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 2005 targets for key goals of this service area, as established in the FY 2005 Adopted Budget, are shown below. Percent of inmates detained without escape 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 2005 Resources: Adopted Budget: $24,039,724 Authorized ADC Staffing: 232 s Jail Exceeded per Inmate FY 2005 Adopted Budget By Program (Millions) Rehabilitation Executive Management $2.5 $1.9 $0.5 Support Services Classification $5.1 Health Care $2.8 Security $11.2 The FY 2005 budgeted amount includes $750,338 for the annual operating assessment cost to be paid to the Peumansend Creek Regional Jail Authority. 1
Population Served: The Adult Detention Center serves Prince William County, Manassas, and Manassas Park - a combined projected FY 2005 population of 400,604. SUMMARY OF SERVICE EFFORTS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS FISCAL YEARS 1999 TO 2004 s Jail Exceeded per Inmate 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 Results While the ADC average cost per inmate day, adjusted for inflation, increased by 6.6 percent, the inmate average daily population per authorized employee increased by 20 percent. (pages 15-16, 33-34) Total spending per capita increased by 10 percent from FY 1999 to FY 2004. This increase is largely due to higher costs associated with staff salary and benefits and to a higher inmate average daily population. (pages 4-5) Prince William spent less per capita on adult detention services than Alexandria, Arlington, and Henrico and more than Chesterfield and Fairfax in FY 2003 (the most recent comparison available). (pages 6-7) The percent of ADC funding from local tax support increased from 40.9 percent in FY 1999 to 52.8 percent in FY 2004. 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 10-12) 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 2000 - FY 2004). (pages 35-36) The number of sick calls handled decreased, but spending for inmate medical services, adjusted for inflation, increased by 63.3 percent to $2.7 million in FY 2004. (pages 17-18) There were no escapes from the ADC during the six-year period. (page 21) There were two releases made in error. The ADC has taken steps to correct the problem. (page 21) The ADC passed 100 percent of Department of Corrections inspections during the period. (page 22) Crowding continues to be a concern, but the planned expansion should address this problem. (pages 24-25) 2 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. Design for a new 200-bed facility is virtually complete, with construction to begin in spring 2005. It is expected that construction will take at least two years. Renovation of the Main Jail is to begin in the summer of 2007. After the completion of the renovation, Phase II of the expansion, which will add 200 more beds, is expected to begin in FY 2008. The two Prince William releases that were made in error in FY 2004 involved an error in the time computation of these inmates. To prevent this from happening again, the staff have reviewed the methodology for time computation, and the LIDS (automated system) technician now assists in the training to help ensure that time 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 Prince William County. 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. s Jail Exceeded per Inmate 3
Spending Per Capita Adjusted for Inflation s Jail Exceeded per Inmate 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 Prince William, Manassas and Manassas Park. Prince William 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 2005, is used as the base year for inflation adjustments. $70 $60 $50 $40 $30 $20 $10 $49.41 Adult Detention Services Adjusted for Inflation Fiscal Year 1999 through Fiscal Year 2004 $3.16 $2.10 $2.13 $50.19 $50.22 $2.16 $52.99 Peumansend Creek Regional Jail Adult Detention Center $2.05 $1.91 $55.12 $56.08 $0 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Total, Adjusted for Inflation $52.57 $52.29 $52.35 $55.15 $57.17 $57.99 ADC Actual Expenditures $13,549,486 $14,520,597 $15,430,664 $17,492,080 $19,232,269 $20,991,870 ADC Expenditures Adjusted For Inflation $15,906,491 $16,642,202 $17,148,337 $18,917,129 $20,379,457 $21,636,671 Prince William Actual Contributions to Peumansend Creek Regional Jail $866,279 $608,933 $653,177 $714,608 $714,608 $714,608 Prince William Contributions to Peumansend Creek Regional Jail, Adjusted for Inflation $1,016,973 $697,904 $725,886 $772,826 $757,234 $736,558 Service Area Population 321,938 331,596 341,442 357,001 369,726 385,786 4
Trend: Spending per capita for the Adult Detention Center (not including spending for Peumansend Creek Regional Jail), adjusted for inflation, was 13.5 percent higher in FY 2004 than in FY 1999. 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 10 percent from $52.57 in FY 1999 to $57.99 in FY 2004. Fiscal Year 2005 Adopted Budget: Adult Detention Center spending per capita based on the FY 2005 adopted budget is 4.3 percent higher than per capita spending in the FY 2004 adopted budget, adjusted for inflation. Total funding for the Adult Detention Center, not including the Peumansend Creek Regional Jail (PCRJ) is 8.3 percent higher in the FY 2005 adopted budget than in the FY 2004 adopted budget (adjusted for inflation). The FY 2005 adopted budget includes $750,338 for the Peumansend Creek Regional Jail (PCRJ), which is an increase of 1.87 percent compared to the FY 2004 budgeted amount, adjusted for inflation. The actual funding level for the regional jail was $714,608 each year from FY 2002 through FY 2004. Spending per capita for PCRJ in the FY 2005 adopted budget is $1.87, a 1.9 percent decrease from the FY 2004 budgeted amount of $1.91 (adjusted for inflation). Comments: The total spending figures include spending for the Peumansend Creek Regional Jail. Total expenditures, adjusted for inflation, increased by 32 percent from FY 1999 through FY 2004, while total population for the service area increased by 20 percent, resulting in the 10 percent increase in per capita spending. This increase in spending is largely due to higher costs associated with staff salary and benefits and also to a higher inmate average daily population. While spending per capita increased by 10 percent, the number of full-time equivalent employees per thousand residents decreased by 11.6 percent. The total number of positions increased from 217 in FY 1999 to 230 in FY 2004. Overall, the cost of salaries and benefits per employee increased due to salary adjustments related to pay and merit increases and grade changes in positions. Inmate average daily population increased by 27.6 percent from 536 in FY 1999 to 684 in FY 2004. The increase in the inmate population is associated with increased costs, including those costs associated with food and medical costs. The ADC states that an additional 200 inmates would be associated with a cost increase of approximately $250,000. 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. s Jail Exceeded per Inmate 5
Spending Per Capita Adjusted for Inflation s Jail Exceeded per Inmate $150 $125 $100 $75 $50 $25 $0 Adult Detention Services, Adjusted for Inflation, By Jurisdiction Fiscal Year 2000 through Fiscal Year 2003 $133 $129 $132 $136 Alexandria $100 $101 $91 $104 $75 $78 $78 Henrico $55 $53 $56 $58 Prince William $55 Fairfax $43 $49 $53 $55 $50 Chesterfield $47 $42 Alexandria Arlington Henrico Prince William Fairfax Chesterfield FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 Compared to Other Jurisdictions In FY 2003, Prince William spent less per capita on adult detention services than Alexandria, Arlington, and Henrico and more than Chesterfield and Fairfax. 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. 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 incarceration rates and average cost per inmate day of the comparison jurisdictions are given on pages 27-28 and 31 32, respectively. $76 Arlington Fiscal Year 2003 Prince William Alexandria Arlington Chesterfield Fairfax Henrico Actual Total Expenditures $20,201,963 $17,276,817 $20,395,223 $14,728,118 $54,084,944 $22,745,521 Total Expenditures Adjusted For Inflation $21,406,992 $18,307,364 $21,611,780 $15,606,637 $57,311,063 $24,102,271 Service Area Population 369,726 135,000 208,317 281,000 1,041,831 309,784 6
Comments (continued): 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. Spending by Jurisdiction adjusted for inflation Prince William Alexandria Arlington Chesterfield Fairfax Henrico Fiscal Year 2002 Adult Detention Center Operating Expenditures $19,278,790 $17,122,697 $18,023,461 $8,365,625 $54,442,419 $23,050,992 Payments to Regional Jail $772,826 $518,600 $620,224 $6,598,986 $0 $0 Total Adult Detention Services Expenditures $20,051,616 $17,641,297 $18,643,685 $14,964,611 $54,442,419 $23,050,992 Fiscal Year 2003 Adult Detention Center Operating Expenditures $20,649,759 $17,799,227 $21,004,069 $8,002,582 $57,311,021 $24,102,271 Payments to Regional Jail $757,234 $508,137 $607,711 $6,048,721 $0 $0 Total Adult Detention Services Expenditures $21,406,992 $18,307,364 $21,611,780 $14,051,303 $57,311,021 $24,102,271 s Jail Exceeded per Inmate 7
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 part-time employees are counted as full-time equivalents (FTE s). Temporary and contractual employees are not included. s Jail Exceeded per Inmate 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.674 Authorized ADC Employees per Thousand Fiscal Year 1999 through Fiscal Year 2004 0.654 0.636 Percentage FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Change Authorized Positions 217.00 217.00 217.00 217.00 225.00 230.00 6.0% Population 321,938 331,596 341,442 357,001 369,726 385,786 19.8% Trend: The number of authorized FTE positions per thousand residents declined by 11.6 percent from.674 in FY 1999 to.596 in FY 2004. While 8 new positions were added in the FY 2003 budget and 5 more positions in the FY 2004 budget, the number of authorized positions per thousand residents remained approximately the same in FY 2003 and declined in FY 2004. 0.608 0.609 0.596 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Fiscal Year 2005 Adopted Budget: The FY 2005 adopted budget adds two FTE positions. With the projected increase in population in FY 2005, the number of employees per 1,000 residents declines by almost 3 percent compared to the FY 2004 Adopted Budget. Comments: Population in the Prince William service area, including the cities of Manassas and Manassas Park, increased by almost 20 percent from July 1999 to July 2004. 8
Comments (continued): 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 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 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. s Jail Exceeded per Inmate 9
Percent of Funding Provided by Prince William County Tax Support, State Revenue, and Federal Funds s Jail Exceeded per Inmate Purpose: To provide information on the percent of adult detention services funding provided by Prince William County general tax support and the percent provided by state revenue and federal funds. In addition to these revenue sources, other sources of funds for the Adult Detention Center include revenue from other localities (Manassas and Manassas Park) and charges for services. Revenue from these other sources is not included in the chart below but is shown in the table. 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 48.4% 40.9% Percent of Adult Detention Center Funding Provided by Prince William County Tax Support, State Revenue, and Federal Funds Fiscal Year 1999 through Fiscal Year 2004 49.1% 46.5% 40.7% 41.3% 4.8% 4.7% 6.6% 41.5% 44.0% 6.1% 52.1% 36.1% 1.3% 52.8% 33.6% FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Prince William State Federal Actual: FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Prince William Tax Support for ADC $5,537,041 $5,798,869 $6,661,638 $7,167,905 $10,703,827 $11,796,421 State Support for ADC $6,544,357 $6,998,525 $7,503,372 $7,596,024 $7,408,326 $7,506,078 Federal Support for ADC $647,616 $676,608 $1,071,569 $1,044,866 $262,411 $316,915 Other Funding for ADC $798,210 $781,090 $901,484 $399,656 $354,105 $555,254 Total Funding for ADC $13,527,224 $14,255,092 $16,138,063 $17,259,924 $20,537,122 $22,347,104 1.4% Support for PCRJ from ADC Fund Balance and ADC Revenues $626,738 $326,738 $326,738 $ - $ - $ - Prince William Tax Support for PCRJ $239,541 $282,195 $326,440 $714,608 $714,608 $714,608 Total Funding for PCRJ $866,279 $608,933 $653,178 $714,608 $714,608 $714,608 10 Trend: The percentage of ADC funding provided by Prince William tax support was highest in FY 2004 at 52.8 percent, compared to 40.9 percent in FY 1999. This percentage was lowest in FY 2000 at 40.7 percent. The percent of ADC funding provided through state revenue was lowest in FY 2004 at 33.6 percent, compared to 48.4 in FY 1999. This percentage was highest in FY 2000 at 49.1 percent. Federal funds made up 1.4 percent of total funding in FY 2004, compared to 4.8 percent in FY 1999. The percentage of funding provided by federal funds was highest in FY 2001 at 6.6 percent.
Fiscal Year 2005 Adopted Budget: In the FY 2005 adopted budget, Prince William tax support provides 57.6 percent of ADC funding, up from 56.5 percent in the FY 2004 adopted budget. The percent of funding provided by state support decreases from 35 percent in the FY 2004 adopted budget to 32 percent in the FY 2005 adopted budget. The percentage of Adult Detention Center funding provided by federal funds decreases to 1.3 percent in the FY 2005 adopted budget, compared to 1.4 percent in the FY 2004 adopted budget. Comments: The percent of funding provided by Prince William tax support increased from 41.5 percent in FY 2002 to 52.1 percent in FY 2003. Part of this increase in local funding as a percent of total funding was the result of cuts in state funding in both FY 2003 and FY 2004, due to state budget shortfalls. In FY 2003, the State Compensation Board withheld $193,979 from the ADC s fourth quarter per-diem payments, and in FY 2004, the State Compensation Board withheld $394,332. The State also stopped funding any supplies for the Adult Detention Center, which decreased revenue to the Adult Detention Center by more than $10,000 in both FY 2003 and FY 2004. Actual state revenue received by the Adult Detention Center declined by 2.5 percent from FY 2002 to FY 2003 and then increased by only 1.3 percent in FY 2004, while actual ADC expenditures increased by 19 percent from FY 2002 to FY 2003 and then by 9 percent in FY 2004. The overall operating costs for the jail increased during this time due to planned salary increases, the addition of new staff positions, and the higher costs associated with the increasing inmate population. The local inmate average daily population increased by 27.6 percent from 536 in FY 1999 to 684 in FY 2004. During this time, the average daily population of federal inmates decreased from 27 in FY 1999 to 7 in FY 2004, which led to the decline in the proportion of federal funding. During the first half of FY 2005, the average daily population of federal inmates has been one. No revenue was budgeted for federal inmates in FY 2004 or FY 2005. The Adult Detention Center receives federal dollars from the Alien Assistance Program, which is a program funded by the U. S. Department of Justice that provides federal dollars 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 from the U.S. Marshals Service, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Federal Bureau of Prisons, or other federal agencies for housing prisoners. s Jail Exceeded per Inmate 11
s Jail Exceeded per Inmate Comments (continued): Funding for the Peumansend Creek Regional Jail (PCRJ) was first included in the ADC budget in FY 1999. As shown in the following chart, the FY 1999 funding consisted of a combination of funds from the ADC fund balance (which originally came from a variety of sources), revenue generated by the ADC, Prince William tax support, and federal funding. The FY 2000 and FY 2001 funding for Prince William s payments to the regional jail came from revenue generated by the ADC and from Prince William tax support; and since FY 2002, all of the funding has come from Prince William tax support. The average daily population of Prince William inmates housed at PCRJ went from 16 in FY 2000 to 70 in FY 2004. FY 2004 FY 2003 FY 2002 FY 2001 FY 2000 FY 1999 for Peumansend Creek Regional Jail Fiscal Year 1999 through Fiscal Year 2004 27.7% 50.0% 46.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 34.6% 50.0% 53.7% 37.7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% PW County Tax Support ADC Revenue & Fund Reserves Federal Funds 12
Percent of Total Adult Detention Services Prince William County 2004 Adult Detention Services SEA Report Percent of Adult Detention Services Revenue Provided by Local Tax Support By Jurisdiction Fiscal Year 2000 through Fiscal Year 2003 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 73.1% 68.1% 64.7% 71.3% 55.5% 55.9% 63.8% 56.7% 50.8% 47.6% 46.8% 45.8% 45.1% 45.5% 43.5% 43.7% 41.2% 40.6% Chesterfield Prince William Henrico Fairfax Arlington Alexandria FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 73.9% Chesterfield 71.0% Fairfax 62.6% Prince William 50.1% Arlington 44.0% Henrico 42.1% Alexandria Compared to Other Jurisdictions: In FY 2003, Prince William provided 62.6 percent of funding for adult detention services through local tax support, a lower percentage than Chesterfield and Fairfax and a higher percentage than Arlington, Henrico, and Alexandria. Comments: The total funding figures used for this measure include each jurisdiction s funding for its adult detention center as well as any payments made by the jurisdiction 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 chart and table on the following page show total funding by funding source for FY 2003. s Jail Exceeded per Inmate 13
Local Tax Support, State Revenue, and Federal and Other Funds as Percentages of Total Adult Detention Services Funding By Jurisdiction Fiscal Year 2003 Chesterfield 73.9% 23.5% 2.7% s Jail Exceeded per Inmate 14 Fairfax Prince William Arlington Henrico Alexandria 62.6% 50.1% 44.0% 42.1% 71.0% 21.8% 21.9% 40.8% 48.4% 33.5% 36.2% Comments (continued): 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 2003, 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 26). Among the comparison jurisdictions, only Alexandria had federally contracted beds and it had 100 of these beds. 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 revenues also 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. 7.1% 9.0% 3.9% 7.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Total Local State Federal and Other Total Adult Detention Services Fiscal Year 2003 (Actual): Prince William Alexandria Arlington Chesterfield Fairfax Henrico Total Local Tax Support for ADC* $13,132,234 $6,790,623 $9,653,996 $4,087,249 $38,393,860 $10,018,885 ADC State Revenue $7,408,326 $3,760,580 $8,329,982 $3,112,537 $11,849,534 $11,016,606 ADC Federal Funding $263,411 $6,013,562 $1,526,830 $6,908 $2,677,939 $12,400 Other Funds Used for ADC $597,088 $232,519 $310,913 $345,412 $1,163,571 $1,697,630 Total Funding for Adult Detention Center $21,401,059 $16,797,284 $19,821,721 $7,552,106 $54,084,904 $22,745,521 Local Funding for Payments to House Inmates in Regional Jail $714,608 $479,533 $573,502 $5,708,230 $0 $0 Total Adult Detention Services Revenue $22,115,667 $17,276,817 $20,395,223 $13,260,336 $54,084,904 $22,745,521 * For Prince William, the total local tax support includes tax support from the cities of Manassas and Manassas Park, as well as Prince William County. Arlington local support also includes tax support from the city of Falls Church, and Fairfax local support includes tax support from the city of Fairfax. Henrico total local tax support includes funding from Goochland County and New Kent County, as well as Henrico County tax support. Alexandria local support only includes tax support from the city of Alexandria and Chesterfield local support only includes Chesterfield County tax support
Inmate Average Daily Population per Employee Prince William County 2004 Adult Detention Services SEA Report Purpose: To provide a rough indicator of changes in workload over time and relative to other jurisdictions. The measure is computed by dividing the Adult Detention Center inmate average daily population by total authorized Adult Detention Center employees. 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Adult Detention Center Inmate Average Daily Population per Authorized Employee Fiscal Year 1999 through Fiscal Year 2004 2.47 2.48 2.87 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Adult Detention Center FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Percentage change Inmate Average Daily Population 536 539 622 664 658 684 27.6% Authorized Staffing 217 217 217 217 225 230 6.0% Inmate ADP Local 482 484 572 625 619 645 33.8% Inmate ADP State Ready 27 25 26 24 34 32 18.5% Inmate ADP Federal 27 30 24 15 11 7-74.1% Newly Detained Inmates 10,730 11,440 12,383 13,119 12,750 13,218 23.2% Newly Detained Inmates - Classified 3,971 3,376 3,665 4,323 4,764 4,886 23.0% 3.06 2.92 2.97 s Jail Exceeded per Inmate Trend: In FY 2004, the Adult Detention Center inmate average daily population per authorized employee was 2.97, which was 20 percent higher than in FY 1999. The highest average daily population per employee was 3.06 in FY 2002. Comments: Staffing for the Adult Detention Center remained the same from FY 1999 through FY 2002 at 217 FTE s, while the inmate average daily population increased from 536 in FY 1999 to 664 in FY 2002. Additional positions were added in both FY 2003 and FY 2004. 15
s Jail Exceeded per Inmate Comments (continued): The Peumansend Creek Regional Jail began accepting prisoners in FY 2000 (females in September and males in November 1999) and is targeted to house 75 Prince William inmates. The average daily population of Prince William inmates housed at PCRJ rose from 16 in FY 2000 to 70 in FY 2004. 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. There are various reasons for the increase in the average daily population. Over time, the inmate population will increase as the service area population (Prince William County, Manassas, and Manassas Park) increases. From FY 1999 through FY 2004, the inmate average daily population increased by 27.6 percent, while the service area population increased by 19.8 percent. Another factor affecting the inmate average daily population is the inmate average length of incarceration. The average length of incarceration increased from FY 2000 through FY 2002 and then remained relatively unchanged through FY 2004 (pages 28-29), which parallels the changes in the average daily population shown on the previous chart. The average daily population can also be affected by changes in the law, such as mandatory jail time for DUI offenses. 16
Handled 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 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 29,107 Handled Fiscal Year 1999 through Fiscal Year 2004 24,682 26,842 30,076 26,023 25,755 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Trend: The number of sick calls handled in FY 2004 was 25,755, which was 11.5 percent lower than in FY 1999. 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. s Jail Exceeded per Inmate 17
s Jail Exceeded per Inmate Comments (continued): While the number of sick calls decreased by 11.5 percent from FY 1999 to FY 2004, spending for medical services, adjusted for inflation, increased by 63.3 percent. During the same period, the average daily population increased by 27.6 percent; and the average amount spent on medical care per inmate day, adjusted for inflation, increased by 28 percent. These numbers are shown in the following table. Prince William - Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center Percentage Change FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 99 - FY 04 Actual Medical Expenditures $1,407,884 $1,584,499 $1,660,060 $2,044,016 $1,797,492 $2,619,195 86.0% Medical Expenditures, Adjusted for Inflation $1,652,793 $1,816,010 $1,844,850 $2,210,538 $1,904,711 $2,699,648 63.3% Average Daily Population 536 539 622 664 658 684 27.6% Average Medical Expenditures per Inmate, Adjusted for Inflation $3,084 $3,369 $2,966 $3,329 $2,895 $3,947 28.0% 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 more inmates who are prescribed psychotropic 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, the consumer price index for medical care (including medical services, prescription drugs, and non-prescription medical equipment and supplies) increased by 21.3 percent from December 1999 (the base date of the index) to June 2004. During the same period, the consumer price index for all items increased by 10.4 percent, a much lower rate than the rate by which medical costs have increased. 18
Number of Program Prince William County 2004 Adult Detention Services SEA Report 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 Number of Adult Detention Center Program Fiscal Year 1999 through Fiscal Year 2004 44 46 61 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Adult Detention Center FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Inmate Average Daily Population 536 539 622 664 658 684 Percentage of 8.2% 8.5% 9.8% 9.3% 9.6% 9.9% 62 63 68 s Jail Exceeded per Inmate Trend: In FY 2004, there were 68 inmates in the Work Release Program, 54.5 percent more than in FY 1999. The percentage of inmates who are in the Work Release Program, based on the average daily population, ranged from 8.2 percent in FY 1999 to 9.9 percent in FY 2004. 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 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Inmates in Electronic Program 5 5 8 13 7 5 19
Comments (continued): Participation in the Electronic Program (EIP) increased from FY 1999 through FY 2002 but has declined since then. A change in the law reduced the amount of good time available to inmates in the EIP, so that they can no longer shorten their sentence time through good behavior while in the EIP program. This change has resulted in a decrease in the number of inmates wanting to participate in the program even though they would be eligible to do so. The Adult Detention Center can force inmates to enter the program but generally does not do this. s Jail Exceeded per Inmate 20
Percent of and Percent Released Free 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 2004 FY 2003 FY 2002 FY 2001 FY 2000 FY 1999 Percent of Adult Detention Center Inmates Detained Without and Percent Released Free Fiscal Year 1999 through Fiscal Year 2004 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Free Without 99% Adult Detention Center FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Inmate Average Daily Population 536 539 622 664 658 684 Number of Inmate Releases During Year 10,687 11,696 12,349 13,152 12,679 13,184 Number of Releases Made in During Year 0 0 0 0 0 2 s Jail Exceeded per Inmate 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 have reviewed the methodology for time computation, and the LIDS (automated system) technician now assists in the training to help ensure that time computations are done correctly. All of the comparison jurisdictions reported that they had no escapes from their Adult Detention facilities during the period FY 2000 through FY 2004, except for Fairfax, which had one escape in FY 2000. 21
Percent of 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. s Jail Exceeded per Inmate 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Prince William - Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center Percent of Department of Corrections Inspections Passed Fiscal Year 1999 through Fiscal Year 2004 Trend: The Prince William Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center 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. FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Comments: 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. Each of the comparison jurisdictions had either one or two DOC inspections a year and passed all of the inspections. 22 Department of Corrections Inspections (All inspections were passed.) Prince William Alexandria Arlington Chesterfield Fairfax Henrico FY 2000 2 1 2 1 1 2 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
Staff s Lost as a Result of Injury from Confrontation and Inmates Requiring Medical Attention Due to Prince William County 2004 Adult Detention Services SEA Report Purpose: To provide an indicator of Adult Detention Center staff safety. The measure shows the number of staff days lost due to injury resulting from confrontation and the number of inmates requiring medical attention due to confrontations. 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Injury from Confrontation and Inmates Requiring Medical Attention Due to Confrontation Prince William - Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center by Fiscal Year 30 2 22 0 0 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Staff days lost as a result of injury from confrontations Inmates requiring medical attention due to confrontations Trend: Two staff days were lost as a result of injury from confrontations in FY 2002 and no days were lost in FY 2003 or FY 2004. This information is not available for FY 2001. The number of inmates requiring medical attention due to confrontations ranged from a low of 18 in FY 2003 to a high of 30 in FY 2001. 18 25 s Jail Exceeded per Inmate Comments: The following table shows the inmate average daily population and number of FTE employees for each of the years. Prince William-Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Number of FTE employees 217 217 225 230 Inmate Average Daily Population 622 664 658 684 23
Number of s State-Rated Adult Detention Center Operating Exceeded s Jail Exceeded per Inmate 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 Number of s State-Rated Adult Detention Center Was Exceeded Fiscal Year 1999 through Fiscal Year 2004 365 366 365 365 365 366 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Adult Detention Center FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Average Percent of 115% 115% 133% 142% 141% 146% Trend: From FY 1999 through FY 2004, 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 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. The Work Release program was over capacity each year except FY 1999, and the Modular Jail was over capacity during each year except FY 1999 and FY 2000. All three facilities were over capacity each year from FY 2002 through FY 2004. 24
400 300 200 100 0 365 Number of s When Adult Detention Center Was Exceeded By Facility Fiscal Year 1999 through Fiscal Year 2004 366 Main Jail Modular Jail Work Release 365 131 0 3 3 0 0 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Comments (continued): 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. Design for a new 200 bed facility is virtually complete, with construction to begin in spring 2005. It is expected that construction will take at least two years. Renovation of the Main Jail is to begin in the summer of 2007. After the completion of the renovation, Phase II of the expansion, which will add 200 more beds, is expected to begin in FY 2008. 214 365 118 365 294 176 366 364 247 s Jail Exceeded per Inmate 25
Percent of DOC-Rated Adult Detention Center Operating Exceeded This is computed by dividing the average daily population of each jurisdiction s Adult Detention Center, as reported in the state Jail Cost Report, by the operational capacity for each facility as determined by the Department of Corrections. 175% Based on DOC-Rated and Average Daily Population By Jurisdiction Fiscal Year 2000 through Fiscal Year 2003 161% s Jail Exceeded per Inmate 150% 125% 75% 50% 25% 0% 120% 115% 105% 98% 134% 134% Prince William Henrico Alexandria Chesterfield Arlington Fairfax 132% 114% 113% 97% 111% 129% 119% 139% Prince William Adult Detention Center Prince William Alexandria Arlington Chesterfield Fairfax Henrico Fiscal Year 2002 Local and state inmate average daily population 639 255 519 292 1,056 1,016 Federal and out-of-state inmate average daily population 13 149 38 0 1 0 Inmate Average Daily Population (LIDS) 652 404 557 292 1,057 1,016 DOC-Rated 467 340 474 250 1,260 787 Fiscal Year 2003 Local and state inmate average daily population 640 295 555 314 1,221 1,054 Federal and out-of-state inmate average daily population 11 155 39 0 1 0 Inmate Average Daily Population (LIDS) 651 450 594 314 1,222 1,054 DOC-Rated 467 340 474 250 1,260 787 140% 117% 84% 117% FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 134% Henrico 132% Alexandria 126% Chesterfield 125% Arlington 97% Fairfax Compared To Other Jurisdictions: In FY 2002 and FY 2003, Prince William operated its Adult Detention Center at a higher percent of DOC-rated capacity than any of the other comparison jurisdictions. 26
Comments: In each year from FY 2000 through FY 2004, the Prince William-Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center was over capacity every day of the year. 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 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 was 1,260. Henrico had added to its adult detention facilities in FY 1997, which was a factor in its operating at a lower percent of capacity in FY 1999. s Jail Exceeded per Inmate 27
s Jail Exceeded per Inmate 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 18 (In s) Adult Detention Center Inmates Fiscal Year 1999 through Fiscal Year 2004 17 18 19 19 19 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Trend: The average length of incarceration for inmates at the Adult Detention Center was 19 days each year from FY 2002 through FY 2004, compared to 17 days in FY 2000 and 18 days in FY 1999 and FY 2001. 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. One reason for the increase in the average daily population in FY 2001 and FY 2002 was an increase in the number of inmates in the pre-trial category. This is an indication that the court system is becoming overloaded, which causes cases to be backed up. Pretrial inmates must therefore spend more time in jail awaiting trial, resulting in an increase in the average length of incarceration. 28
Comments (continued): 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 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 locally-sentenced inmates, which limits the ADC s ability to grant good-time days. 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 average number of cases supervised through these local pre-trial and post-trial services has increased substantially since FY 1999. The greater emphasis on these community programs has been a factor in keeping the average length of incarceration at the Adult Detention Center relatively level over the past several years. The average number of cases supervised through local probation (post-trial) services went from 707 in FY 1999 to 959 in FY 2004, an increase of 35.6. The average number of cases supervised through pre-trial programs increased by 21.6 percent, going from 102 in FY 1999 to its highest level of 124 in FY 2004. The chart below shows the average number of cases supervised for both of these programs for each year during the six-year period. 1,200 1,000 800 Average Number of Cases Supervised per Office of Criminal Justice Services Post-Trial and Pre-Trial Programs Fiscal Year 1999 through Fiscal Year 2004 905 981 1,008 1,058 959 s Jail Exceeded per Inmate 600 707 Post-trial Pre-trial 400 200 102 103 110 97 101 124 0 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 29
Rate per Thousand s Jail Exceeded per Inmate 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 Adult Detention Center, combined with the average daily population of inmates from the Prince William service area who are housed at Peumansend Creek Regional Jail, by the number of thousand residents (Prince William County, Manassas, and Manassas Park) divided by 1,000. The locally-calculated inmate average daily population is used for the Prince William trend data. The comparison measure (page 32) uses the inmate average daily population as reported by the State s Local Inmate Data System (LIDS). The state-reported number and the locally-calculated number will differ slightly because of differences in methodology. 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Rate per Thousand Based on the Average Daily Population of Non-Federal Inmates at the Adult Detention Center and Prince William Inmates at Peumansend Creek Regional Jail Fiscal Year 1999 through Fiscal Year 2004 1.581 1.583 1.845 2.000 1.945 1.936 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Average Daily Population FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Local and State-Ready Inmates at the ADC 509 509 598 649 647 677 Prince William Inmates at PCRJ 0 16 32 65 72 70 Total Non-Federal Service Area Inmates 509 525 630 714 719 747 Service Area Population 321,938 331,596 341,442 357,001 369,726 385,786 Trend: The incarceration rate per thousand residents was 1.936 in FY 2004 compared to 1.581 in FY 1999, an increase of 22.5 percent. The incarceration rate per thousand residents was highest in FY 2002 at 2.0, compared to its lowest level of 1.581 in FY 1999. 30
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. The incarceration rate has also 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 16 in FY 2000 to 70 in FY 2004. The chart below shows the number of adult arrests for Prince William County by calendar year, based on Prince William County Police Department data. 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 8,729 Total Number of Adult Arrests Prince William County Calendar Year 1998 through Calendar Year 2003 9,435 10,845 11,841 10,499 10,620 CY 1998 CY 1999 CY 2000 CY 2001 CY 2002 CY 2003 s Jail Exceeded per Inmate 31
Rate per Thousand Adult Detention Center Inmates and Regional Jail Facility Inmates Per 1,000 By Jurisdiction Fiscal Year 2002 and Fiscal Year 2003 s Jail Exceeded per Inmate FY 2002 FY 2003 Prince William Henrico Fairfax Chesterfield Arlington Alexandria Prince William Henrico Fairfax Chesterfield Arlington Alexandria 0 0 0 0 0.195 not available 0.182 0.302 not available not available 0.291 not available 1.117 1.025 1.172 1.064 1.731 1.790 1.903 2.185 2.519 2.664 3.402 3.330 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Inmates at Regional Jail Facility Inmates at Locality's Adult Detention Center Prince William Alexandria Arlington Chesterfield Fairfax Henrico Fiscal Year 2002 ADC Non-Federal Average Daily Population (ADP) 639 255 519 292 1,056 1,016 ADP of Local Inmates Housed at Regional Jail 65 not available 60 not available 0 0 Service Area Population 357,001 134,000 205,942 274,500 1,030,173 305,088 Fiscal Year 2003 ADC Non-Federal Average Daily Population (ADP) 640 295 555 314 1,221 1,054 ADP of Local Inmates Housed at Regional Jail 72 65 63 65 0 0 Service Area Population 369,726 135,000 208,317 281,000 1,041,831 309,784 Compared To Other Jurisdictions: In FY 2003 and FY 2002, Prince William had a lower incarceration rate for Adult Detention Center inmates per 1,000 residents than Henrico, Arlington and Alexandria, and a higher ADC incarceration rate than Fairfax and Arlington. In FY 2003 and FY 2002, the incarceration rate for inmates housed at a regional jail facility per 1,000 residents was lower for Prince William than for Arlington. Fairfax and Henrico did not house any local inmates at a regional jail facility in FY 2003 or FY 2002, and this information is not available for Alexandria or Chesterfield. 32 Comments: The incarceration rates are calculated using the average daily population of non-federal inmates in each jurisdiction s local adult detention center and the average daily population of each locality s inmates housed at a regional jail facility.
Adjusted for Inflation Prince William County 2004 Adult Detention Services SEA Report 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 2005, 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, beginning in FY 2000. $175 $150 $125 $100 $75 $50 $25 $0 $81.30 Average Cost per Adult Detention Center Inmate and Per Peumansend Creek Regional Jail Inmate, Adjusted for Inflation, Fiscal Year 1999 through Fiscal Year 2004 $146.37 $84.36 Cost per ADC Inmate Cost per PCRJ Inmate $75.53 $62.15 $78.05 $32.57 $84.85 $28.81 $86.66 $28.83 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 s Jail Exceeded per Inmate FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Adult Detention Center Total ADC actual expenditures $13,549,486 $14,520,597 $15,430,664 $17,492,080 $19,232,269 $20,991,870 Total ADC expenditures, adjusted for inflation $15,906,491 $16,642,202 $17,148,337 $18,917,129 $20,379,457 $21,636,671 ADC Inmate Average Daily Population (ADP) 536 539 622 664 658 684 Peumansend Creek Regional Jail Total Prince William actual payments to PCRJ $866,279 $608,933 $653,177 $714,608 $714,608 $714,608 Total Prince William payments, adjusted for inflation $1,016,973 $697,904 $725,886 $772,826 $757,234 $736,558 Prince William Inmate ADP at PCRJ 0 16 32 65 72 70 Trend: The Adult Detention Center cost per inmate day, adjusted for inflation, was highest in FY 2004 at $86.66, which was 6.6 percent higher than the average cost per inmate day in FY 1999 ($81.30). The FY 2000 Peumansend Creek Regional Jail average cost per inmate day for Prince William was relatively high at $146 per inmate day, due to start-up costs and the low average daily population given that inmates were accepted for only part of the fiscal year. The average cost per inmate day, adjusted for inflation, dropped to $62.15 in FY 2001 and was $28.83 in FY 2004. 33
s Jail Exceeded per Inmate Comments: The changes in cost per inmate day are largely driven by fluctuations in the inmate average daily population. The Adult Detention Center inmate average daily population exceeded state-mandated capacity each day of the year during the six-year period. Peumansend Creek Regional Jail (PCRJ) began taking female inmates in September 1999 and male inmates in November 1999, and the FY 2000 costs are based on 298 inmate days. The drop in the average daily cost in FY 2001 and later years was due in large part to the increase in the average daily population of Prince William inmates housed at the regional facility. As the Adult Detention Center was able to fill bed space at PCRJ to use more of its 75 beds, the cost per PCRJ inmate day stabilized. 34
Average Cost per Adult Detention Center Inmate Adjusted for Inflation $175 Average Cost per Adult Detention Center Inmate, Adjusted for Inflation, By Jurisdiction Fiscal Year 2000 through Fiscal Year 2004 $150 $125 $100 $75 $50 $25 $0 $112 $107 $90 $71 $123 $137 $101 $77 $71 $121 $141 $116 $89 $81 $78 $70 $66 $62 Fairfax Arlington Chesterfield Alexandria Prince William Henrico FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 $128 Fairfax $108 Alexandria $97 $87 $70 $63 Arlington Prince William Chesterfield Henrico Adult Detention Center Prince William Alexandria Arlington Chesterfield Fairfax Henrico Fiscal Year 2002 Actual operating expenditures $17,826,497 $15,832,825 $16,665,733 $7,735,433 $50,341,210 $21,314,535 Operating expenditures, adjusted for inflation $19,278,790 $17,122,697 $18,023,461 $8,365,625 $54,442,419 $23,050,992 Inmate average daily population 652 404 557 292 1,057 1,016 Fiscal Year 2003 Actual operating expenditures $19,487,355 $16,797,284 $19,821,721 $7,552,106 $54,084,904 $22,745,521 Operating expenditures, adjusted for inflation $20,649,759 $17,799,227 $21,004,069 $8,002,582 $57,311,021 $24,102,271 Inmate average daily population 651 450 594 314 1,222 1,054 s Jail Exceeded per Inmate Compared To Other Jurisdictions: In each year from FY 2000 through FY 2004, Prince William had a lower average cost per Adult Detention Center 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 taken 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 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. 35
s Jail Exceeded per Inmate Comments (continued): 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 pre-trial and post-trial inmates, and is the location of the headquarters and administrative offices of the Sheriff s Office. 36
Average Locally Supported Spending per Non-Federal Inmate Adjusted for Inflation (Adult Detention Center and Regional Jail) 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 and the average daily population of inmates housed by a jurisdiction at a regional jail facility are used to calculate the respective costs per inmate day. For each jurisdiction, the locally supported Adult Detention Center spending and the locality s payments to house inmates at a regional jail facility are divided by the average daily population, as described above. The results are then divided by the days in the year to give the average local spending per inmate day. FY 2002 FY 2003 Prince William Henrico Fairfax Chesterfield Arlington Alexandria Prince William Henrico Fairfax Chesterfield Arlington Alexandria Average Locally-Funded Spending, Adjusted for Inflation, Per Non-Federal ADC Inmate and per Inmate in Regional Jail Facility By Jurisdiction Fiscal Year 2002 and Fiscal Year 2003 not available not available not available not available $27.60 $25.26 $28.81 $26.43 $37.79 $32.57 $40.36 $28.32 $40.76 $39.52 $54.24 $50.50 $66.83 $77.20 $91.29 $100.76 s Jail Exceeded per Inmate $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 Local Spending per Inmate in Regional Jail Facility Local Spending per ADC Non-Federal Inmate Fiscal Year 2003 (adjusted for inflation) Prince William Alexandria Arlington Chesterfield Fairfax Henrico ADC expenditures supported through local tax support $12,671,217 $7,195,678 $10,229,848 $4,331,050 $40,684,020 $10,616,503 Payments to house inmates in regional jail facility $757,234 $508,137 $607,711 $6,048,721 $0 $0 Non-federal ADC inmate average daily population (ADP) 640 295 555 314 1,221 1,054 ADP of local inmates housed at a regional jail facility 72 not available 63 not available 0 0 Compared To Other Jurisdictions: In FY 2003, the average locally-supported spending per non-federal Adult Detention Center inmate day for Prince William was lower than for Fairfax and Alexandria and higher than for Henrico, Chesterfield, and Arlington. 37
Compared To Other Jurisdictions (continued): In both FY 2003 and FY 2002, the average local spending per inmate day for inmates housed at a regional jail facility was higher for Prince William than for Arlington. Fairfax and Henrico did not house any inmates in regional jail facilities, and the data are not available for Alexandria or Chesterfield. s Jail Exceeded per Inmate 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 and local inmates housed at a regional jail. Inmates held at another local jail, and the payments 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. 38
at the Adult Detention Center 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 count 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% 59% at the Prince William - Manassas Regional Adult Detention Center Fiscal Year 1999 through Fiscal Year 2004 62% 64% FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Trend: The percentage of newly detained inmates who had previously been incarcerated at the Adult Detention Center ranged from a low of 59 percent in FY 1999 to a high of 73 percent in FY 2003. In FY 2004, 71 percent of the newly detained inmates had previously been incarcerated at the Adult Detention Center. 62% 73% 71% s Jail Exceeded per Inmate Comments: This measure only captures those inmates newly detained at the Adult Detention Center who had previously been incarcerated at the Adult Detention Center. If a former ADC inmate is incarcerated at another facility after leaving the ADC, this would not be counted, nor would a newly detained inmate at the ADC who had previously been incarcerated at another facility. 39
40