.00 Washington County Jail $35.00
Lauderdale County Jail $35.00
Lewis County Jail $35.00
Lincoln County Jail $35.00
McMinn County Jail $35.00
Scott County Jail $35.00
Smith County Jail $35.00
Sumner County Jail $30.00
Trousdale County Jail $35.00
Source: Judy Lambert, Judicial Cost Accountant, Tennessee Department of Correction.
1
Davidson County Detention Facility is operated by CCA.
2
Overton County changed from Resolution to the Reasonable and Allowable method on July 1, 2001 and the
contract began January 1, 2002.
40
Facilities Not Contracting With DOC
Reasonable and Allowable Rate Determined by DOC
Facility Name Rate Paid Facility Name Rate Paid
Anderson County Jail $35.00 Madison County Jail $35.00
Bedford County Jail $32.54 Madison County Penal Farm $35.00
Benton County Jail $35.00 Marion County Jail $29.88
Bledsoe County Jail $34.90 Marshall County Jail $35.00
Blount County Jail $35.00 Maury County Jail $35.00
Bradley County Jail $35.00 McNairy County Jail $35.00
Campbell County Jail $34.88 Meigs County Jail $25.46
Cannon County Jail $35.00 Monroe County Jail $34.69
Carroll County Jail $23.71 Montgomery County Jail $35.00
Cheatham County Jail $35.00 Montgomery County Workhouse $35.00
Claiborne County Jail $26.91 Moore County Jail $35.00
Clay County Jail $35.00 Morgan County Jail $35.00
Crockett County Jail $31.61 Obion County Jail $35.00
Cumberland County Jail $35.00 Perry County Jail $35.00
Davidson County Jail $35.00 Polk County Jail $30.53
Decatur County Jail $35.00 Putnam County Jail $35.00
DeKalb County Jail $30.35 Rhea County Jail $30.35
Dickson County Jail $35.00 Roane County Jail $35.00
Franklin County Jail $35.00 Robertson County Jail $30.29
Gibson County Jail $24.19 Rutherford County Jail $35.00
Giles County Jail $35.00 Sequatchie County Jail $35.00
Grainger County Jail $30.74 Shelby County Jail $35.00
Grundy County Jail $26.77 Stewart County Jail $35.00
Hamilton County Jail $35.00 Sullivan County Jail $30.30
Hamilton Penal Farm CCA $35.00 Tipton County Jail $35.00
Hawkins County Jail $35.00 Unicoi County Jail $35.00
Henderson County Jail $23.18 Union County Jail $20.70
Henry County Jail $35.00 Van Buren County Jail $22.71
Houston County Jail $35.00 Warren County Jail $26.27
Jackson County Jail $35.00 Wayne County Jail $29.69
Jefferson County Jail $34.43 Weakley County Jail $35.00
Knox County –Combined* $35.00 White County Jail $25.75
Lawrence County Jail $35.00 Williamson County Jail $35.00
Loudon County Jail $18.00 Wilson County Jail $35.00
Macon County Jail $35.00
Resolution Rate Accepted by Counties
Facility Name Rate Paid Facility Name Rate Paid
Chester County Jail $18.00 Hardin County Jail $18.00
Coffee County Jail $20.00 Humphreys County Jail $18.00
Dyer County Jail $18.00 Pickett County Jail $18.00
Hardeman County Jail $18.00 Rutherford County Workhouse $20.00
Source: Judy Lambert, Judicial Cost Accountant, Tennessee Department of Correction.*Knox County combines all
of their facilities into one Final Cost Settlement so all facilities are paid at the same rate.
41
Appendix E: Amount Paid by TDOC to House State Inmates in
Non-Certified Facilities
Facilities Not
Certified by TCI in
CY 2002
Amount Paid to
Facilities in FY 2002
Total required to be
used in accordance
with TCA 41-8-107(c)
Bledsoe County Jail $63,736.45 $47,802.34
Bradley County Jail $625,975.00 $469,481.25
Campbell County Jail $358,514.23 $268,885.67
Claiborne County Jail $132,962.48 $99,721.86
Clay County Jail $23,625.00 $17,718.75
Cocke County Jail $351,802.79 $263,852.09
Decatur County Jail $51,339.72 $38,504.79
Grainger County Jail $67,000.18 $50,250.14
Grundy County Jail $61,102.49 $45,826.87
Hardin County Jail $93,546.00 $70,159.50
Hickman County Jail $268,925.00 $201,693.75
Humphreys County Jail $50,616.00 $37,962.00
Jackson County Jail $62,860.00 $47,145.00
Johnson County Jail $128,778.00 $96,583.50
Marion County Jail $86,592.24 $64,944.18
McNairy County Jail $263,627.10 $197,720.33
Perry County Jail $21,945.00 $16,458.75
Pickett County Jail $2,214.00 $1,660.50
Polk County Jail $234,287.22 $175,715.42
Sequatchie County Jail $64,330.00 $48,247.50
Union County Jail $48,313.80 $36,235.35
Van Buren County Jail $25,117.26 $18,837.95
Warren County Jail $237,638.42 $178,228.82
Wayne County Jail $36,077.58 $27,058.19
White County Jail $154,500.00 $115,875.00
Total $3,515,425.96 $2,636,569.47
Source: from Judy Lambert, Judicial Cost Accountant, Tennessee Department of Correction.
Note: Total required to be used in accordance with TCA 41-8-107(c) calculated by Office of Research
Staff.
42
Appendix F: Criminal Justice/Mental Health Liaisons
County Served by Liaisons Agency Responsible for Providing Services
Anderson Ridgeview
Bradley Volunteer
Cheatham, Dickson, Houston, Humphreys, and Stewart Centerstone
Davidson Mental Health Cooperative
Gibson and Henry Carey Counseling Center
Hamilton Volunteer
Knox Helen Ross McNabb
Madison Pathways
Maury Centerstone
Montgomery Centerstone
Putnam Volunteer
Rutherford Volunteer
Shelby* Shelby County Government
Sullivan Frontier
Sumner Volunteer
Washington Frontier
*Contract with Shelby County Government includes liaison activities and a release planner in the Mental Health
Section of the Pretrial Release Program.
Source: Document from Liz Ledbetter, Mental Health Specialist, Tennessee Department of Mental Health and
Developmental Disabilities.
44
Appendix H: Response from the Tennessee Corrections Institute
STATE OF TENNENSSEE
TENNESSSEE CORRECTIONS INSTITUTE
8TH FLOOR, ANDREW JACKSON BUILDING
500 DEADERICK STREET
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37243- 1420
(615) 741-3816 FAX: (615) 532-2333
PHIL BREDESEN
CHARLES DAVID HENSLEY
GOVERNOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
June 23, 2003
TO: Ethel Detch
Office of Research
Comptroller of the Treasury
Response to the State of Tennessee Comptroller’s Draft Jail Report
1. The Tennessee Corrections Institute has no power to enforce its standards,
resulting in conditions that endanger inmate’s staff and the public.
The Tennessee Corrections Institute’s authority is limited to certification.
2. TCI continues to certify inadequate and overcrowded jails that do not meet state
standards.
Each county and each county jail facility is unique in its individual operation. All
possible considerations are given to the validity of the efforts of the county officials to
solve the problems before a recommendation is made to the TCI Board of Control to
certify or decertify a facility. Only the inspector familiar with the ongoing efforts can
make this determination.
45
3. TCI standards do not appear to meet the level of quality mandated by T.C.A. 41-
4-140.
Tennessee County Adult Detention Facilities do not have to meet ACA Standards.
Those facilities wishing to achieve accreditation through ACA must meet only a
percentage of ACA’s standards. Facilities working toward accreditation from ACA must
first meet TCI’s standards. It is my understanding that an ACA audit begins with a copy
of the last TCI inspection report.
In the 3
rd
Edition of ACA’s Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities there
are 421 standards listed. Only 35 of those standards listed are mandatory. TCI has 136
standards and all are mandatory. While TCI standards are minimum in definition they
have held up in many court cases to be constitutional.
Most Tennessee counties could not certify if asked to meet all mandatory and
non-mandatory ACA standards.
4. TCI has not developed minimum qualification standards for local correctional
officers and jail administrators.
TCI recommends that the sheriffs use the same qualifications as stated in
41-1-116. Qualifications of Corrections Officers.
5. The Tennessee Corrections Institute has inadequate staff to fulfill its mandate.
Inspections - The last audit finding revealed that only two facilities failed to get
inspected. This was due to an oversight. The audit for the years ended June 1999 revealed
that one facility’s reinspection went beyond the 60-day limit. The Executive Director has
since implemented a policy that will prevent that from happening in the future.
The Board of Control of the Tennessee Corrections Institute hopes that the
inspectors can develop, when carrying out the responsibilities of the Tennessee Code 41-
4-140, avenues of communication and cohesiveness with local agencies that will tend to
upgrade the correctional system in the State of Tennessee. The inspectors are sometimes
criticized for appearing overly friendly when the intent is to open the lines of
communication. Since TCI has no authority, it seems to be the best way to approach the
local officials.
TCI does practice team inspections in some of the larger facilities. The
information obtained by each inspector must be compiled into one report to be submitted
to the Board of Control. Each inspector has been trained to inspect according to the
standards. The completeness or quality of an inspection must be determined by the
inspector and his/her ability to testify to its validity.
Training - The TCI staff train all corrections officers that sign up for classes.
Small classes may be cancelled and rescheduled due to TCI’s small budget and travel
expenses. Additional TCI staff would allow more classes. The 40 hours of Basic training
46
conducted within the first year of employment is quality training designed to accompany
the pre-service orientation program required by Standard 1400-1-.06 PERSONNEL (2).
TCI also has Training for Trainers classes to train jail personnel to comply with the above
standard.
Additional staff would allow more time for the detention facility specialist to do
research, write lesson plans, provide technical assistance to the counties, visit
construction sights, attend training sessions, monitor training sessions and many other
activities that they do not have the time to do.
If TCI increased its staff from five to ten detention facility specialists, TCI could
implement an inspection division and a training division. This would require an increase
in the existing annual budget of $650,000 to at least $1,000,000 to account for payroll
and travel.
47
Appendix I: Response from the Tennessee Department of Education
TENNESSEE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Division of Special Education
5th Floor, Andrew Johnson Tower
710 James Robertson Parkway
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37243
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ethel Detch, Director
Office of Research and Education Accountability
FROM: Joseph Fisher, Assistant Commissioner
Department of Education
DATE: June 25, 2003
RE: FAPE for Incarcerated Youth in County Jails and Detention Centers
______________________________________________________________________
Summary Report
This memorandum is in response to your “draft” report concerning education for
incarcerated youth as indicated on pages 6 and 24.
Office of Research staff was unable to determine whether sheriffs comply
with federal and state special education mandates:
The Tennessee Department of Education, Division of Special Education, has
devised a plan to assure that educational services are being provided to
individuals who are incarcerated under the age of twenty-two years of age.
Presently this task is being coordinated by an education consultant, for the State
of Tennessee. Each year one-third of local county facilities will be monitored,
including juvenile detention centers.
In 2003, a revision of the Policy, FAPE for Incarcerated Children with
Disabilities, constituted an update to the existing policy originally implemented in
1996. As a means to assure that this information was available to all parties
concerned, a massive mail out was undertaken by the Department of Education,
Division of Special Education. The Policy and Procedures were distributed to the
Commissioner of the Department of Children Services, Commissioner of
Corrections, Local School Superintendent/Directors, Local Special Education
Directors/Supervisors, County Sheriffs and Juvenile Detention Centers.
48
During the monitoring process, prior to touring the facility a meeting is held to
discuss the Education Policy and Procedures for Incarcerated Children with
Disabilities. County Jail Facility Administrators are encouraged to develop and
implement a policy and procedure that can be utilized to identify detainees that
are eligible for Special Education services. Included in the Education Policy and
Procedures for Incarcerated Children with Disabilities, FORM A may be utilized
to obtain identification information from detainees. Every Sheriff’s Department is
strongly encouraged to develop a plan of action to assure this information after
being obtained is communicated in a timely manner to the Local Education
Agency (LEA).
JF: dh
Enclosure
49
Appendix J: Response from the Tennessee Department of Mental Health
and Developmental Disabilities
STATE OF TENNENSSEE
DEPARMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
CORDELL HULL BUIDLING, THIRD FLOOR
425 FIFTH AVENUE, NORTH
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37243
PHIL BREDESEN
VIRGINIA TROTTER BETTS, MSN, JD, RN, FAAN
GOVERNOR COMMISSIONER
June 25, 2003
Ms. Ethel Detch, Director
Office of Research
Comptroller of the Treasury
505 Deaderick Street, Suite 1700
Nashville, TN 37243-0268
Dear Ms. Detch:
We were very pleased to have the opportunity to review your Jail Report Draft of May 30, 2003.
Liz Ledbetter, Marthagem Whitlock and Sita Diehl, (a new staff member who is working on a
training curriculum for our criminal justice/mental health project), reviewed the Report Draft.
Consistently, the staff was very pleased with the report and felt it accurately reflected comments
made and conditions or situations in which the Department is involved. It is also generally very
informative.
There are a few areas for comment. In general, we hope you will adjust your terminology to use
“people first” language so, for example, it is not “mentally ill adults” but rather “adults with mental
illness.” We feel this helps with the very difficult task of reducing the stigma of mental illness.
On page 5, last paragraph, you might wish to use the current terminology “substance abuse”
rather than “substance abuse addictions.” In the same paragraph, TDMHDD is responsible for
court ordered forensic evaluations to determine a defendant’s competency to stand trial and/or
mental condition at the time of the offense. In addition, pre-trial individuals from jails who meet
emergency involuntary commitment standards are served in Regional Mental Health Institutes
administered by DMHDD. Either the defendant who is ordered for forensic evaluation or other
pre-trial defendants are admitted without regard to bed availability when emergency involuntary
commitment standards are met.
Page 8 identifies two alternative programs focused on drug offenders. The Jail Report indicates
only that the number of inmates with substance abuse has increased but does not address that a
high number/percentage of inmates have substance abuse problems with few services. For this
report, you might wish to consider whether there should be a recommendation around substance
abuse services and whether specific inquiry in future surveys in this area would be useful.
50
Letter to Ms. Detch
June 25, 2003
Page 2
On page 22, the 1998 survey of Tennessee jails conducted by the TennCare Partners
Roundtable was cited. A new survey has been completed and is now available if you wish to use
it. On the same page, in the last paragraph, you may wish to update the term “prisoners who
suffer from mental illnesses, ” to “prisoners with mental illnesses.”
On page 23, liaisons are responsible for assessing
, rather than examining, whether an adult with
mental illness who is incarcerated or who is at risk of incarceration requires specific mental health
examination. On page 42, the Shelby contract includes liaison activities in addition to the release
planner noted in the footnote.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to review this draft. We are excited that a report of this
caliber has been completed to address a very crucial area.
VTB/mw
cc: Liz Ledbetter
Marthagem Whitlock
Sita Diehl
Commissioner Quenton White
51
Appendix K: Persons Interviewed
Jerry Abston
Former Sheriff
Putnam County
Bob Asbury
Major
Rutherford County Sheriff’s Department
Christy Ballard
Staff Attorney
Department of Education
Bob Bass
Jail Inspector
Tennessee Corrections Institute
Brian Cagle
Chief Deputy
Sequatchie County
Billy Center
Director of Information Systems
Tennessee Council of Family and Juvenile Court Judges
Gabrielle Chapman
Director of Planning and Research
Department of Correction
Lois Cooper
Administrative Service Assistant 3
Department of Correction
Karla Crocker
Communications Manager/Legislative Liaison
Davidson County Sheriff’s Department
John Cupp
Former President, Tennessee Sheriffs’ Assn.
Sheriff
Hamilton County
Rick Curran
Mental Health Specialist
Davidson County Mental Health Court
52
Ben Dishman
Assistant Commissioner
Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities
Claire Drowota
Executive Director
Select Oversight Committee on Corrections
John Eldridge
Attorney
Eldridge, Irvine & Hendricks
Pat Evans
Jail Administrator
Bledsoe County Sheriff’s Department
Joseph Fisher
Director of Special Education
Department of Education
John Ford
Chief Deputy
Davidson County Sheriff’s Department
Beth Gentry
Program Manager
Davidson County Sheriff’s Department
A.C. Gilless
Former Sheriff
Shelby County
Jo Gustafson
Corrections Specialist
National Institute of Corrections
John Hannah
Jail Inspector
Tennessee Corrections Institute
Terry Hazard
Criminal Justice Consultant
County Technical Assistance Service
Blake Harrison
Crime and Justice Issue Specialist
National Conference of State Legislatures
53
Fred Hix
Assistant Commissioner, Administrative Services
Department of Correction
Truman Jones
Sheriff
Rutherford County
David Kozlowski
Attorney
Legal Aide Society
Columbia, TN
Harvey Kennedy
Former Administrator of Finance
Shelby County Correctional Work Center
Judy Lambert
Judicial Cost Accountant
Department of Correction
Liz Ledbetter
Mental Health Liaison
Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities
Robert Meeks
Sheriff
Grundy County
David Nicholson
Executive Director
Louisville-Jefferson County Crime Commission
Louisville, KY
Roy Nixon
Former Executive Director
Tennessee Corrections Institute
Laura Quinn
Mental Health Coordinator
Davidson County Sheriff’s Department
Jim Rose
Former Assistant Commissioner
Department of Correction
Peggy Sawyer
Assistant Director
Tennessee Corrections Institute
54
Sandy Schilling
Corrections Specialist
National Institute of Corrections
Neal Shay
Assistant Chief
Shelby County Sheriff’s Department
Joy Spivey
Director of Forensics/Juvenile Services
Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities
Don Stoughton
Consultant
Don Stoughton and Associates
Constance Taite
Legal Coordinator
Davidson County Sheriff’s Department
Marsha Travis
Program Manager
Davidson County Sheriff’s Department
Hedy Weinberg
Executive Director for Tennessee
American Civil Liberties Union
Marthagem Whitlock
Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Mental Health Services Division
Department of Mental Health and Development Disabilities
Offices of Research and
Education Accountability Staff
Director
◆Ethel Detch
Assistant Director
(Research)
◆Douglas Wright
Assistant Director
(Education Accountability)
Jason Walton
Principal Legislative Research Analysts
Phillip Doss
◆Kim Potts
Senior Legislative Research Analysts
Denise Denton
◆Richard Gurley
◆Margaret Rose
◆Greg Spradley
Emily Wilson
Associate Legislative Research Analysts
Bonnie Adamson
◆Brian Doss
Kevin Krushenski
Russell Moore
Alisa Palmisano
Melissa Jo Smith
Legislative Research Interns
◆Bintou Njie
Executive Secretary
◆Sherrill Murrell
◆indicates staff who assisted with this project
