Benton County Jail Alternatives Study

Transcription

1 Benton County Jail Alternatives Study Summary of Findings 1 I. Introduction 3 II. Jail Occupancy 4 III. Virtual Jail Modeling 10 IV. Projected Jail Needs 13 V. Inmate Characteristics 19 VI. Community Corrections 31 VII. Jail Design and Condition 36 VIII. Is It Possible to Further Reduce Jail Use? 40 IX. Next Steps? 41 November 27, 2010 CRS Inc. Gettysburg PA

2 List of Figures Figure 1: Snapshot of Daily Counts, October 2010 Figure 2: Current Detention Population by Location, Status and Gender Figure 3: Five-Week Daily Count Data, October-November 2010 Figure 4: Contract Jail Beds Used by Location, Figure 5: Contract Jail Bed Use, Figure 6: Average Daily Population (ADP) in Contract Jails by Month, Jan Sept Figure 7: Contract and Benton County Jail, Average Daily Population, Jan Sept Figure 8: Sample Virtual Jail Spreadsheet Figure 9: ADP by Month, Virtual Jail System and Actual, 4/05 10/10 Figure 10: Comparison of Actual Jail Use to Virtual Jail Estimates, January 2006 September 2010 Figure 11: Summary of Projections, Farbstein and Associates, 1999 Figure 12: Farbstein and Associates Revised Projections, 1999 Figure 13: Comparison of Actual ADP, Virtual Jail Estimates, and Farbstein Projected ADP Figure 14: Admissions FY 2005 FY 2009 Figure 15: Admissions and ADP, FY 2005 FY 2009 Figure 16: ADP and ALOS, FY 2005 FY 2009 Figure 17: FY 2010 Lowest Prison Admission Rates Figure 18: FY 2010 Prison Incarceration Rates for Mid-Size Counties Figure 19: 2009 Jail Bed Use Rate, Oregon Counties with Jails Figure 20: Length of Stay Cohorts, Inmates Released in FY 2005 and FY 2009 Figure 21: Cumulative Percent of Releases and Detention Days, FY 2005 and FY 2009 Figure 22: Length of Stay Cohorts, FY 2005 and FY 2009 Figure 23: Court FY 2005 and FY 2009 Figure 24: Inmates Charged with Felonies, FY 2005 and FY 2009 Figure 25: Inmates Charged with Felonies, FY 2005 and FY 2009 Figure 26: Inmates Charged with Felonies, Detention Day Patterns FY 2005 and FY 2009 Figure 27: Level of Charge, FY 2005 and FY 2009 Figure 28: Most Frequent Offenses, FY 2005 and FY 2009 Figure 29: Age of Inmates at Admission, FY 2005 and FY 2009 Figure 30: City of Birth Figure 31: State of Birth, FY 2005 and FY 2009 Figure 32: State of Drivers License, FY 2005 and FY 2009 Figure 33: Race, FY 2005 and FY 2009 Figure 34: Gender, FY 2005 and FY 2009 Figure 35: Gender, FY 2005 and FY 2009 Figure 36: Day of Week Admitted, FY 2005 and FY 2009 Figure 37: Day of Week Released, FY 2005 and FY 2009 Figure 38: Admit Day and Release Day, FY 2009 Figure 39: Inmates Who Spent Over 10 Days in Confinement, FY 2009 Figure 40: Timeline, Benton County Jail and Alternatives Figure 41: Programs and Services Available, Figure 42: DOC Sanctions and Status in Benton County Figure 43: Hierarchy of Sanctions Figure 44: Potential Detention and Corrections Options by Decision Point Figure 45: Layout of the Benton County Jail Figure 46: Selected photos of interior of jail. Figure 47: Life Expectancy of Jail Architectural Elements Figure 48: Life Expectancy of Jail Mechanical and Electrical Systems Figure 49: Timeline for Presenting Proposal to Voters in November 2011 CRS Incorporated 925 Johnson Drive, Gettysburg PA (717) Fax (717)

3 1 Benton County Jail Alternatives Study CRS Incorporated A Non-Profit Organization Gettysburg, Pennsylvania November 27, 2010 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Criminal justice practices in Benton County are seriously compromised by the lack of sufficient local jail beds and by the condition and design of the 40-bed jail. System challenges are compounded by the loss of key community-based programs and settings in recent years. The effectiveness of the criminal justice system is increasingly diminished by these deficiencies. Criminal justice officials and personnel go to great lengths to work around the jailrelated deficiencies, exhibiting a high level of cooperation and creativity. In spite of their efforts, many primary goals and objectives of the criminal justice system are not fully met, and day-to-day operations are inefficient. A great deal of effort is required to operate without necessary services and settings, diverting valuable hours from more productive and effective activities. The Benton County criminal justice system, and to some extent, related social and human service systems, are out of balance. The lack of sufficient options for criminal justice officials results in a growing risk to the community. In addition to costly inefficiencies, the impact of the current constellation of criminal justice programs and settings means many lost opportunities to improve public safety and community quality of life. Restoring balance to the system will require both the construction of sufficient facilities and the ongoing delivery of the full range of programs and services in the jail and in the community. Physical and operational improvements are required to produce an efficient and effective criminal justice system that reflects the values of the community. Jail occupancy (Section II) has grown steadily. On some days there are more inmates housed in other counties than are housed in the Benton County Jail. Inmates with pending charges comprise more than half of the inmates on an average day. Most of these inmates are housed in the Benton County Jail to keep them closer to the courts. Projected jail needs were developed by consultants in Actual jail use has not grown as fast as expected at that time. The number of persons admitted to the jail has declined since FY 2006 while the average daily jail population (ADP) has grown steadily. The average length of stay for inmates (ALOS) increased from 6.8 days in FY 2005 to 10.2 days in FY Benton County has the second lowest rate of jail bed use of all Oregon counties who operate jails less than half the rate of all Oregon counties.

4 2 Benton County should expect to house a steadily growing number of inmates. When sufficient beds become available, an initial increase in the baseline jail population should be expected. Actions currently contemplated by the state legislature could further increase future demand for local jail beds. Understanding the dynamics of the inmate population requires analysis of the characteristics of inmates (Section V) housed in recent years and the circumstances of their confinement. In 2009, 36% of the inmates spent over 60 days in jail. The proportion of inmates charged with felony offenses increased from 28.4% in FY 2005 to 36.3% in FY 2009, while the detention days accrued by inmates charged with felony offenses increased from 50.8% to 65.6% in the same years. Community Corrections (Section VI). Benton County has a long history of implementing programs and services that: (1) offer an alternative to secure confinement In lieu of jail or in conjunction with jail; or (2) supplement secure confinement in an effort to improve effectiveness. Many programs created in recent years are no longer available due to cuts in state funding. Interviews with local officials, coupled with analysis of jail data, suggest that the local responses to gaps in the system are to: (1) impose lower sanctions in lieu of jail when a residential setting would be more appropriate; or (2) respond to the lack of jail space through the early release of inmates. While local officials do their best to patch holes in the detention and corrections continuum, current options force officials to make difficult decisions that often result in a risk to public safety. The inadequate capacity of the current jail is only one of the problems posed by the 34- year-old facility (Section VII). The basic design of the jail deprives Benton County of many important opportunities to tap local resources in an effort to make productive use of the time inmates spend in jail. The design also requires a substantial amount of correctional officer effort to move small groups of inmates to and from the multipurpose room and to provide supervision when they are in the multipurpose room and the courtyard. Building systems are failing with increasing frequency. It may be possible to further reduce jail use in Benton County (Section VIII.) Providing residential settings for use in lieu of, or as a step down from jail, might reduce jail use for some defendants and offenders. Benton County needs additional secure local jail space in a facility that is efficient to operate and that provides much-needed support spaces. While jail use will continue to increase in the future, the rate of growth may be tempered by the provision of alternatives and options. More important, a sufficient jail, as part of a balanced criminal justice system, will be more effective.

5 3 I. INTRODUCTION Jail crowding poses risks and imposes increasing costs for Benton County. Before the county considers costly physical solutions to jail crowding, all other options should be identified and considered. The following statements describe the consultants understanding of the context in which this project is being implemented: Benton County s Correctional Center is too small to accommodate the current demand for jail beds. Approximately half of the county s inmates are currently housed in other counties. Local criminal justice stakeholders (law enforcement, prosecution, judiciary, defense bar and others) currently use a range of alternatives to reduce the demand for jail beds. The County would like to identify all additional options that might further reduce jail needs, as well as the potential to expand current alternatives. Projections of future jail demand are needed in order to estimate the impact of new or expanded alternatives on future needs. CRS Incorporated is a non-profit organization founded in Rod Miller founded the organization and continues to be the principal staff member working on project. As required in the agreement between Benton County and CRS, the following tasks have been implemented: 1. Examination of historical jail occupancy data as the basis for long-term jail bedspace projections that include factors for peaking and classification. 2. Analysis of inmate-specific information and data for the past three years to identify inmate characteristics (personal and situational) and trends. 3. Interviews with county stakeholders to explore their views about the current continuum of alternatives for pretrial detainees and sentenced offenders. 4. Use of jail data to identify additional opportunities to safely reduce future jail needs through the use of new options and alternatives, or through the expanded use of existing options. 5. Estimates of the potential impact of each option and each alternative on projected jail bed needs. 6. Presentation of findings in a report, providing county officials with the foundation for the next steps in their efforts to manage the jail population. Rod Miller has worked on site in Benton County in May, July and October Although only one site visit was anticipated, three trips were provided for a total of 7

6 4 days on site. The CRS proposal anticipated the provision of 13.5 days of Rod s effort; to date, he has committed nearly 20 days to this project. II. JAIL OCCUPANCY The current Benton County Jail provides 40 beds for male and female inmates. Shortterm holding cells are also available for incoming inmates who are being processed. The jail is consistently occupied by 35 inmates or more. This occupancy rate (88%) is higher than would be expected for a 40-bed jail. Jail personnel work hard to keep the jail full without compromising safety or security. In 2000 Benton County voters approved a ballot measure that provides funds to house Benton County inmates at other jails in the region. An average of 31.9 inmates have been housed in Lincoln and Yamhill counties in In September 2010, 36 Benton County inmates were housed in other counties on an average day. Data describing the actual occupancy of the Benton County Jail was not available. The inmate population is counted several times each day, but the counts are recorded in a running log that describes all jail activities. A new daily protocol was created in mid- October 2010 to record the number of: Pretrial male Pretrial female Sentenced male Sentenced female Figure 1 presents the initial data from the new daily count process assembled by: Location of inmates (Benton County, other counties) Gender Status (pretrial or sentenced) The data in Figure 1 identifies several key characteristics of current detention practices: 1. Approximately half of all inmates are housed in other counties. 2. Inmates who have pending charges consistently comprise more than half of the daily detention population, but a higher proportion of females have pending charges than do male inmates. 3. Female inmates currently comprise approximately half of the detention population.

7 5 Figure 1: Snapshot of Daily Counts, October 2010 Jail = Benton Co. Cont = Contract Jail PT= Pretrial S= Sent. L O C A T I O N Thur Fri Sat Sun Mo Tue We Thu Average Male PT Jail Male Sent Jail Fem PT Jail Fem S Jail JAIL TOTAL Male PT Cont Male S Cont Fem PT Cont Fem S Cont CONTRACT TOTAL TOTAL G E N D E R Male PT Male Sent Total Male Female PT Female S Total Female S T A T U S Pretrial Male Pretrial Female Total Pretrial Sent Male Sent Female Total Sentenced Figure 2 presents three graphs that illustrate the current detention population according to their location (Benton County Jail, Contract Jail), status (pretrial, sentenced) and gender.

8 6 Figure 2: Current Detention Population by Location, Status and Gender B1. Location Contract jail (other Counties) Benton County Jail Most pretrial detainees are held in the jail Sentenced offenders comprise the largest proportion of inmates housed in contract jails B2: Status Inmates with pending charges (pretrial) comprise more than half the current detention population The majority of sentenced offenders are housed in contract jails B3. Gender More females are housed in contract jails than in the local jail Female detainees and offenders comprise approximately 20% of the current detention population

9 7 Additional daily county information was collected and analyzed during the month of November Figure 3 presents the findings from the analysis of five weeks of daily county data. Figure 3: Five-Week Daily Count Data, October-November a. By Gender, Status and Location 3b. Female Pretrial/Sentenced b: Female Inmates by Status (Pretrial, Sentenced) T F S S M TW T F S SM T W T F S SMT W T F S S M TW T F S S M TW Sentenced Pretrial Sentenced Pretrial 2 T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T 0 F S S M T W Figure 3 show the wide range of fluctuation for the female population, from a high of 14 female inmates to a low of 9 female inmates. Figure 3a describes the high and low daily count by gender, status and location, along with the percent of variation of the high and low compared to the average for the five weeks. The new daily county protocol will provide essential insights for future planning and design activities.

10 8 Contract Jail Use Figure 4 describes the use of contract jail beds for calendar years 2007, 2008 and Figure 4: Contract Jail Beds Used by Location, Lincoln Yamhill Polk Multnomah Total Days Average Daily Beds Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

11 9 Figure 5 illustrates the use of contract jail beds for the three year period, identifying the location of the receiving jails. Figure 5: Contract Jail Bed Use, Figure 6 illustrates the average number of inmates housed in contract jails since A trend line, generated by a linear regression analysis suggests the overall rate of increase in contract jail use. Figure 6: Average Daily Population (ADP) in Contract Jails by Month, January 2006 September 2010 For the purpose of this study, the consultants used an average daily count of 35 inmates at the Benton County Jail. Figure 7 combines contract jail bed use with the average daily count of the Benton County Jail to identify the total detention population.

12 10 Figure 7: Contract and Benton County Jail, Average Daily Population, January 2006 September 2010 The trend line in Figure 7 suggests an increase of 11 beds during the 57-month period. This represents an overall increase of 18.9% and an average annual increase of 3.98%. III. VIRTUAL JAIL MODELING According to its instructions, the Virtual Jail system was developed to:.determine how long each person would be in jail if we had the room to keep all offenders we felt we should, based on criminal history, current charges, appearance record and other factors as determined, primarily, by the matrix score sheet. Figure 8 presents an excerpt from a typical Virtual Jail spreadsheet. For each inmate released from the jail during the month, the reason for release is identified using one of the following codes: Release Reason Codes ss sentence served dnf did not file mr ss matrix released sentence served ( blue highlight on the days that were not served) mr pt matrix released pre-trial (blue highlight on the days that were not served) C court release Sra posted security BP bench paroled Tx treatment T transported Doc transported to doc Dao released per DAO

13 11 In July 2009, 134 persons were housed in the jail or in contract jails at one time during the month. This is consistent with the high number of short-term detainees that are admitted to the jail each month. Figure 8: Sample Virtual Jail Spreadsheet Virtual Jail procedures identify the following persons who are housed, or would have been housed, in the jail: Anyone who is lodged in jail (as in housed for any reason) Anyone charged with Measure 11 offenses Anyone charged with any degree of person-to-person offense Anyone arrested for a warrant for our local jurisdiction Anyone arrested for a warrant from another jurisdiction Anyone arrested for Probation or Parole Violation (regardless of whether it is for pink slip or warrant) Anyone whose matrix score is 7 or higher even if the officer cites the person and they get out Anyone arrested for Treason, Murder, or another unclassified felony like that which does not have a bail amount available Anyone who has had a No Matrix or Matrix override placed on them Anyone who self reports and is released under the five day rule Anyone arrested for Domestic Violence offenses like harassment/domestic Violence Act we normally wouldn t put a person on the list for harassment but the Domestic Violence Act is of particular interest to certain parties who review the virtual jail. INS holds Violation Stalking Order, Violation Restraining Order, Violation of Release Agreement, Stalking, Grand Jury Indictments

14 12 The preceding list includes consideration of several state law measures that affect criminal justice policies and practices: Ballot Measure 11 (M11): 1995 measure that established minimum sentences for certain person-to-person felony convictions. Security Release is set at $50,000 for each M11 charge filed against a defendant absent special authorization from a judge and shall remain at that amount until the defendant appears before a judge for the defendant s first appearance (05/13/02- Judge Janet Schoenhard Holcomb). Ballot Measure 40 (M40): 1996 measure that required pre-trial defendants accused of certain felony crimes, referred to as Ballot Measure 11 offenses, to be held in custody unless released authorized by presiding court. Ballot Measure 40 was ruled unconstitutional by the Oregon Supreme Court in the spring of Senate Bill 1145 (1145): Enacted in 1995 by the Oregon legislature, requires offenders, who would have otherwise served a period of 12 months or less with the Department of Corrections, to serve their sentence in a local corrections facility instead of a prison. Inmates sentenced in this category are under the supervision of the supervisory authority in Benton County and are referred to as Local Control offenders. Figure 9 presents the average daily inmate population by month, generated by the Virtual Jail system beginning in April The actual total jail ADP is shown behind the virtual jail ADP in the graph. Figure 9: ADP by Month, Virtual Jail System and Actual, 4/05 10/10 Average Daily Jail Population, 57 Months Average Daily Inmates Virtual vs. Actual Highest Month Virtual Over Actual Lowest Month Virtual Under Actual Actual Jail Use Virtual Jail Estimates 63.4 inmates 68.8 inmates 5.4 inmates (4.8%) May 2008, 19.5 inmates over Actual July under Actual

15 13 At times the Virtual Jail estimates are less than actual use, however, the virtual jail is an average of 7.6% higher than actual jail use during the 57 month period, as shown in Figure 9. Figure 10 compares the virtual jail ADP to the actual ADP. The trend line in Figure 10 is based on the virtual jail figures and shows a slightly higher rate of growth. Figure 10: Comparison of Actual Jail Use to Virtual Jail Estimates, January 2006 September 2010 The Virtual Jail modeling system is a useful tool for jail planning purposes. Virtual Jail estimates exceed actual jail use by a modest rate (4.8%). The Virtual Jail methodology identifies several factors that affect jail use and attempts to identify the changes in jail use that would have occurred if more jail beds had been available in Corvallis. IV. PROJECTED JAIL NEEDS Jay Farbstein and Associates developed projections of jail needs in 1996 and updated these projections in Farbstein noted several significant changes in the context between the 1996 and 1999 projections, including: Increased rate of bookings per capita, prompting an increase in the booking rate used for the projections model Better information on length of stay provided by the new jail information system Impact of SB 1145 was added to the projections A percentage of Measure 11 offenders was added to the model along with the longer average length of stay associated with this population.

16 14 The revised projects calculated in 1999 produced marked increases compared to the 1996 projections, from 60 to 76 beds in the 1996 projections, to 68.7 to beds in the 1999 projections. The revised projections are summarized in Figure 11. Figure 11: Summary of Projections, Farbstein and Associates, Historically High Scenario Simulation Trend Line The revised projections are illustrated in Figure 12. The historical ADP represents the actual ADP from 1986 to From 1994 to 1998, the ADP was 70 or higher. Figure 12: Farbstein and Associates Revised Projections, 1999 The dashed trend line represents the results of a linear regression analysis of the historical ADP. This methodology found that an ADP of 95 would be expected in the year 2010, rising to 125 in the year The Farbstein methodologies were: Baseline Projections: Projected county population times Booking Rate per 10,000 times Average Length of Stay divided by 365 days per year Historical High: A worst case scenario using the highest single-year booking rate applied to the formula for the baseline projections

17 15 Trend: Projected values for the booking rate based on a linear regression model, following the assumption that growth in bookings will follow a similar pattern as it had in previous years Simulation: A committee examined 36 cases, half pretrial and half sentenced, and reached a consensus on what options and sanctions would be most appropriate. This formed the basis for a simulated booking rate and length of stay. Figure 13 compares the Farbstein 1999 projections to the actual ADP in recent years. The Farbstein Trend projections have proven to be much higher than actual ADP to date; the Farbstein Historical High also proved to be somewhat higher than actual jail use. Figure 13: Comparison of Actual ADP, Virtual Jail Estimates, and Farbstein Projected ADP (Trend, Historical High) Figure 14 shows the steady decline in the number of inmates admitted to confinement during the five years. Admissions declined by 811 booking from FY 2006 to FY 2009 (25.4%). Figure 14: Admissions FY 2005 FY 2009

18 16 However, as the number of admissions declined, the ADP increased, as shown in Figure 15. The graph shows admissions declining at the same time that ADP was rising. Figure 15: Admissions and ADP, FY 2005 FY 2009 Figure 16 compares ADP to Average Length of Stay (ALOS), suggesting a strong correlation between ALOS and ADP. Figure 16: ADP and ALOS, FY 2005 FY 2009

19 17 Another perspective on the dynamics of the jail population is offered by a review of incarceration rates. Benton County has a very low rate of prison admissions, as shown in Figure 17. Figure 17: FY 2010 Lowest Prison Admission Rates COUNTY PRSION ADMITS COUNTY POPULATION RATE PER_1000 Wallowa 1 7, Hood River 6 21, Morrow 4 11, Grant 4 7, Gilliam 1 1, Crook 12 22, Curry 14 21, Benton 60 82, Clackamas , Jackson , Columbia 47 46, Baker 17 16, Coos 67 62, Polk 70 65, Yamhill , Source: Oregon Department of Corrections Benton County had the 7 th lowest prison admission rate of all Oregon counties. The Benton County prison admission rate is the lowest of mid-size Oregon counties, as shown in Figure 18. Figure 18: FY 2010 Prison Incarceration Rates for Mid-Size Counties COUNTY PRISON ADMITS COUNTY POPULATION RATE PER 1,000 Coos 67 62, Klamath 98 65, Polk 70 65, Umatilla 91 72, Josephine , Benton 60 82, Yamhill , Douglas , Linn , Source: Oregon Department of Corrections Benton County has the second lowest rate of jail bed use of all Oregon counties who operate jails. Figure 19 identifies the counties with the lowest jail bed use rates.

20 18 Figure 19: 2009 Jail Bed Use Rate, Oregon Counties with Jails 2009 Beds in Use per 1,000 population Estimated County Population Bookings Per 1,000 Popul. Crook , Benton , Jackson , Lane , Clackamas , Coos , Washington , Oregon Total 1.7 3,823, Hood River , Deschutes , Marion , Multnomah , Umatilla , Linn , Wasco , Klamath , Gilliam 2.7 1, Yamhill , Polk , Malheur , Sherman 3.3 1, Lincoln , Tillamook , Grant 5.4 7, Jefferson , Source: Oregon Sheriffs Jail Command Council and Portland State University Summary The total Benton County detention population has increased steadily since the year 2000, when voters authorized funds to house inmates in other counties. The virtual jail system has attempted to model jail use as if sufficient local beds had been available. Using the virtual jail data, a slightly higher rate of future growth is predicted. Interviews with criminal justice officials, coupled with the very low rates of prison and jail use that are shown in Figures 17, 18 and 19, suggest a substantial level of pent up demand for jail beds that is caused by the lack of local jail beds. Experience in other counties has shown that an initial increase in the baseline ADP should be expected when sufficient local beds become available. Benton County should expect to house a steadily growing number of inmates. When sufficient beds become available, an initial increase in the baseline jail population should be expected. Actions currently contemplated by the state legislature could further increase future demands (discussed later in this report).

21 19 V. INMATE CHARACTERISTICS Understanding the dynamics of the inmate population requires analysis of the characteristics of inmates housed in recent years and the circumstances of their confinement. Jail officials provided extensive computer-based records for 14,192 inmates released from jail in Fiscal Years 2005 through 2009 (July 2004 June 2009). This data represents all inmates housed in the jail during that five year period. Most of the following charts and tables present inmate characteristics for FY 2005 and FY 2009, offering the opportunity to identify changes over the four-year period. Length of Stay One of the most important characteristics of the jail population involves the length of stay patterns not just average length of stay (ALOS) but also the analysis of the length of stay cohorts. Figure 20 describes length of stay characteristics for inmates released in FY 2005 and FY Figure 20: Length of Stay Cohorts, Inmates Released in FY 2005 and FY 2009 Detention Day Cohorts Perc Rel Perc Releases Cum % Rel Cum % Rel Perc Det Days Perc Det Days Cum % Cum % Det Days Det Days Less Than % 50.2% 72.3% 50.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 Day 5.6% 12.8% 77.9% 63.0% 1.7% 1.3% 1.7% 1.3% 2 Days 3.0% 3.9% 80.9% 66.9% 1.7% 0.8% 3.4% 2.1% 3 Days 3.1% 3.1% 84.0% 70.0% 2.8% 1.0% 6.2% 3.1% 4-5 Days 4.1% 5.9% 88.1% 75.9% 5.3% 2.7% 11.5% 5.9% 6-10 Days 4.7% 6.9% 92.8% 82.8% 10.2% 5.2% 21.6% 11.1% Days 4.4% 9.1% 97.2% 91.9% 23.6% 19.4% 45.3% 30.4% Days 1.6% 5.0% 98.9% 96.9% 20.5% 23.4% 65.7% 53.9% Days 0.6% 1.3% 99.5% 98.2% 14.0% 10.2% 79.7% 64.1% Days 0.2% 0.4% 99.7% 98.6% 8.2% 5.0% 87.9% 69.1% Days 0.1% 0.4% 99.8% 99.1% 3.7% 5.6% 91.5% 74.7% Days 0.1% 0.3% 100.0% 99.3% 6.4% 4.1% 97.9% 78.8% Days 0.0% 0.3% 100.0% 99.6% 0.0% 6.0% 97.9% 84.9% Days 0.0% 0.1% 100.0% 99.7% 2.1% 1.9% 100.0% 86.8% Days 0.0% 0.1% 100.0% 99.8% 0.0% 3.3% 100.0% 90.1% Days 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 99.8% 0.0% 1.3% 100.0% 91.3% Days 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 99.8% 0.0% 1.4% 100.0% 92.8% Days 0.0% 0.2% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 7.2% 100.0% 100.0%

22 20 Figure 21 illustrates the differences in cumulative percentages (releases and detention days) for the two years. Eighty-four percent of all inmates were released within three days of admission in 2005, but only 70% were released within three days in In 2005, 20% of the inmates in jail on an average day spent 60 or more days in confinement; in 2009, 36% spent over 60 days in jail. Figure 21: Cumulative Percent of Releases and Detention Days, FY 2005 and FY 2009 Figure 22 illustrates length of stay patterns for the two years. Figure 22: Length of Stay Cohorts, FY 2005 and FY 2009

23 21 The detention day analysis shows that: 23.4% of the inmates released in FY 2009 spent between 31 and 60 days in jail, up from 20.5% in FY % of the inmates released in FY 2005 spent less than one day in jail, while 50.2% were released in less than one day in FY % of all inmates released in FY 2005 were released in three days or less, but they accounted for only 6.2% of all detention days 0.2% of all inmates released in FY 2009 spent over 366 days in jail, but they accounted for 7.2% of all detention days Court Most jail inmates faced charges in the circuit court, accruing 95.3% of all detention days in FY 2005 and 78.4% of the detention days in FY The percentage of inmates who were charged in municipal court doubled from FY 2005 to FY 2009, from 6.9% to 15.7%, while detention days increased from 0.8% to 5.9% respectively. Figure 23 summarizes these figures. Figure 23: Court FY 2005 and FY 2009 Court Perc Perc Det Perc Perc Det Releases Days Releases Days ALOS Circuit Court 90.3% 95.3% 73.9% 78.4% 10.4 P and P 2.1% 3.2% 2.9% 4.8% 16.7 Municipal 6.9% 0.8% 15.7% 5.9% 5.3 Felony Charges The proportion of inmates charged with felony offenses increased from 28.4% in FY 2005 to 36.3% in FY Detention days accrued by inmates charged with felony offenses increased from 50.8% to 65.6% in the same years. Figure 24: Inmates Charged with Felonies, FY 2005 and FY 2009 Perc Releases Perc Det Days FY % 50.8% FY % 65.6%

24 22 Figure 25 illustrates the increase in inmates charged with felonies between FY 2005 and FY Figure 25: Inmates Charged with Felonies, FY 2005 and FY 2009 Figure 26 shows the length of stay patterns for inmates charged with felonies. Figure 26: Inmates Charged with Felonies, Detention Day Patterns FY 2005 and FY 2009 Further analysis of the felony inmates who spent from 31 to 90 days in jail showed that more than half were serving sentences and were released from jail after completing their sentences. A similar pattern was identified for non-felony inmates who spent from 31 to 90 days in jail. Many of these inmates, who combined to account for nearly 16% of all detention days, are good candidates for non-jail alternatives, such as a residential work-release or pre-release facility.

25 23 Nearly 30% of all inmates charged with felonies spent between 11 and 30 days in jail in FY In FY 2009, 23% of all inmates charged with felonies spent between 31 and 60 days in jail. Type of Charge The jail management information system (MIS) changed between FY 2005 and FY Figure 27 shows the level of charge and the different categories used in the two years. Figure 27: Level of Charge, FY 2005 and FY 2009 Type of Arrest - Charge Level Perc Perc Det Perc Perc Det Releases Days Releases Days A FELONY 2.9% 8.9% 0.0% 0.0% B FELONY 4.1% 6.8% 0.0% 0.0% C FELONY 20.9% 34.2% 0.0% 0.0% U FELONY 0.5% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% Sub Total Sub Total Felony 28.4% 50.8% 36.3% 65.6% A MISDEMEANOR 50.0% 35.9% 0.0% 0.0% B MISDEMEANOR 3.1% 4.4% 0.0% 0.0% C MISDEMEANOR 5.6% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% U MISDEMEANOR 7.8% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% Sub Total Sub Total Misdemeanor 66.5% 43.7% 59.0% 28.0% Civil 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% Non-Criminal 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% Violation 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 3.9% Unclassified 1.4% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% No Entry 3.6% 2.0% 0.5% 2.2% The percent of detention days accrued by inmates charged with felonies increased from 50.8% in FY 2005 to 65.6% in FY 2009 a 15% increase. In FY 2009, inmates charged with felonies accounted for approximately one-third of all releases and two-thirds of all detention days.

26 24 Offenses Figure 28 describes the most frequent individual offenses with which inmates were charged. The offenses are presented in descending order of detention day frequency for FY Figure 28: Most Frequent Offenses, FY 2005 and FY Offense Perc Perc Det Perc Perc Det Releases Days Releases Days ALOS SEX ABUSE I 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 3.1% DUII 0.0% 0.0% 8.4% 2.9% 3.3 MURDER 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% ASSA I 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% MURDER/MANSLAUGHTER 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% PPS 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 1.4% 33.1 AGG. MURDER X4 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% THEFT I 1.7% 3.8% 0.5% 1.1% 20.6 PAROLE VIOLATION 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 1.1% 17.6 FALSE INFO 1.0% 1.0% 0.1% 1.1% ASSAULT II X3, 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% ROBBERY 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% PUBLIC INDECENCY 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% PPS SANCTION 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.9% 11.6 ATT MURDERX 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% ASSAULT IV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% PPS SUPER. AUTHORITY WARRANT 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% KIDNAP I 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% ASLT IV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% UEMV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% BURG II 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% FTA 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.8% 16.2 ASSA IV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% ASSAULT III 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.8% 62.7 SEX ABUSE I X 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% ASSAULT IV, 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% PROB VIOL-BURG I 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% PROB VIOL-FAIL REG SEX OFF 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% REVOKED PROB/ARSON II 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% PCS II 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.7% 15.4 PROB VIOL-ASSA IV 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.7% PROB VIOL-DUII 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.6% 47.3 PV-ROBB III 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% KIDNAP 1, COERCION 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% DUII SENTENCE 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.6% 68.0 COCKFIGHTING 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% PPS VIOL-ASSA III 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 130.0

27 25 Over 1,900 different offenses were identified in the dataset. Offenses are entered into the MIS freehand rather than by drop-down menus. As a result, there is a great deal of inconsistency in the description of charges. Age at Admission The average age of inmates at the time of admission to the jail is slowly increasing. In FY 2005, 29.8% of all inmates were under the age of 25; by FY 2009, 24.5% were under 25. In FY 2005, 79.0% were under the age of 40, but 66.9% were under the age of 40 in FY Figure 29 presents the findings. Figure 29: Age of Inmates at Admission, FY 2005 and FY 2009 Age Cohorts Perc Perc Perc Det Perc Det Cum Perc Cum Perc Releases Releases Days Days Det Days Det Days ALOS B % 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.4% 29.3 C % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% D % 2.2% 0.4% 0.2% 0.5% 0.6% 1.1 E % 10.2% 7.8% 5.8% 8.3% 6.4% 5.5 F % 7.3% 3.6% 3.7% 11.9% 10.0% 5.0 G % 15.3% 17.9% 14.4% 29.8% 24.5% 9.2 H % 19.7% 18.8% 16.8% 48.6% 41.3% 8.5 I % 11.3% 13.5% 10.2% 62.1% 51.5% 8.9 J % 10.6% 16.9% 15.4% 79.0% 66.9% 14.2 K % 7.9% 8.1% 13.0% 87.1% 79.9% 15.9 L % 6.1% 5.3% 7.4% 92.3% 87.3% 11.5 M % 4.8% 2.8% 6.9% 95.2% 94.2% 13.9 N % 2.4% 0.5% 1.2% 95.7% 95.5% 5.1 O % 1.0% 3.6% 1.1% 99.3% 96.5% 10.1 P % 0.5% 0.4% 1.9% 99.7% 98.4% 33.3 Q % 0.5% 0.3% 1.6% 99.9% 100.0% 34.4 R % 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0 T % 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0 City and State of Birth The proportion of inmates born in Corvallis fell between FY 2005 and FY 2009, from 14.0% to 10.8%. Figure 30 summarizes the findings.

28 26 Figure 30: City of Birth Birth City Perc Releases Perc Det Perc Days Releases Perc Det Days CORVALLIS 14.0% 14.4% 10.8% 12.7% ALBANY 3.1% 2.9% 3.0% 5.3% LEBANON 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 3.7% MEXICO 1.0% 0.9% 1.2% 3.0% EUGENE, OR 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 2.1% LOS ANGELES, CA 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% FORT BELDOR, VA 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% The proportion of inmates born in Oregon also fell between FY 2005 and FY 2009, from 49.6% to 48.2%. Figure 31 presents the most frequent birth states. Figure 31: State of Birth, FY 2005 and FY 2009 State of Birth Perc Perc Det Perc Perc Det Releases Days Releases Days ALOS OR 49.6% 48.9% 48.2% 43.5% 9.0 CA 15.5% 16.5% 18.6% 20.1% 10.7 WA 4.9% 10.0% 4.9% 6.0% 11.9 MM 2.6% 2.9% 1.9% 3.5% 18.0 AZ 1.2% 0.7% 1.1% 2.6% 23.6 VA 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 2.4% 94.8 GA 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 1.8% ND 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 1.4% 47.4 OK 0.8% 1.7% 0.8% 1.4% 17.0 TX 1.6% 1.3% 1.9% 1.2% 6.1 NB 0.3% 1.1% 0.3% 1.2% 30.3 State of Drivers License (Home State) The percentage of inmates licensed to drive in Oregon fell by 10.4% between FY 2005 and FY 2009 (from 94.2% to 83.8%). Figure 32 summarizes the findings.

29 27 Figure 32: State of Drivers License, FY 2005 and FY 2009 State of Driver License Perc Perc Det Perc Perc Det Releases Days Releases Days ALOS OR 94.2% 94.9% 83.8% 85.7% 10.0 AZ 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% 1.8% 61.3 UT 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 1.3% WA 0.9% 0.4% 1.1% 0.5% 4.7 CA 1.2% 2.0% 1.9% 0.5% 2.5 ID 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.4% AK 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 12.7 OK 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 21.5 MO 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 7.7 IA 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 18.0 HI 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 6.5 Race The percentage of inmates admitted to jail who were Caucasian increased from 87.8% in FY 2005 to 91.9% in FY Figure 33: Race, FY 2005 and FY 2009 Race Perc Perc Det Perc Releases Days Releases Perc Det Days Amer. Indian 0.5% 0.8% 0.3% 0.0% Asian 1.0% 1.3% 1.4% 1.8% Black 3.6% 4.2% 4.8% 4.7% Caucasian 87.8% 83.0% 91.9% 93.4% Hispanic 6.1% 9.7% 0.0% 0.0% Gender The proportion of females admitted to jail, and the percentage of detention days they accrued while confined, fell from FY 2005 to Figure 34 presents the findings. Figure 34: Gender, FY 2005 and FY 2009 Gender Perc Perc Det Perc Perc Det Releases Days Releases Days ALOS Female 21.7% 25.6% 17.4% 10.3% 5.8 Male 78.3% 74.4% 82.4% 89.7% 10.7

30 28 The changing gender composition of the jail is illustrated in Figure 35. Figure 35: Gender, FY 2005 and FY 2009 Day of Week Admitted and Released Figures 36, 37, and 38 describe the day of the week that inmates were admitted to and released from jail. Figure 36: Day of Week Admitted, FY 2005 and FY 2009 Admit Day Perc Releases Perc Det Days Perc Releases Perc Det Days Sun 13.0% 4.3% 11.1% 7.5% Mon 10.5% 9.0% 13.7% 15.2% Tue 12.6% 11.8% 15.6% 20.3% Wed 13.9% 22.0% 16.6% 13.3% Thu 17.3% 16.8% 15.0% 20.1% Fri 18.4% 23.3% 15.3% 16.9% Sat 14.3% 12.8% 12.7% 6.7%

31 29 Figure 37: Day of Week Released, FY 2005 and FY Release Day of Week Perc Releases Perc Det Days Perc Releases Perc Det Days ALOS Sun 11.5% 2.8% 9.0% 0.5% 0.5 Mon 14.8% 13.5% 13.8% 10.6% 7.6 Tue 13.5% 18.2% 18.3% 22.4% 12.0 Wed 13.0% 14.3% 12.1% 8.6% 7.0 Thu 18.6% 30.2% 20.8% 34.9% 16.6 Fri 17.8% 17.9% 16.8% 22.7% 13.2 Sat 10.9% 3.2% 9.2% 0.2% 0.2 Figure 38: Admit Day and Release Day, FY 2009 FY 2005 FY 2009 Inmates Who Spent Over Ten Days in Confinement In FY 2009, 82.8% of all inmates were released within 10 days of their admission to confinement. These inmates accounted for only 11.1% of detention days accrued by all inmates during the year. Changes in policies and practices targeted at reducing the jail population should be designed to impact the inmates who spend over 10 days in jail. Figure 39 describes this population in more detail.

32 30 Figure 39: Inmates Who Spent Over 10 Days in Confinement, FY 2009 Non- Felony Felony Non- Felony Felony Non- Felony and Felony DETENTION DAYS 11 to to Totals ALOS COURT ROR 0.7% 1.0% 0.9% 2.6% 38.8 DEPT OF CORRECTIONS 0.1% 0.2% 0.9% 1.2% 91.7 FORCED RELEASE SS 0.5% 0.2% 0.7% 1.4% 40.0 FORCED RELEASE PT 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 57.0 SENTENCE SERVED 5.2% 8.2% 3.5% 16.9% 38.3 COURT ROR 0.6% 1.8% 0.9% 3.2% 44.4 DEPT OF CORRECTIONS 0.5% 4.7% 7.9% 13.1% 28.9 FORCED RELEASE PT 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.7% 70.3 FORCED RELEASE SS 1.8% 2.1% 0.5% 4.4% 56.7 SENTENCE SERVED 6.7% 7.3% 4.4% 18.4% 38.7 RELEASES 11 to to Totals ALOS COURT ROR 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0.7% 38.8 DEPT OF CORRECTIONS 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 91.7 FORCED RELEASE SS 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 40.0 FORCED RELEASE PT 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 57.0 SENTENCE SERVED 2.6% 1.5% 0.3% 4.3% 38.3 COURT ROR 0.3% 0.4% 0.0% 0.7% 44.4 DEPT OF CORRECTIONS 0.3% 0.9% 0.4% 1.5% 85.2 FORCED RELEASE PT 0.8% 0.1% 0.0% 0.9% 7.3 FORCED RELEASE SS 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.5% 94.2 SENTENCE SERVED 2.9% 1.4% 0.3% 4.6% 38.7 Det Days Releases ALOS COURT ROR 5.9% 1.4% 41.7 DEPT OF CORRECTIONS 14.3% 1.6% 44.6 FORCED RELEASE SS 2.0% 1.2% 65.9 FORCED RELEASE PT 4.9% 0.5% 56.8 SENTENCE SERVED 35.2% 9.0% 38.5 Inmate characteristics provide the foundation for identifying changes in policies or practices that might safely reduce jail use. For example: The average length of stay for inmates who were released on Court ROR is unusually high (41.7 days). Programs and policies designed to reduce the length of stay for this population, such as supervised pretrial release, might reduce the jail population by approximately five percent. Inmates who spent from 31 to 90 days in jail and who were released after serving sentences accrued nearly 16% of all detention days. Some of these inmates might be good candidates for non-jail settings, such as a residential work-release or pre-release facility. Analysis of inmate characteristics should be used to design improvements in current criminal justice system practices that will safely ease the level of jail use.

33 31 VI. COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS Benton County has a long history of implementing programs and services that: Offer an alternative to secure confinement o In lieu of jail o In conjunction with jail Supplement secure confinement in an effort to improve effectiveness Figure 40 presents a brief timeline that identifies key changes in the settings, programs and services available to the criminal justice system in Benton County. Figure 40: Timeline, Benton County Jail and Alternatives

34 32 Figure 41 illustrates the timeline in terms of programs and services that were started and ended in the past 25 years. Figure 41: Programs and Services Available, Program/Service Non-Criminal Jail Detoxification Jail Work- and Education Release Jail Volunteer Program (1975) Misdemeanant Program/Probation State Work Release Center Sheriff Adds Felony Prob/Parole Weekend Work Crew Started Work Crew Expanded Resisters Group Intensive Supervision Prob. (ISP) Job Development Program Jail Recognizance Release Home Detention Juvenile Diversion Day Reporting Center Transition Center Drug Treatment Program (Court) New Beginnings Subs Abuse (P/P) Figure 41 illustrates the many programs and services that were created but which are no longer available to the criminal justice system, including: Non-Criminal Jail Detoxification Jail Work and Education Release Jail Volunteer Program State Work Release Center Resisters Group Intensive Supervision Program (ISP) Home Detention Day Report Center

35 33 In Oregon, the term community corrections is defined by state law and policy: Community corrections is a function of the state government and is operated in partnership with local, county-operated community corrections agencies. Of Oregon's 36 counties, the Department of Corrections does operate community corrections in Linn and Douglas counties. Community corrections activities include supervision, communitybased sanctions, and services directed at offenders who have committed felony crimes and who have been placed under supervision by the courts (probation), the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, or the local supervisory authority (parole/postprison supervision). (Oregon Dept. of Corrections) The Department of Corrections (DOC) identifies seven key sanctions that are an integral part of its community corrections program: 1. Work Center 2. Electronic Monitoring 3. House Arrest 4. Day Reporting 5. Intensive Supervision Probation 6. Community Service 7. Community Work Crew Figure 42 presents the current DOC description of each of the sanctions and describes the status of each sanction in Benton County. Figure 42: DOC Sanctions and Status in Benton County Sanction Source: Oregon Dept. of Corrections, Community Corrections Division Status in Benton County Work Center - These programs house offenders in a structured setting, allowing them to leave the premises for work or other approved activities such as drug treatment. The program provides control of offenders who are required to pay victim restitution and None other costs from wages they earn while working in the community. Electronic Monitoring - Offender spends most of the time at home with a small transmitter attached to wrist or ankle. A very specific schedule is required and a computer alerts officers whenever the offender is not where he/she is supposed to None be. House Arrest - Offender spends most of the time at home without electronics - A specific None schedule is required and verification occurs by telephone. Day Reporting - Requires offender to report to a central location every day where (s)he files a written daily schedule showing how each hour of the day will be spent - at work, in treatment and so forth. The offender must obey a curfew, perform None community work, and submit to random drug testing. Day reporting often includes programs such as alcohol/drug groups, employment readiness and education. Intensive & Special Supervision - Offender may be seen up to five times per week, be on curfew, have frequent employment checks, submit to drug testing, and be subject Limited to unannounced visits at home by PO. Community Service - Offenders are assigned to work for government or private nonprofit agencies - some chop wood, clear trails, weed or maintain parks, paint buildings, collect roadside trash or other types of manual labor. Community Work Crew - The same as community service, but offenders work in supervised crews. Very Limited Limited

36 34 In 1999, Farbstein and Associates examined the jail population and projected future needs. Farbstein identified eight key sentencing alternatives that could significantly reduce demand for jail beds: 1. Residential Treatment 2. Work Release 3. Home Detention 4. Day Reporting 5. Work Crew 6. Community Service 7. Substance Treatment 8. Domestic Violence Treatment Currently, the first four alternatives are not available in Benton County, and the fifth and sixth alternatives are not fully available. In spite of the limited range of alternatives, the demand for jail beds is lower than projected by Farbstein (see Figure 11 in Section IV of this report.) Criminal justice officials have worked hard to reduce jail use in the past ten years. Figure 43 presents a simplified hierarchy of sanctions, from the least intrusive to the most intrusive moving from the bottom of the hierarchy to the top. Residential services are missing in Benton County, as are supervision services for pretrial detainees. Jail space is limited. Figure 43: Hierarchy of Sanctions Interviews with local officials, coupled with analysis of jail data, suggest that the local responses to gaps in the system are to: 1. Impose lower sanctions in lieu of jail when a residential setting would be more appropriate 2. Respond to the lack of jail space through the early release of inmates. In 2007, Benton County officials developed a matrix release system to identify detainees and offenders to be released from the jail in order to make space for incoming arrestees and offenders. In FY 2009, such forced releases accounted for more than 70 releases; defendants and offenders released early under the matrix system accounted for 7.3% of all detention days, or approximately five jail beds on an average day. Because of the matrix release system, persons who have been committed to jail by the courts do not always stay as long as was intended.

37 35 The continuum of options available to the criminal justice system in Benton County is not in balance and continues to deteriorate. Cuts in state community corrections funding have forced the county to abandon many of the innovative and effective alternatives that were provided in the past ten years. The system needs to be renovated and repaired. Figure 44 illustrates a wide range of alternatives, showing the decision points in the criminal justice process at which various options come into play. Figure 44: Potential Detention and Corrections Options by Decision Point While local officials do their best to patch holes in the detention and corrections continuum, current options force officials to make difficult decisions that often result in a risk to public safety.

38 36 VII. JAIL DESIGN AND CONDITION The inadequate capacity of the current jail is only one of the problems posed by the 34- year-old facility. Facility Design The layout of the 1976 jail poses operational inefficiencies. It was designed in a transitional period when jails were moving from the old linear layout to the newer podular designs. Podular designs group inmate cells around dayrooms. Inmates spend the majority of their time in the dayrooms rather than in their cells. In linear jails inmates rarely left their cells, although some cells included a small amount of space for activities. Figure 45 illustrates the layout of the Benton County Jail. There are three primary circulation corridors, at right angles to each other. There are four small housing units in which cells are adjacent to a small dayspace. Half of the jail cells are located in these small podular units. The other half of the cells open directly onto a main circulation corridor and do not have any dayspace nearby for their use. Figure 45: Layout of the Benton County Jail Because half of the inmates are housed in cells that do not have adjacent dayspaces, and the other half is provided with dayspaces that are too small, all inmates are provided with daily access to a large multipurpose room that has a small outdoor exercise area adjacent to it (marked as court yard on the plan). Remediating for the lack of adequate dayspace requires the use of the multipurpose space and courtyard for the majority of the daytime hours. The multipurpose room is the only space in the jail that may be used to provide inmate services and programs.

39 37 Because it is used primarily to make up for the lack of dayspace in the inmate housing areas, it is seldom available for programs and services. Figure 46: Selected photos of interior of jail. Multipurpose room Court yard (outdoor exercise) Linear corridor- cells front on corridor Corridor, courtyard on the right The basic design of the jail deprives Benton County of many important opportunities to tap local resources in an effort to make productive use of the time inmates spend in jail. The design also requires a substantial amount of correctional officer effort to move small groups of inmates to and from the multipurpose room and to provide supervision when they are in the room and the courtyard. Condition of Facility and Systems Building systems are failing with increasing frequency. This should not be a surprise given the age of the jail. Figures 47 and 48 describe typical life expectancies of architectural, mechanical and electrical systems in a jail. The charts illustrate the number of systems that have already exceeded their life expectancy in the current Benton County Jail.

40 38 Figure 47 identifies architectural elements of the jail setting. In Benton County, serious structural failures have been encountered with concrete and concrete block walls and ceilings. There have been, and continue to be, serious leaks in the roof. Figure 47: Life Expectancy of Jail Architectural Elements

41 39 Figure 48 illustrates the life expectancies of mechanical and electrical systems in a jail. The Benton County Jail is experiencing increasing problems with basic plumbing systems. Repairs are costly and disruptive because many of the pipes are embedded in the concrete floors. Security systems have also required repairs in recent years. Figure 48: Life Expectancy of Jail Mechanical and Electrical Systems The current Benton County jail is deficient in terms of the number of beds, efficiency of design, lack of key spaces for programs and services, and aging construction.