FY 2007 targets for key goals of this service area, as established in the FY 2007 Adopted Budget, are shown below.

BACKGROUND For purposes of this report, the Adult Detention Services service area refers to those services provided by the Prince William - Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center (ADC) and services provided through the ADC to house inmates at the Peumansend Creek Regional Jail, as well as any spending to hold inmates in another local jail facility. Prince William began funding 75 beds at Peumansend Creek Regional Jail (PCRJ) in FY 2000. Prince William processes, transports, and houses up to 75 inmates to and from the Peumansend Creek Jail facility, paying an annual operating assessment cost to the Peumansend Creek Regional Jail Authority (PCRJA). Mission (Adult Detention Center): To protect the community by providing for the secure, safe, healthful housing of inmates admitted to the Adult Detention Center (ADC). To ensure the safety of Detention Center staff. To conduct rehabilitative programs which reduce the likelihood of recidivism among prisoners released from the detention center. To do these things in as cost effective a manner as possible. FY 2007 targets for key goals of this service area, as established in the FY 2007 Adopted Budget, are shown below. Percent of inmates detained without escape Error free inmate release rate Classify all inmates initially detained in accordance with currently approved Regional Jail Board Policy Inmates properly classified in initial reviews 98% Staff days lost as a result of any injury from confrontations 2 Percent of inmates who have access to appropriate medical and mental health treatment facilities as required by State and Jail Board Inmates previously incarcerated at the Adult Detention Center 70% FY 2007 Resources: Adopted Budget: $ 29,777,579 Authorized ADC Staffing: 261.8 Staffing per 1,000 Average Cost per 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report

Staffing per 1,000 Average Cost per FY 2007 Adopted Budget By Program (In Millions) Inmate Executive M anagement $2.0 Rehabilitation $4.5 Inmate Support Services Classification $0.7 $6.0 Inmate Health Care $3.3 Inmate Security $13.3 The FY 2007 budgeted amount includes $818,823 for the annual operating assessment cost to be paid to the Peumansend Creek Regional Jail Authority. Population Served: The Adult Detention Center serves, Manassas, and Manassas Park - a combined projected FY 2007 population of 438,614. 2 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report

SUMMARY OF SERVICE EFFORTS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS FISCAL YEARS 2001 TO 2006 Adult Detention Services Following is a listing of some notable program results for the Adult Detention service area. A page reference to a more detailed discussion of each summarized item is also included. Spending Efficiency Total spending per capita, adjusted for inflation, increased by 13.1 percent from FY 2001 to FY 2006. This increase is largely due to higher costs associated with staff salary and benefits and to a higher inmate average daily population. (pages 5-6) Prince William spent less per capita on adult detention services than Alexandria, Arlington, and Henrico and more than Chesterfield and Fairfax in FY 2005 (the most recent comparison available). (pages 7-8) The percent of ADC funding from local tax support increased from 40.1 percent in FY 2001 to 52.4 percent in FY 2006. Part of this increase in local funding was due to cuts in state funding in FY 2003 and FY 2004, due to state budget shortfalls. (pages 11-13) From FY 2001 to FY 2006, the inmate average daily population per authorized employee increased by 2.5 percent, and the ADC average cost per inmate day, adjusted for inflation, increased by 21.8 percent. (pages 17-18, 35-36) Prince William had a lower average cost per Adult Detention Center inmate day than Fairfax, Alexandria, and Arlington, and a higher average cost per inmate day than Chesterfield and Henrico (FY 2001 - FY 2006). (pages 37-38) The number of sick calls handled decreased by 11.8 percent, but spending for inmate medical services, adjusted for inflation, increased by 55.4 percent from $2.0 million in FY 2001 to $3.1 million in FY 2006. (pages 19-20) There were no escapes from the ADC during the six-year period. (page 22) In FY 2004, there were two releases made in error. The ADC took steps to correct the problem; and no other releases were made in error during the period from FY 2001 to FY 2006. (page 22) The ADC passed 100 percent of Department of Corrections inspections during the six-year period. (page 23) Crowding continues to be a concern, but the planned expansion should address this problem. (pages 27-28) Staffing per 1,000 Average Cost per Adult Detention Services Performance Initiatives: There has been an on-going capital expansion program planned to help deal with the crowding situation. A city-county agreement was entered into in April 2002, allowing the expansion to proceed. Construction of a new 200-bed facility was begun in the summer of 2006 and is expected to take at least two years. Renovation of the Main Jail is to begin in the fall of 2008. Phase II of the expansion, which will add 200 more beds, is planned to begin after the renovation is completed. However, the Phase II expansion has not been included in the county s FY 2008-2013 Capital Improvement Program due to a lack of funding capacity. 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report

Staffing per 1,000 Average Cost per The two Prince William releases that were made in error in FY 2004 involved an error in the time computation for these inmates. To prevent this from happening again, the staff reviewed the methodology for time computation to help ensure that these computations are done correctly. Use of SEA Data: Variances in SEA data between jurisdictions should be used as a basis for looking into and considering differences in the mix of services offered and operating methods used between jurisdictions. The information may also be used to explain, at least partially, why certain services cost Prince William residents more or less than what similar services cost residents in other jurisdictions. Because additional factors beyond those identified in this report may impact spending and operating results, the data should not be used to make a final determination that one jurisdiction is operating more efficiently than another. Comparison Jurisdictions: Information was gathered for the following five comparison jurisdictions: Chesterfield County, Fairfax County, Henrico County, Arlington County, and the city of Alexandria. The annual Jail Cost Reports issued by the Compensation Board were the primary source of the comparison data used. While most of the comparison data in the chapter was obtained from these state reports, the jurisdictions were contacted directly when further information was needed. Chesterfield County and Henrico County are both located in the Richmond, Virginia, metropolitan area and are closest to Prince William in population size compared to other Virginia jurisdictions. Fairfax County is located within the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area and adjoins. Arlington County and the city of Alexandria are both northern Virginia jurisdictions and were chosen by the Adult Detention Center as comparison jurisdictions for inclusion in this report. Detailed SEA Information: More detailed trend and comparative information is contained in the following pages along with contextual information. The chapter presents specific Adult Detention Services spending and staffing indicators, followed by outputs and then results. 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report

Adjusted for Inflation Purpose: To provide an indicator of the relative level of effort the community expends on adult detention services. This is not an efficiency measure since it does not consider the output generated for the level of spending. Total operating expenditures are divided by the total service area population. The expenditure figures show spending for the Prince William - Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center, which serves and the cities of Manassas and Manassas Park. Prince William s funding for the Peumansend Creek Regional Jail, which began in FY 1999, is also shown. The figures are adjusted for inflation to maintain comparability between years. The current budget year, Fiscal Year 2007, is used as the base year for inflation adjustments. $70 $60 $50 $40 $30 $20 $10 $0 $56.27 $53.98 $2.28, Adjusted for Inflation, Adult Detention Services Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2006 $59.30 $56.98 $2.33 $59.29 $61.49 $2.20 $62.58 $60.52 $2.05 $61.25 $63.25 $2.00 $63.65 $61.72 Prince William - Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center Peumansend Creek Regional Jail Total Adult Detention Services FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 Prince William - Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center (ADC) & Peumansend Creek Regional Jail (PCRJ) FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 $1.92 % change FY 01 to FY 06 Total, Adjusted for Inflation $56.27 $59.30 $61.49 $62.58 $63.25 $63.65 13.1% ADC Actual Expenditures $15,430,664 $17,492,080 $19,232,269 $21,058,089 $22,967,405 $25,318,264 64.1% ADC Expenditures, Adjusted For Inflation $18,482,727 $20,389,157 $21,965,276 $23,393,884 $24,754,604 $26,017,664 40.8% Prince William Actual Contributions to PCRJ $653,177 $714,608 $714,608 $714,608 $749,838 $788,837 20.8% Prince William Contributions to PCRJ, Adjusted for Inflation $782,370 $832,963 $816,158 $793,873 $808,186 $810,628 3.6% Service Area Population $342,398 $357,851 $370,470 $386,520 $404,183 $421,528 23.1% Staffing per 1,000 Average Cost per Trend: Total spending per capita, adjusted for inflation, for adult detention services (including both the Adult Detention Center and the Peumansend Creek Regional Jail) increased by 13.1 percent from $56.27 in FY 2001 to $63.65 in FY 2006. Spending per capita for the Adult Detention Center (not including Peumansend Creek Regional Jail), adjusted for inflation, was 14.3 percent higher in FY 2006 ($61.72) than in FY 2001 ($53.98). 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report

Per capita spending for the Peumansend Creek Regional Jail decreased by 15.8 percent, from $2.28 in FY 2001 to $1.92 in FY 2006 (both figures adjusted for inflation). Staffing per 1,000 Average Cost per Fiscal Year 2007 Adopted Budget: Based on the FY 2007 Adopted Budget, the budgeted Adult Detention Center spending per capita for FY 2007 ($66.02) is 6.1 percent higher than the FY 2006 budgeted spending per capita adjusted for inflation ($62.21). Total FY 2007 budgeted funding for the Adult Detention Center not including the Peumansend Creek Regional Jail ($28,958,756) is 10.4 percent higher than the FY 2006 budgeted funding adjusted for inflation ($26,225,135). The FY 2007 adopted budget amount for the Peumansend Creek Regional Jail is $818,823, which is an increase of 1.2 percent compared to the FY 2006 budgeted amount of $809,079 (adjusted for inflation). FY 2007 budgeted spending per capita for the Peumansend Creek Regional Jail is $1.87, a 2.7 percent decrease from the FY 2006 budgeted amount of $1.92 (adjusted for inflation). Comments: Total spending, including spending for the Prince William Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center and the Prince William beds at Peumansend Creek Regional Jail, adjusted for inflation, increased by 39.3 percent from FY 2001 to FY 2006. During the same period, the total population for the service area increased by 23.1 percent, resulting in the 13.1 percent increase in per capita spending. Spending for the Adult Detention Center increased by 40.8 percent. This increase is due in part to higher costs associated with staff salary and benefits and also to costs resulting from a higher inmate average daily population. The cost of salaries and benefits per employee increased due to salary adjustments related to merit increases and grade changes in positions. Also, the total number of authorized positions increased by 12.8 percent, from 217.0 in FY 2001 to 244.8 in FY 2006. The Adult Detention Center inmate average daily population increased by 15.6 percent from 622 in FY 2001 to 719 in FY 2006, resulting in higher costs including those associated with food, medical expenses, and staffing needs. Prince William owns 75 beds in the Peumansend Creek Regional Jail facility. There are five other participating jurisdictions with a total of 336 beds, all of which are minimum or medium security. 6 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report

Spending Per Capita Adjusted for Inflation $200, Adjusted for Inflation, Adult Detention Services by Jurisdiction Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2005 $150 $100 $50 $0 FY 2004 $139 $109 $99 $141 $114 $147 $84 $82 $84 $83 $83 Henrico $56 $60 $60 $61 $60 $62 $60 $64 Prince William $61 Fairfax $53 $57 $55 $57 $57 Chesterfield $51 $118 $152 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 Alexandria Arlington Henrico Prince William Fairfax Chesterfield $150 $117 Alexandria Arlington Prince William Alexandria Arlington Chesterfield Fairfax Henrico Actual Total Expenditures $22,053,969 $18,141,725 $21,742,797 $14,603,663 $55,808,500 $23,491,873 Total Expenditures, Adjusted for Inflation $24,500,228 $20,154,032 $24,154,541 $16,223,523 $61,998,863 $26,097,627 Service Area Population 396,600 133,000 204,200 282,400 1,033,100 314,300 FY 2005 Actual Total Expenditures $23,914,794 $18,787,192 $22,441,737 $15,254,592 $58,857,876 $24,529,964 Total Expenditures, Adjusted for Inflation $25,775,713 $20,249,109 $24,188,031 $16,441,622 $63,437,876 $26,438,753 Service Area Population 405,100 135,200 206,400 286,500 1,044,800 318,300 Compared to Other Jurisdictions: In FY 2006, Prince William spent less per capita on adult detention services than Alexandria, Arlington, and Henrico, and more than Chesterfield and Fairfax. Staffing per 1,000 Average Cost per Comments: The expenditure figures used above are taken from the annual Jail Cost Reports issued by the State Compensation Board. The state-reported figures for Prince William vary from the expenditure figures included in Prince William's internal data, since the information is coming from two different reporting / accounting systems. The state figures are used for comparison purposes in order to allow for greater consistency across jurisdictions. Amounts reported for debt service payments and for major capital costs are not included as operating expenditures. 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report

Staffing per 1,000 Average Cost per The service area for Fairfax includes Fairfax County and the city of Fairfax; and Arlington's service area includes Arlington County and the city of Falls Church. Henrico's service area includes Goochland County and New Kent County as well as Henrico County. The Chesterfield service area only includes Chesterfield County, and Alexandria's service area only includes the city of Alexandria. The average costs per Adult Detention Center (ADC) inmate day of the comparison jurisdictions are given on pages 37 38, and the average locally-supported spending amounts per non-federal ADC inmate day are shown on pages 39 40. Alexandria houses a substantially larger number of federal inmates than the other comparison jurisdictions, which contributes to their higher spending per capita. The spending figures included for this measure include what each jurisdiction spends to operate its Adult Detention Center and to house inmates in a regional jail. Chesterfield County sends a number of its inmates to the Riverside Regional Jail; and Prince William, Alexandria, and Arlington send inmates to the Peumansend Creek Regional Jail. The breakdown of these expenditures is shown in the table below. Fiscal Year 2004 Spending Adjusted for Inflation Prince William Alexandria Arlington Chesterfield Fairfax Henrico Adult Detention Center Operating Expenditures $23,774,599 $19,621,309 $23,517,425 $9,657,739 $61,998,863 $26,097,627 Payments to Regional Jail $725,629 $532,724 $637,116 $6,565,784 $ - $ - Total Adult Detention Services Expenditures $24,500,228 $20,154,032 $24,154,541 $16,223,523 $61,998,863 $26,097,627 Fiscal Year 2005 Adult Detention Center Operating Expenditures $25,005,498 $19,706,958 $23,539,535 $10,584,097 $63,437,876 $26,438,753 Payments to Regional Jail $770,215 $542,152 $648,496 $5,857,524 $ - $ - Total Adult Detention Services Expenditures $25,775,713 $20,249,109 $24,188,031 $16,441,622 $63,437,876 $26,438,753 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report

Authorized Adult Detention Center Employees per Thousand Purpose: This measure provides an indicator of the relative level of Adult Detention Center staffing provided per thousand residents over time. All permanent full-time and parttime employees are counted as full-time equivalents (FTE s). Temporary and contractual employees are not included. 1.00 Authorized Employees per Thousand Prince William - Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2006 Staffing per 1,000 0.75 0.50 0.634 0.606 0.607 0.595 0.574 0.581 0.25 0.00 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 Adult Detention Center FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 Percentage change Authorized positions 217.00 217.00 225.00 230.00 232.00 244.80 12.8% Service area population 342,398 357,851 370,470 386,520 404,183 421,528 23.1% Trend: The number of authorized FTE positions per thousand residents declined by 8.4 percent from.634 in FY 2001 to.581 in FY 2006. Fiscal Year 2007 Adopted Budget: The FY 2007 adopted budget adds 17 FTE positions, an increase of 6.9 percent. With the projected increase in population in FY 2007 (4.1 percent), the number of employees per 1,000 residents increases by 2.8 percent compared with the FY 2006 Adopted Budget. The new FY 2007 positions include 11 additional jail officers to help deal with the increasing inmate population at the Adult Detention Center. Two (2) other positions are correctional health assistants, also to help deal with the increasing inmate population, especially in light of the higher percentage of inmates who have chronic health conditions. The FY 2007 budget also includes two (2) jail officer positions to support Adult Detention Center jail officer certification and two (2) Food Service Supervisor positions, needed because of the increase in the inmate population. 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report Average Cost per

Staffing per 1,000 Average Cost per Comments: During the six-year period, 27.8 new positions were added (an increase of 12.8 percent) and the population of the Prince William - Manassas service area increased by 23.1 percent, resulting in the 8.4 percent decline in the number of FTE positions per 1,000 residents. The increase in staffing approved in the FY 2003 adopted budget included one FTE Local Inmate Data System Technician that had been approved by the BOCS during the previous year to support the state mandated Local Inmate Data System program. The FY 2003 budget also added an Information Systems Analyst position, a Correctional Health Assistant, and five additional correctional and kitchen staff. These positions were added in response to the increase in the inmate average daily population. Four new officer positions were added in FY 2004 to help manage the additional crowding associated with the continued inmate population growth. A new position of Jail Technician was also created as a non-sworn position and at a slightly lower and less expensive pay grade to handle support functions such as inmate property management, laundry, mail, and supply management. In FY 2005, a second mental health therapist position was added to help deal with the steady growth in the inmate population; and an officer position was added to monitor the inmate phone system on a more extensive basis. In FY 2006, nine (9) jail officers were added, as described below: five (5) to be used initially to supervise inmates in the modular jail multi-purpose room in order to address the crowding situation; two (2) assigned to receiving / booking; and two (2) assigned to inmate transport. 10 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report

Total Expenditures by Funding Source Purpose: To provide information on the percent of adult detention services spending funded by general tax support and the percent provided by other sources, including state revenue, tax support from other localities (cities of Manassas and Manassas Park), federal funds, and other revenue sources (fees and miscellaneous revenue). The percentages are based on total spending, which includes spending for the Prince William Manassas Regional Jail and Prince William s contribution to the Peumansend Creek Regional Jail facility, as well as the cost of housing Prince William inmates in other jail facilities. 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Adult Detention Services Funding Sources as a Percent of Total Expenditures (Including Adult Detention Center & Peumansend Creek Regional Jail) Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2006 2.2% 2.2% 1.8% 2.0% 2.3% 2.6% 1.3% 1.7% 1.0% 1.3% 6.7% 5.7% 8.7% 10.0% 8.8% 4.4% 5.8% 10.7% 46.7% 40.1% 41.7% 44.6% 37.1% 51.0% 34.5% 51.8% 52.7% 35.2% 33.0% 52.4% Other Funding Sources (Fees & Miscellaneous) Federal Funding Funding from Other Localities State Revenue Prince William Tax Support FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 Actual FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 Prince William Tax Support for ADC $ 5,799,344 $ 7,400,061 $ 9,465,193 $ 10,573,624 $ 11,745,671 $ 12,882,829 Support from Manassas & Manassas Park $ 709,088 $ 1,051,473 $ 1,742,234 $ 2,172,436 $ 2,095,858 $ 2,789,653 State Support for ADC $ 7,503,372 $ 7,596,024 $ 7,408,326 $ 7,506,078 $ 8,349,177 $ 8,624,321 Federal Support for ADC $ 1,071,569 $ 1,044,866 $ 262,411 $ 361,916 $ 232,432 $ 341,441 Other Funding for ADC $ 347,291 $ 399,656 $ 354,105 $ 444,035 $544,267 $ 680,020 Total Adult Detention Center (ADC) Expenditures $ 15,430,664 $ 17,492,080 $ 19,232,269 $ 21,058,089 $ 22,967,405 $ 25,318,264 Prince William Tax Support for Peumansend Creek Regional Jail (PCRJ) $ 653,178 $ 714,608 $ 714,608 $ 714,608 $ 749,838 $ 788,837 Staffing per 1,000 Spending by Funding Source Average Cost per Total ADC and PCRJ Expenditures $ 16,083,842 $ 18,206,688 $ 19,946,877 $ 21,772,697 $ 23,717,243 $ 26,107,101 Trend: The percentage of adult detention services spending provided by Prince William tax support was 52.4 percent in FY 2006. This percentage was highest in FY 2005 at 52.7 percent and lowest in FY 2001 at 40.1 percent. The percent of adult detention services spending provided through state revenue was lowest in FY 2006 at 33.0 percent, compared to 46.7 percent in FY 2001, when it was highest. 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report 11

Staffing per 1,000 Spending by Funding Source Average Cost per The percent of spending supported by other localities went from a low of 4.4 percent in FY 2001 to a high of 10.7 percent in FY 2006. Federal revenue supported 1.3 percent of total spending in FY 2006, down from its highest level of 6.7 percent in FY 2001. Funding from other sources remained fairly constant as a percentage of total spending, ranging from 2.2 percent in FY 2001 to 2.6 percent in FY 2006. FY 2007 Adopted Budget: In the FY 2007 adopted budget, Prince William tax support funds 62.4 percent of adult detention services spending, up from 59.3 percent in the FY 2006 adopted budget. Prince William tax support actually provided 52.4 percent of total expenditures in FY 2006. The percent of funding provided by state support decreases from 31 percent in the FY 2006 adopted budget to 27.8 percent in the FY 2007 adopted budget. One (1.0) percent of adult detention services expenditures are supported by federal funds in the FY 2007 adopted budget, compared to 1.1 percent in the FY 2006 adopted budget. Funding from other localities supports 7.5 percent of total spending in the FY 2007 adopted budget, compared to 7.2 percent in the FY 2006 adopted budget. Fees and miscellaneous revenue support 1.3 percent of total spending in the FY 2007 adopted budget, compared to 1.5 percent in the FY 2006 adopted budget. Comments: From FY 2001 to FY 2006, state funding adjusted for inflation decreased by 1.4 percent, while total expenditures (also adjusted for inflation) increased by 39.3 percent. During this same time period, Prince William tax support, adjusted for inflation, increased by 81.8 percent, contributing to the increase in the percentage of total spending supported through Prince William tax support shown on the previous page. The above percentages are based on total adult detention services spending, including both the Prince William Manassas Adult Detention Center and Prince William s beds at the Peumansend Creek Regional Jail (PCRJ), plus the cost of housing Prince William inmates at other jail facilities. Payments to PCRJ are supported through Prince William tax revenue, while funding for the Adult Detention Center includes federal funds, state revenue, funds from other localities, and fees for services, in addition to Prince William tax support. The average daily population of Prince William inmates housed at Peumansend Creek Regional Jail (PCRJ) went from 32 in FY 2001 to 78 in FY 2006. Prince William s payments to PCRJ, funded through Prince William tax support, increased by 3.6 percent from $782,370 in FY 2001 to $810,628 in FY 2006, both figures adjusted for inflation. The inmate average daily population at the Adult Detention Center increased by 15.6 percent from 622 in FY 2001 to 719 in FY 2006. During this period the ADC total operating expenditures, adjusted for inflation, increased by 40.8 percent, as shown in the table on page five (5). 12 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report

From FY 2001 to FY 2006, the average daily population of federal inmates at the Adult Detention Center (ADC) decreased from 24 in FY 2001 to 4 in FY 2006, which led to the decline in the proportion of federal funding for the ADC from 6.9 percent in FY 2001 to 1.3 percent in FY 2006, as shown in the following chart. The Adult Detention Center receives federal dollars from the Alien Assistance Program, which is a federal program that provides funding to correctional facilities for the costs of housing illegal aliens being held as a result of state and/or local charges or convictions. Facilities may also receive federal per diem payments for housing prisoners from the U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and other federal agencies. The local inmate average daily population of the Adult Detention Center (ADC) increased by 18.7 percent from 572 in FY 2001 to 679 in FY 2006. During this same period, the percentage of ADC expenditures supported by Prince William tax support increased from 37.6 percent in FY 2001 to 50.9 percent in FY 2006, and the percent of ADC spending supported by state revenue decreased from 48.6 percent in FY 2001 to 34.1 percent in FY 2006, as shown in the chart. 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Prince William - Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center Total Expenditures By Funding Source Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2006 2.3% 2.3% 1.8% 2.1% 2.4% 2.7% 1.4% 1.7% 1.0% 1.3% 6.9% 6.0% 9.1% 4.6% 6.0% 10.3% 9.1% 11.0% 48.6% 37.6% 43.4% 42.3% 38.5% 49.2% 35.6% 36.4% 50.2% 51.1% 34.1% 50.9% Other Funding Sources (Fees & Miscellaneous) Federal Funding Funding from Other Localities State Revenue Prince William Tax Support FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 The figures shown do not include payments made to Peumansend Creek Regional Jail. Staffing per 1,000 Spending by Funding Source Average Cost per 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report 13

Adult Detention Services Local Tax Support as a Percent of Total Adult Detention Services Spending By Jurisdiction Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2005 Staffing per 1,000 Spending by Funding Source 75% 50% 64.7% 63.8% 56.7% 46.8% 45.8% 42.3% 73.1% 71.3% 49.9% 43.5% 43.7% 40.6% 73.9% 71.0% 59.1% 50.1% 42.1% 44.0% 76.2% 73.7% 60.8% 59.1% 43.2% 40.3% 74.3% Chesterfield 73.8% Fairfax 60.5% Prince William 59.7% Arlington 53.1% Alexandria 41.2% Henrico 25% Chesterfield Prince William Henrico Fairfax Arlington Alexandria Average Cost per 0% FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 Compared to Other Jurisdictions: In FY 2005, tax support from and the cities of Manassas and Manassas Park provided funding for 60.5 percent of total operating expenditures for adult detention services, a lower percentage than the local tax support for Chesterfield and Fairfax and a higher percentage than for Arlington, Alexandria, and Henrico. Comments: The total expenditure figures used for this measure include each jurisdiction s spending for its adult detention center as well as payments made by the jurisdictions to house inmates at regional jails. Prince William owns 75 beds at Peumansend Creek Regional Jail (PCRJ); and Alexandria and Arlington own 50 and 60 beds, respectively, at PCRJ. Chesterfield houses slightly less than half of its total inmate population at Riverside Regional Jail, while Henrico and Fairfax do not house any inmates at regional jails. The following chart and table show the percent of total expenditures supported by local jurisdictional tax support, state revenue, and federal and other funding sources for the Adult Detention Center of each jurisdiction for FY 2005, the most recent year for which the Jail Cost Report is available. 14 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report

Chesterfield Local Tax Support, State Revenue, and Federal and Other Funds As Percentages of Total Adult Detention Services Spending By Jurisdiction Fiscal Year 2005 74.3% 22.8% 2.9% Fairfax Prince William Arlington Alexandria Henrico 41.2% 60.5% 59.7% 53.1% 73.8% 21.6% 51.1% 34.9% 32.2% 23.7% 25.3% 7.8% 2.4% 4.6% 8.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Total Local Tax Support State Revenue Federal and Other Revenue Sources Total Adult Detention Services Fiscal Year 2005 (Actual): Prince William Alexandria Arlington Chesterfield Fairfax Henrico Total Local Tax Support for Adult Detention Center (ADC)* $ 13,742,615 $ 9,479,105 $ 12,792,987 $ 5,898,233 $ 43,462,395 $ 10,104,161 ADC State Revenue $ 8,348,578 $ 4,055,662 $ 7,229,996 $ 3,474,316 $ 13,957,415 $ 12,524,336 ADC Federal Funding $ 233,032 $ 4,594,527 $ 1,560,562 $ 9,560 $ 139,450 $ 30,741 Other Funds Used for ADC $ 875,961 $ 154,888 $ 256,515 $ 437,852 $ 1,298,616 $ 1,870,726 Total Adult Detention Center Spending $ 23,200,186 $ 18,284,182 $ 21,840,060 $ 9,819,961 $ 58,857,876 $ 24,529,964 Local Funding to House Inmates in Regional Jail $ 714,608 $ 503,010 $ 601,677 $ 5,434,631 $ - $ - Total Adult Detention Services Spending $ 23,914,794 $ 18,787,192 $ 22,441,737 $ 15,254,592 $ 58,857,876 $ 24,529,964 * Prince William - Total local tax support includes support from the cities of Manassas and Manassas Park, and. Arlington - Local support includes tax support from the city of Falls Church and Arlington County. Fairfax - Local support includes tax support from the city of Fairfax and Fairfax County. Henrico - Total local tax support includes funding from Goochland County, New Kent County, and Henrico County. Alexandria - Local support only includes tax support from the city of Alexandria. Chesterfield - Local support only includes Chesterfield County tax support. Staffing per 1,000 Spending by Funding Source Average Cost per Federal funding includes contract and non-contract per diem payments for federal inmates, any federal grant funds, and any other operating revenue from federal sources. In FY 2005, Alexandria, Arlington, and Prince William received federal funds earned through the housing of federal inmates. Alexandria received a substantially larger amount of federal funds, which is reflected in its higher average daily population of federal inmates (shown on page 29). Among the comparison jurisdictions, only Alexandria had federally contracted beds and it had 100 of these beds. 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report 15

The category of other funding sources, as reported in the Jail Cost Report, includes payments from other non-local or non-member jurisdictions for holding inmates, payments for out-of-state inmates, and revenue from work release and electronic monitoring programs. Other revenue sources include telephone and inmate medical co-payments, as well as investment and interest income. Income from the canteen or commissary is not included as revenue in the Jail Cost Report, as these funds are of a trust account nature. Staffing per 1,000 Spending by Funding Source Average Cost per 16 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report

Purpose: To provide a broad indicator of changes in workload over time. The measure is computed by dividing the Adult Detention Center (ADC) inmate average daily population by total authorized ADC employees. 4 Average Daily Population per Authorized Employee Prince William - Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2006 Staffing per 1,000 3 2 2.87 3.06 2.92 2.97 3.01 2.94 Inmate Average Daily Population per Employee 1 0 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 Adult Detention Center FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 Percentage change Inmate Average Daily Population (ADP) 622 664 658 684 698 719 15.6% Authorized Staffing 217 217 225 230 232 245 12.8% Inmate ADP Local 572 625 613 645 657 679 18.7% Inmate ADP State Ready 26 24 34 32 39 36 38.5% Inmate ADP Federal 24 15 11 7 2 4-83.3% Newly Detained Inmates 12,383 13,119 12,750 13,218 13,213 13,203 6.6% Newly Detained Inmates - Classified 3,665 4,323 4,764 4,886 5,171 10,700 192.0% Average Cost per Trend: The Adult Detention Center inmate average daily population per authorized employee increased by 2.5 percent, from 2.87 in FY 2001 to 2.94 in FY 2006. The highest average daily population per employee was 3.06 in FY 2002. 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report 17

Staffing per 1,000 Inmate Average Daily Population per Employee Average Cost per Comments: Authorized staffing for the Adult Detention Center increased by 12.8 percent from FY 2001 to FY 2006, while the inmate average daily population increased by 15.6 percent during the same period. There are various reasons for the increase in the average daily population. Over time, the inmate population will increase as the service area population increases. From FY 2001 to FY 2006, the inmate average daily population increased by 15.6 percent, while the service area population (, Manassas, and Manassas Park) increased by 23.1 percent. The Peumansend Creek Regional Jail (PCRJ) began accepting prisoners in FY 2000 (females in September and males in November 1999) with the target of housing 75 Prince William inmates. The average daily population of Prince William inmates housed at PCRJ rose from 32 in FY 2001 to 78 in FY 2006, as shown below. The Peumansend Creek facility is not certified to house maximum-security inmates and thus will not provide a placement alternative for this type of inmate. PCRJ's criteria for acceptance of inmates are based upon the inmate s physical condition, criminal history, and the current charge or charges. Peumansend Creek Regional Jail Inmates FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 % change FY 01-06 Average Daily Population 32 65 72 70 78 78 143.8% 18 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report

Purpose: To provide information on changes in the number of sick calls handled at the Adult Detention Center. The number of sick calls handled is the number of times during the year that inmates were seen by detention center medical staff because of illness or injury. 40,000 Prince William - Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2006 Staffing per 1,000 30,000 20,000 26,842 30,076 26,023 25,755 23,312 23,680 Number of Sick Calls Handled 10,000 0 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 Trend: The number of sick calls handled in FY 2006 was 23,680, which was 11.8 percent fewer than in FY 2001. The highest number of sick calls handled was 30,076 in FY 2002. Comments: The inmate screening process is performed in three parts. Booking officers complete an initial medical screening on all inmates, while emergency situations are handled immediately. For those inmates with longer stays, a medical history is taken by ADC Correctional Health Assistants within fourteen days, followed by a physical performed by ADC nursing (RN) staff. The ADC also provides dental sick calls, where inmates are seen by the ADC dentist; medical sick calls, where inmates are seen by the ADC physician; and psychological sick calls, where inmates are seen by the ADC psychiatrist. The ADC also performs DNA testing as a service to the Circuit and Juvenile Courts. The law requires this test for every person convicted of a felony. Providing this service involves ADC staff time to perform a saliva test for each court-ordered situation and to record the data into the state-wide DNA network. ADC staff must also secure the specimen until it is transported to the Fairfax State Police Laboratory. Average Cost per 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report 19

Staffing per 1,000 Number of Sick Calls Handled Average Cost per While the number of sick calls decreased by 11.8 percent from FY 2001 to FY 2006, spending for medical services, adjusted for inflation, increased by 55.4 percent. During the same period, the average daily population increased by 15.6 percent; and the average amount spent for medical care per inmate day, adjusted for inflation, increased by 34.4 percent, as shown in the following table. Prince William - Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center % change FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 01-06 Actual Medical Expenditures $1,660,060 $2,044,016 $1,797,492 $2,619,195 $2,806,113 $3,007,191 81.1% Medical Expenditures, Adjusted for Inflation $1,988,407 $2,382,550 $2,052,925 $2,909,720 $3,024,469 $3,090,263 55.4% Average Daily Population 622 664 658 684 698 719 15.6% Average Medical Expenditures per, Adjusted for Inflation $3,197 $3,588 $3,120 $4,254 $4,333 $4,298 34.4% Overall, it is expected that spending for medical services at the Adult Detention Center will continue to rise due to several factors, including an increasing number of inmates with serious medical conditions such as AIDS and other chronic illnesses, and more inmates who are prescribed psychotropic and other high-cost medications. Another factor is that medical costs have been rising at a higher rate than the overall rate of inflation. Based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, from July 2000 to June 2006, the consumer price index for medical care increased by 28.5 percent and the index for medical care services increased by 31.3 percent. During the same period, the consumer price index for all items increased by 17.4 percent, a substantially lower rate than the rate by which medical costs have increased. (Source: Consumer Price Index All Urban Consumers; Not Seasonally Adjusted, U.S. city average; http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/ surveymost) 20 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report

Number of Purpose: To provide information on changes in the number of Adult Detention Center inmates in the Work Release Program. The number reported for each year includes all inmates who were in Work Release at some point during the year. All inmates in the program at the start of the year are counted along with new inmates added to the program during the year. 80 60 40 20 0 61 Number of Prince William - Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2006 62 63 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 Adult Detention Center FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 622 664 658 684 698 719 Percentage of Inmates in Work Release 9.8% 9.3% 9.6% 9.9% 9.2% 8.8% Trend: In FY 2006, there were 63 inmates in the Work Release Program, compared to 61 inmates in FY 2001. The percentage of inmates who are in the Work Release Program, based on the inmate average daily population, ranged from 9.8 percent in FY 2001 to a high of 9.9 percent in FY 2004, and then a low of 8.8 percent in FY 2006. 68 64 63 Staffing per 1,000 Inmates in Work Release Program Average Cost per Comments: These work release numbers do not include inmates in the electronic monitoring program, which are shown in the table below. Adult Detention Center FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 Electronic Incarceration Program Inmates 8 13 7 5 13 12 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report 21

Error Free Staffing per 1,000 Inmates Detained Without Escape and Inmates Released Average Cost per Purpose: A key objective of the Adult Detention Center is to provide for the secure housing of prisoners. These two indicators provide information on success in achieving that objective. The percent of inmates detained without escape is computed by subtracting the number of escapes from the inmate average daily population and dividing the result by the inmate average daily population. The percent of inmates released error free is computed by subtracting the number of inmates erroneously released during the year from the total number of releases and dividing the result by the total number of releases. FY 2006 FY 2005 FY 2004 FY 2003 FY 2002 FY 2001 Percent of Escape and Percent Released Error Free Prince William - Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2006 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Inmates Released Error Free Inmates Detained without Escape 99% Adult Detention Center FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 622 664 658 684 698 719 Number of Inmate Releases during Year 12,349 13,152 12,679 13,184 13,209 13,167 Number of Releases Made in Error during Year 0 0 0 2 0 0 Number of Inmate Escapes during Year 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trend: There were no escapes during the six-year period. All releases were error-free during the six-year period, except in FY 2004 there were two erroneous releases, out of a total of 13,184 releases during the fiscal year. Comments: The two Prince William releases that were made in error in FY 2004 involved an error in the time computation for these inmates. To prevent this from happening again, the staff reviewed the methodology for time computation to help ensure that these computations are done correctly. 22 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report

Department of Corrections Inspections Passed Purpose: The Virginia Department of Corrections (DOC) periodically inspects detention centers to verify that operations are in compliance with standards of security, safety, and health. This measure reports the percent of inspections passed out of the total number of inspections conducted during a fiscal year. 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Percent of Department of Corrections Inspections Passed Prince William - Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2006 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 Adult Detention Center FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 DOC Inspections Conducted 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 Trend: The Prince William Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center (ADC) had two Department of Corrections inspections each year except FY 2003 (one inspection) and FY 2004 (three inspections). The ADC passed all inspections during the six-year period. Staffing per 1,000 DOC Inspections Passed Average Cost per Comment: In addition to being inspected by the Virginia Department of Corrections, the Adult Detention Center is also inspected on an annual basis by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Marshals Service, Fire Marshal, and local Health Department (food service and sanitation). Every third year, the Department of Corrections performs an audit as well as an annual inspection. The ADC has passed all of these inspections each year. 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report 23

Detainees Held without Escape and Department of Corrections Inspections Passed Staffing per 1,000 Inmates Detained Without Escape and Inmates Released DOC Inspections Passed Average Cost per Purpose: To show the percent of detainees held without escape and the percent of Department of Corrections (DOC) inspections passed for the comparison jurisdictions. 75% 50% 25% 0% Percent of Detainees Held without Escape and Percent of Department of Corrections Inspections Passed By Jurisdiction Fiscal Year 2006 Alexandria Arlington Chesterfield Fairfax Henrico Prince William Detainees Held without Escape Compared to Other Jurisdictions: None of the comparison jurisdictions had any escapes during the years from FY 2001 through FY 2006. Each of the comparison jurisdictions had either one or two DOC inspections a year from FY 2001 through FY 2006, and each jurisdiction passed all of the inspections. Department of Corrections Inspections (All inspections were passed.) Prince William Alexandria Arlington Chesterfield Fairfax Henrico FY 2001 2 1 1 1 2 2 FY 2002 2 1 2 1 2 1 FY 2003 1 1 2 1 2 1 FY 2004 3 1 2 1 2 1 FY 2005 2 1 2 1 2 1 FY 2006 2 1 1 1 2 1 Comment: Information concerning the percent of inmates released without error is not available for the comparison jurisdictions. 24 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report

Injury from and Staff and Inmates Requiring Purpose: To provide an indicator of Adult Detention Center staff and inmate safety. The first two measures show the number of staff days lost due to injury resulting from confrontation and the number of staff members requiring medical attention due to confrontation. The third chart shows the number of inmates requiring medical attention due to confrontations per 100 inmate average daily population. 15 10 5 0 6 4 2 Injury from Adult Detention Center FY 2002 through Fiscal Year 2006 0 0 0 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 5 This information is not available for FY 2001. Staff Members Requiring Adult Detention Center Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2006 9 5 Staffing per 1,000 Staff Days Lost as a Result of Staff & Inmates Requiring Medical Attention Due to Average Cost per 2 2 1 1 0 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 0 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report 25

Staffing per 1,000 6 4 2 4.82 Inmates Requiring Per 100 - Adult Detention Center Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2006 3.31 2.74 3.65 2.58 2.09 Staff Days Lost as a Result of Staff & Inmates Requiring Medical Attention Due to Average Cost per 0 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 Adult Detention Center FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 % change FY 01-06 Number of FTE employees 217.0 217.0 225.0 230.0 232.0 244.8 12.8% Number of Inmates Requiring Medical Attention Due to 30 22 18 25 18 15-50.0% 622 664 658 684 698 719 15.6% Trend: No staff days were lost due to injury from confrontation in FY 2006, FY 2004 or FY 2003. The highest number of staff days lost as the result of injury from confrontation was nine in FY 2005. This number was two in FY 2002 and is not available for FY 2001. The number of staff members requiring medical attention due to confrontation was the same in FY 2006 as in FY 2001 (5 staff members). During the other years shown, this number was either one, two or zero. The number of inmates requiring medical attention due to confrontations per 100 inmate average daily population ranged from a high of 4.82 in FY 2001 to a low of 2.09 in FY 2006, a decrease of 56.7 percent. Comments: As the table above shows, the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees increased by 12.8 percent, from 217 in FY 2001 to 245 in FY 2006. The table also shows that the inmate average daily population (ADP) increased by 15.6 percent and the number of inmates requiring medical attention due to confrontation decreased by 50 percent during the six-year period. 26 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report

Number of Days State-Rated Adult Detention Center Operating Capacity Purpose: Detention centers are rated by the number of inmates that can be incarcerated per day in the facility. This measure reports the number of days during the year that the operational capacity was exceeded. The security and safety of the facility may be impacted when jail capacity is exceeded. Another measure, the average percent of capacity for the year, is presented in the table below. It provides an indicator of how much over or under capacity the facility was on average during the year. 400 300 200 100 0 365 Number of Days State-Rated Capacity Prince William - Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2006 365 365 366 365 365 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 Adult Detention Center FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 Average Percent of Capacity 133% 142% 141% 146% 149% 154% Trend: From FY 2001 through FY 2006, the Adult Detention Center was over capacity every day of the year. Comments: Exceeding jail capacity has been a problem for many years. The Adult Detention Center (ADC) consists of the main jail, the modular jail, and the work release center. The main jail facility is the only part of the ADC that is a full-service facility, with the capacity to house minimum, medium and maximum-security inmates; and it was over capacity each year during the six-year period. The chart on the next page shows the days over capacity for each of the three facilities during the period. All three facilities were over capacity during each year from FY 2001 through FY 2006. Staffing per 1,000 Days Jail Operating Capacity Average Cost per 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report 27

Staffing per 1,000 Days Jail Operating Capacity Average Cost per 400 300 200 100 0 3 365 131 Number of Days Capacity by Facility Prince William - Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2006 365 118 214 365 294 176 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 366 364 247 Main Jail Modular Jail Work Release Efforts have been made to deal with the crowding problem. In FY 1990, the Work Release Center was opened. A temporary facility in Haymarket was used from December 1989 through April 1990, while the modular jail was being built. More recently it was hoped that the Peumansend Creek Regional Jail facility would help ease the situation, but it is not certified to accept maximum-security inmates. There has been an on-going capital expansion program planned to help deal with the crowding situation. A city-county agreement was entered into in April 2002, allowing the expansion to proceed. Construction of a new 200 bed facility was begun in the summer of 2006 and is expected to take at least two years. Renovation of the Main Jail is to begin in the fall of 2008. Phase II of the expansion, which will add 200 more beds, is planned to begin after the renovation is completed. However, the Phase II expansion has not been included in the county s FY 2008-2013 Capital Improvement Program due to a lack of funding capacity. 365 365 153 365 365 130 28 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report

Percent of Department of Correction Rated Adult Detention Center Operating Capacity This is computed by dividing the average daily population of each jurisdiction s Adult Detention Center (ADC), as reported in the state Jail Cost Report, by the operational capacity for each facility as determined by the Department of Corrections (DOC). 175% 150% 125% 75% 50% 25% 0% 132% 114% 113% 111% 134% Percent of Adult Detention Center Operating Capacity Based on DOC-Rated Capacity and By Jurisdiction Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2005 146% 140% 139% 146% Prince William 136% 129% 134% 136% Henrico 129% 129% Chesterfield 132% 126% 135% 119% 129% Arlington 125% 125% Alexandria 124% 117% 117% 97% 97% 99% 98% 84% Prince William Henrico Chesterfield Arlington Alexandria Fairfax FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 Fairfax Adult Detention Center Prince William Alexandria Arlington Chesterfield Fairfax Henrico Fiscal Year 2004 Local and state inmate average daily population 674 303 597 309 1,248 1,073 Federal and out-of-state inmate average daily population 6 160 41 0 2 0 (LIDS) 680 463 638 309 1,250 1,073 DOC-Rated Capacity 467 340 474 250 1,260 787 Fiscal Year 2005 Local and state inmate average daily population 681 295 568 322 1,227 1,017 Federal and out-of-state inmate average daily population 2 131 45 0 5 0 (LIDS) 683 426 613 322 1,232 1,017 DOC-Rated Capacity 467 340 474 250 1,260 787 Staffing per 1,000 Percent of Operating Capacity Average Cost per Compared To Other Jurisdictions: In each year from FY 2002 through FY 2005, Prince William operated its Adult Detention Center at a higher percent of DOC-rated capacity than any of the other comparison jurisdictions. In FY 2001, only Chesterfield operated at a higher percent of DOC-rated capacity than Prince William. 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report 29

Staffing per 1,000 Comments: In FY 2000, Peumansend Creek Regional Jail (PCRJ) first began accepting inmates, with the planned target of filling 75 beds out of the Prince William-Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center (ADC) and the desired result of easing the strain on the ADC capacity. However, PCRJ is not certified to house maximum-security inmates, which affects the extent of its impact on the crowding situation at the ADC. As the ADC inmate population has increased, the ADC has been able to fill more of the beds available at PCRJ. Fairfax had a major increase in its DOC-rated operating capacity in FY 2001, going from 589 in FY 2000 to 1,012 in FY 2001. This was due to the construction of a new facility, which was brought into use in incremental steps. In FY 2004, the operating capacity of the Fairfax facility increased to 1,260. The inmate average daily population figures shown in the table are those reported by the state s Local Inmate Data System (LIDS). The state-reported numbers and the locally-calculated numbers, which are used for the trend data, will differ slightly because of differences in methodology. Percent of Operating Capacity Average Cost per 30 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report

Purpose: To provide information on changes in the average number of days that inmates are incarcerated. Communities have taken a number of initiatives to reduce the length of incarceration in an effort to reduce jail crowding, reduce jail costs, and rehabilitate offenders. The average length of incarceration is also impacted by the speed with which the state accepts state-ready prisoners into state prisons from local detention centers. days 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 (In Days) Prince William - Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center Inmates Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2006 18 19 19 19 19 18 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 Adult Detention Center FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 622 664 658 684 698 719 Trend: The average length of incarceration for inmates at the Prince William Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center (ADC) was 19 days in FY 2006 and either 19 or 18 days for each of the other years (FY 2001 - FY 2005). Comments: Approximately 55 percent of ADC inmates are in the facility for one day or less, and 73 percent are there for 5 days or less. In FY 2001 and FY 2002 there was an increase in the number of inmates in the pretrial category, which is an indication of the court system becoming overloaded. When this happens, cases can become backed up and pretrial inmates can end up spending more time in jail awaiting trial, and this can result in an increase in the average length of incarceration. Other factors that contribute to a higher inmate average daily population are the overall rise in the number of court cases and changes in the law, which have resulted in more inmates not making bond and more inmates that magistrates cannot release because Staffing per 1,000 Average Length of Incarceration Average Cost per 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report 31

Staffing per 1,000 Average Length of Incarceration Average Cost per of the charges against them. Due to changes in the Virginia Code, judicial good time ( JGT) is no longer available for any state-convicted inmate with a felony conviction and housed at the ADC. Exemplary good time (EGT) is now only applied to locallysentenced inmates, which limits the ADC s ability to grant good-time days. The number of criminal charges requiring mandatory minimum jail sentences has increased in recent years, which may also contribute to an increase in the average length of incarceration. The Office of Criminal Justice Services administers programs that provide supervision and treatment services in the community as an alternative to incarceration, both before and after a trial is held. The increased emphasis on these community programs has been a factor in keeping the average length of incarceration at the Adult Detention Center relatively level. The following chart shows the average number of cases supervised through the pre- and post-trial programs for each year during the six-year period. 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Office of Criminal Justice Services Post-Trial and Pretrial Programs Average Number of Cases Supervised per Day Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2006 981 1,008 1,058 965 110 97 101 114 1,054 171 1,197 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 Post-trial Offender Supervision Pretrial Defendant Supervision The average number of cases supervised through local probation (post-trial) services went from 981 in FY 2001 to its highest level of 1,197 in FY 2006, an increase of 22 percent. The average number of cases supervised through the pretrial program increased by 48 percent, going from 110 in FY 2001 to 163 in FY 2006. 163 32 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report

Incarceration Rate per Thousand Purpose: To provide information on the rate of incarceration compared to prior years and other jurisdictions. The measure is computed by dividing the local and state-ready inmate average daily population at the Prince William Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center (ADC), combined with the average daily population of inmates from the Prince William service area who are housed at Peumansend Creek Regional Jail (PCRJ), by the number of residents (, Manassas, and Manassas Park) divided by 1,000. The locally-calculated inmate average daily population figures are used for the Prince William trend data. These numbers will differ slightly from the inmate average daily population figures reported by the state s Local Inmate Data system (LIDS), due to differences in methodology. Staffing per 1,000 2.5 Incarceration Rate per Thousand Based on Average Daily Population of Non-Federal Adult Detention Center Inmates and Prince William Inmates at Peumansend Creek Regional Jail Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2006 2.0 2.00 1.84 1.94 1.93 1.91 1.88 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 Average Daily Population FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 Local and State-Ready Inmates at the ADC 598 649 647 677 696 715 Prince William Inmates at PCRJ 32 65 72 70 78 78 Total Non-Federal Service Area Inmates 630 714 719 747 774 793 Service Area Population 342,398 357,851 370,470 386,520 404,183 421,528 Incarceration Rate per 1,000 Average Cost per Trend: The incarceration rate per thousand residents was 1.88 in FY 2006, compared to its lowest value of 1.84 in FY 2001. The incarceration rate per thousand residents was highest in FY 2002 at 2.0. Comments: The incarceration rate is impacted by various factors, including how quickly the state accepts state-ready inmates, how the state defines state ready, and by the number of arrests. 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report 33

In addition, the incarceration rate has been impacted by the opening in FY 2000 of the Peumansend Creek Regional Jail (PCRJ), which has the capacity to house up to 75 Prince William inmates. The average daily population of Prince William inmates at PCRJ went from 32 in FY 2001 to 78 in FY 2006. The amount of crime and number of arrests in a community will also affect the community s incarceration rate. The chart below shows the number of adult arrests for, based on Police Department calendar year data. Staffing per 1,000 Incarceration Rate per 1,000 Average Cost per 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 11,841 Adult Arrests Calendar Year 2001 through Calendar Year 2006 10,532 10,620 11,219 11,375 11,769 CY 2001 CY 2002 CY 2003 CY 2004 CY 2005 CY 2006 34 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report

Average Cost per Adjusted for Inflation Purpose: To provide information on the average cost per inmate day compared to prior years and other jurisdictions. The measure is computed by dividing the average expenditures per day during the fiscal year by the inmate average daily population for the year. The figures are adjusted for inflation to maintain comparability between years. The current budget year, Fiscal Year 2007, is used as the base year for inflation adjustments. The average cost per inmate day is calculated for both the Adult Detention Center and for Prince William inmates housed at Peumansend Creek Regional Jail. $200 $150 $100 $50 $0 Average Cost per, Adjusted for Inflation: Prince William - Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center (ADC) & Peumansend Creek Regional Jail (PCRJ) Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2006 $81.41 $84.13 $66.98 $35.11 $91.46 $31.06 $93.70 $31.07 $97.16 $99.14 $28.39 $28.47 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 Prince William - Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center (ADC) Average Cost per ADC Average Prince William Cost per PCRJ FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 Total ADC actual expenditures $15,430,664 $17,492,080 $19,232,269 $21,058,089 $22,967,405 $25,318,264 Total ADC expenditures, adjusted for inflation $18,482,727 $20,389,157 $21,965,276 $23,393,884 $24,754,604 $26,017,664 ADC (ADP) 622 664 658 684 698 719 Peumansend Creek Regional Jail (PCRJ) Total Prince William actual payments to PCRJ $653,177 $714,608 $714,608 $714,608 $749,838 $788,837 Total Prince William payments, adjusted for inflation $782,370 $832,963 $816,158 $793,873 $808,186 $810,628 Prince William Inmate ADP at PCRJ 32 65 72 70 78 78 Staffing per 1,000 Average Cost per Trend: The Adult Detention Center average cost per inmate day, adjusted for inflation, was highest in FY 2006 at $99.14, which was 21.8 percent higher than the average cost per inmate day in FY 2001 adjusted for inflation ($81.41). The Prince William average cost per inmate day at Peumansend Creek Regional Jail, adjusted for inflation, was 57.5 percent lower in FY 2006 ($28.47) than in FY 2001 ($66.98). 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report 35

Comments: The FY 2001 Peumansend Creek Regional Jail average cost per inmate day, adjusted for inflation, was relatively high ($66.98), due to the lower average daily population (32). The Prince William average daily population at the regional jail increased beginning in FY 2002, and the average cost per inmate decreased to $28.47 in FY 2006. Staffing per 1,000 Average Cost per 36 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report

Average Cost per Adult Detention Center Adjusted for Inflation $175 $150 $125 $100 $75 $50 $25 $0 $130 $109 $83 $77 $76 $148 Average Cost per Adult Detention Center, Adjusted for Inflation, By Jurisdiction Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2005 $87 $152 $96 $67 $125 $85 $94 $138 $117 $104 $75 $68 Fairfax Arlington Chesterfield $116 $136 $101 $96 $86 $67 Alexandria Prince William Henrico FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 $141 $127 $90 $71 Fairfax Alexandria $105 Arlington $100 Prince William Chesterfield Henrico Adult Detention Center Prince William Alexandria Arlington Chesterfield Fairfax Henrico Fiscal Year 2004 Actual operating expenditures $21,400,791 $17,662,192 $21,169,295 $8,693,449 $55,808,500 $23,491,873 Operating expenditures, adjusted for inflation $23,774,599 $19,621,309 $23,517,425 $9,657,739 $61,998,863 $26,097,627 Inmate average daily population 680 463 638 309 1,250 1,073 Fiscal Year 2005 Actual operating expenditures $23,200,186 $18,284,182 $21,840,060 $9,819,961 $58,857,876 $24,529,964 Operating expenditures, adjusted for inflation $25,005,498 $19,706,958 $23,539,535 $10,584,097 $63,437,876 $26,438,753 Inmate average daily population 683 426 613 322 1,232 1,017 Staffing per 1,000 Average Cost per Compared To Other Jurisdictions: In each year from FY 2001 through FY 2005, Prince William had a lower average cost per Adult Detention Center (ADC) inmate day than Fairfax, Alexandria and Arlington, and a higher average cost per ADC inmate day than Chesterfield and Henrico. Comments: Expenditure and inmate average daily population data are from the State Compensation Board's annual Jail Cost Reports. These cost figures are based on the spending and inmate average daily population for each jurisdiction s adult detention facility only. The average daily population and related 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report 37

Staffing per 1,000 Average Cost per spending for inmates housed in a regional jail facility or held in another locality s jail are not included. The relatively lower cost of living in the central Virginia area compared to northern Virginia is probably a large part of the reason for the lower average cost per inmate day for both the Henrico and Chesterfield adult detention centers. Another factor in Henrico s lower cost per inmate day may be that the Henrico County Regional Jail East is a dormitory style facility. It is the first campus-style jail in Virginia and uses the direct supervision approach, which provides a barrier-free environment between deputies and inmates. This type of operation is less expensive to operate because it is less staff-intensive. This report does not present a comparison of staffing ratios (average daily population per employee) because the jails, other than Prince William, are run by the Sheriff Offices of the jurisdictions and it is difficult to provide an accurate allocation of staff between jail operations and other Sheriff Office duties. The Henrico County Regional Jail East was opened in September 1996 as part of a regional agreement between Goochland, Henrico, and New Kent counties and is maintained and secured by the Henrico County Sheriff s Office. The facility features training and rehabilitation by offering mental health and substance abuse services plus educational and vocational training in automotive repair, cosmetology, and computer technology. Henrico County also operates the Henrico Regional Jail West, which was opened in 1980 with a major expansion in 1996. It is a maximum security facility, housing both pretrial and post-trial inmates, and is the location of the headquarters and administrative offices of the Sheriff s Office. 38 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report

Average Locally-Supported Spending per Non-Federal Adult Detention Center, Adjusted for Inflation Adult Detention Services Purpose: To compare locally-funded spending per inmate day among jurisdictions. Federal inmates are excluded, since the jurisdiction receives federal per diem payments for these inmates. The average daily population of non-federal inmates at each jurisdiction s adult detention center is used to calculate the respective costs per inmate day. For each jurisdiction, the locally-supported Adult Detention Center spending is divided by the nonfederal average daily population, as described above. The results are then divided by the number of days in the year to give the average local spending per inmate day. $150 $125 $100 $75 $50 $25 $0 $94.48 $87.29 $65.69 $37.45 Average Locally-Funding Spending per Adult Detention Center Non-Federal (Adjusted for Inflation) By Jurisdiciton Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2005 $37.57 $35.32 Fairfax Arlington Chesterfield $108.60 $83.21 $43.93 $42.59 $98.39 $58.46 $72.03 $54.43 $100.31 $68.63 $62.60 $60.77 $43.50 $51.38 $27.23 Alexandria Prince William Henrico $29.74 $40.73 $28.75 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 $104.60 Fairfax $94.88 $66.51 Arlington $63.43 Prince William $54.09 $29.34 Alexandria Chesterfield Henrico Adult Detention Center (adjusted for inflation) Prince William Alexandria Arlington Chesterfield Fairfax Henrico FY 2003 ADC expenditures supported through local tax support Non-federal ADC inmate average daily population FY 2004 ADC expenditures supported through local tax support $12,812,742 $7,755,606 $11,025,880 $4,668,069 $43,849,830 $11,442,621 640 295 555 314 1,221 1,054 $14,173,804 $7,589,639 $13,641,702 $5,795,331 $45,693,313 $11,261,493 Non-federal ADC inmate average daily population 674 303 597 309 1,248 1,073 Staffing per 1,000 Average Cost per Average Local Spending per FY 2005 ADC expenditures supported through local tax support $14,811,991 $10,216,717 $13,788,468 $6,357,201 $46,844,403 $10,890,412 Non-federal ADC inmate average daily population 681 295 568 322 1,227 1,017 Compared To Other Jurisdictions: In FY 2005, the average locally-supported spending per non-federal Adult Detention Center inmate day was lower for Prince William than for Fairfax, Alexandria, and Arlington, and higher for Prince William than for Chesterfield and Henrico. 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report 39

Staffing per 1,000 Comments: Expenditure and funding figures are taken from the State Compensation Board's annual Jail Cost Reports. The average daily population figures include non-federal adult detention center inmates only. Inmates held at a regional jail or another local jail, and the payments to the regional jail or to the other localities for those inmates, are not included. Prince William pays Peumansend Creek Regional Jail to guarantee 27,375 inmate days or 75 beds. Alexandria pays to guarantee 18,250 inmate days or 50 beds; and Arlington pays to guarantee 21,900 inmate days or 60 beds. The new 200-bed facility planned for Prince William is designed with pods for inmate housing, which are slightly less staff-intensive for managing inmates than the linear design of the Main Jail. Average Cost per Average Local Spending per 40 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report

at the Adult Detention Center Adult Detention Services Purpose: To provide an indicator of changes in the success of efforts aimed at preventing recidivism. It is important to note that this measure does not include inmates who were released from the Prince William Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center (ADC) and later incarcerated at another detention center. The measure is computed by dividing the number of newly detained inmates at the ADC who had previously been incarcerated there by the total number of newly detained inmates for the year. 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Percent of Adult Detention Center Inmates Previously at the Prince William - Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2006 64% 62% 73% 71% 60% 53% FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 Trend: The percentage of newly detained inmates who had previously been incarcerated at the Prince William Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center was at its lowest level in FY 2006 at 53 percent, down from 64 percent in FY 2001. This percentage was highest in FY 2003 at 73 percent. Staffing per 1,000 Average Cost per Percent of Inmates Previously Comments: This measure only captures those inmates newly detained at the Adult Detention Center who had previously been incarcerated at the Prince William Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center (ADC). If a former ADC inmate is incarcerated at another facility after leaving the ADC, that inmate would not be counted; nor would a newly detained inmate at the ADC who had previously been incarcerated at another facility. 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report 41

42 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments