NCJ Number
82460
Journal
Prison Journal Volume: 41 Issue: 2 Dated: (Autumn/Winter 1981) Pages: 19-27
Date Published
1981
Length
9 pages
Annotation
Findings are reported from a 1981 survey of 14 jails with self-imposed or judicially mandated population ceilings to determine how these jails coped with the ceilings.
Abstract
Once a ceiling was imposed or emerged as a possibility, all the jails followed a consistent pattern. If there was more than one facility in the system, inmates were transferred; jail construction projects were begun; diversionary programs were sought; and a contingency plan emerged. Some jails have foregone the prospects of new construction, preferring to spread into satellites, including smaller more residential facilities. If sufficient alternative space is not feasible, then diversion of the presently detained population is the only remaining option. For some, diversion has been seen as an interim solution, a necessary expedient until the new jail is available. For others, it has been an integral part of the solution, even the only solution. If pretrial diversion is less than sufficient to reduce the population to the required level, the next step is reducing the number of sentenced inmates, including those in another facility whose absence would relieve space for pretrial inmates. If the aforementioned strategies are not adequate to reduce the population to the imposed limits, the next step involves what might be called State cases, persons scheduled for transfer to the State or on State holds for parole or probation revocation hearings. Many of these people were simply moved on to the State, except in those cases where the State already faced overcrowding suits itself. Improvement of trial time is another approach to reducing jail populations.