Chief Jail Inspector’s
Network
Proceedings of the Annual Meeting

June 18-19, 2012

National Institute of Corrections
Jails Division

14th Annual

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network
Meeting
Record of Proceedings

NIC Event # 12J2701
July 18-19, 2012
National Corrections Academy
Aurora, Colorado

Table of Contents
Day One
Introductions and Overview .................................................................................. 2
NIC Information Center ........................................................................................ 3
National Sheriff’s Association Update ..................................................................... 3
ACA Jail Standards Update.................................................................................... 5
Iowa, Minnesota and Indiana Standards/Inspections .............................................. 7
Federal Agency Update – U.S. Marshal’s Service .................................................. 10
Suicide Prevention: Current Research, Policies and Procedures
and Legal Trends ............................................................................................ 14

Day Two
Legal Issues in Today’s Jail ................................................................................. 18
Prison Rape Elimination Act ................................................................................ 25
Surviving in Hard Times: Marketing the Jail Inspection Process ............................. 31
Evaluations/Close-Out ........................................................................................ 33

Appendices ........................................................................................................ 35

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 1

Introductions and Housekeeping

Danny Downes, NIC Correctional Program Specialist, opened the meeting at 8:00
a.m. and passed out the agenda to the group. He emphasized that the agenda was
subject to change, as the needs of the group changed. (Refer to Appendix I for the
Revised Agenda.) Danny informed the group that seven states and the U.S.
Marshal’s service were represented at the meeting. He then gave a brief overview of
his background and experience. This was followed by a PowerPoint presentation that
offered an overview of NIC and the services provided to agencies throughout the
United States. (Refer to Appendix II for a copy of the presentation.) He then went
over the contents of the participant folder, daily schedule, breaks and seating
arrangements. He passed around a participant list to enable the chief’s to make any
necessary corrections to their contact information. The participants were then asked
to introduce themselves to the group and provide information on their agency and
their background. . (Refer to Appendix III for a complete participant list with contact
information. Danny then introduced the guest presenters for the meeting:
Kathy Black-Dennis – the Director of Standards and Accreditation for the American
Correctional Association.
Carrie Hill, Esq. – an attorney and criminal justice consultant. She is the editor of
Corrections Managers Report and counsel to the Hill Law Office in Maple Grove, MN.
Ms. Hill is well known as an expert in legal issues involving jails and other
correctional facilities.
Lindsay M. Hayes – the Project Director for the National Center on Institutions and
Alternatives, with an office in Mansfield, MA. Mr. Hayes is nationally recognized as
an expert in the field of suicide prevention with jails, prisons and juvenile facilities.
Danny also introduced Cheryl Paul, former NIC Correctional Program Specialist.
Cheryl was tasked with documenting the proceedings of the meeting and completing
a report for dissemination to the participants.

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 2

NIC Information Center

Susan Powell, Public Services Coordinator, provided the group with an overview of
the resources available from the NIC Information Center. She explained that the
library provides access over 18,000 corrections related resources including training
plans, research reports, program evaluations and more. Many resources are
available on-line at http://nicic.gov/Library/.
Susan also explained that the Information Center also provides a research service.
This service enables corrections professionals to ask questions and be directed to
information and resources through the Information Help Desk.
The group then took a tour of the Information Center, returning to the meeting with
stacks of resource materials.

National Sheriff’s Association Update
Denny Macomber, Chief of the Jail Standards Division of the Nebraska Crime
Commission, gave a report on NSA activities over the past year. Denny has
represented the Network at NSA for several years and has a seat on three
committees: 1) Accreditation, 2) Jail Detention and Corrections, and 3) Ethics and
Standards. He attended the January meeting in Washington, DC and the annual
Congress of Corrections in Nashville, TN. Apparently all of the jail training at NSA in
Nashville was cancelled due to a gas leak and explosion at the host hotel.
Denny explained that while some of the meetings are more productive than others, it
is important for the chief jail inspector’s to have a presence with NSA. Carrie Hill
mentioned that NSA’s Institute for Jail Operations provides some training that might
be worth looking into. Go to http://www.jailtraining.org/ for more information.
Denny explained that the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) was a hot topic at both
NSA meetings. There seem to be a lot of questions about PREA and the
implementation of the new standards. Tim Thompson commented that counties
don’t have to comply with PREA standards, only if they hold federal prisoners. Carrie
Hill responded that the problem is if you don’t comply and you have an incident it
could expose the agency to liability, although there is no federal penalty for noncompliance with the standards.
Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 3

Bill Wilson asked about housing state inmates or Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) detainees – “would that situation require compliance with the
standards or the potential for monetary penalties?” Carrie advised all jails that house
either federal or state inmates should carefully look at their contracts with those
agencies. Danny Downes commented that there will be a presentation on PREA later
in the meeting, which will give everyone an opportunity to have their questions
answered.
Denny then reported that ICE has another set of small jail standards. This involves a
self-inspection process for small jails and would represent a major change for small
jails and the inspection process.
Denny asked the group if someone else would like to assume the responsibility for
being the representative to NSA. The volunteer would be required to attend one
meeting a year; there are two meetings each year. The representative must be a
member of NSA. He said if no one is interested he will still attend the meetings. He
emphasized that there is a value for the chief jail inspectors to be a presence at the
meetings and participating on the committees. Making contacts is one of the main
advantages.
Bill Wilson mentioned that the purveyors of “private” standards, that is standards
developed by individuals or companies and sold to state agencies to enable them to
conduct self-audits, have made inroads in doing away with ACA jail standards. He
also pointed out that NSA’s Institute for Jail Operations, www.jailtraining.org, is
affiliated with this private standards company.
Prior to the break, Danny Downes asked the group if anyone would be interested in
attending a one day meeting at the Academy to gain more information on the new
PREA standards and how they will affect jails. A majority of the participants raised
their hands. Danny will keep the group informed of the progress of this idea.

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 4

ACA Jail Standards Update
Kathy Black-Dennis began her report by asking the group if they have a copy of the
Core Jail Standards. She mentioned that many copies had been distributed by NSA
and NIC had mailed a copy to all of the countries jails.
Copies are available for purchase on the ACA website at
https://www.aca.org/store/bookstore/view.asp?product_id=1164&origin=results&QS
='&YMGHFREproduct_name=Core+Jail+Standards&YMGHFREkey_words=Standards
&pagesize=10&top_parent=188 . The price is $30.00 per copy. You can get
reduced pricing for volume purchases.
ACA is now including a CD in the back of each paper book and is working toward
development of an on-line version to automate the process. They are still working
through how to do this without sharing proprietary information.
Kathy told the group that there is now a new accreditation process for the Core
Standards. In this way more agencies will be able to get into accreditation. ACA is
encouraging facilities to start their accreditation process with the core standards then
move on to full accreditation. The Core Standards allow facilities to receive basic
accreditation at a much lower price. In the Core Standards there are 45 mandatory
standards and 134 nonmandatory standards.
ACA is now working to enable agencies to go paperless in the accreditation process –
if it meets the needs of the agency and it is easy for the auditor’s to work with the
system. It is not mandatory that agencies use a paperless process. John Dunn,
Ombudsman/ACA Accreditation Monitor, with the Kentucky Department of
Corrections, has more information on this process. If anyone in the Network would
like to learn more about a paperless process, Mr. Dunn’s number is 502-564-4726.
ACA has hired Rick Frey, from Broward County Florida, to work with individual
agencies who are interested in accreditation. Rick can be reached at 954-914-9782
or rickf@aca.org.
Kathy directed the group to some handouts available from ACA in the front of the
room. She also provided the group with a copy of an article by Rod Miller, ACA’s
Core Jail Standards Focus on the Basics (Refer to Appendix IV.) She emphasized
that there is a flyer on how to become an auditor for ACA. ACA makes every effort
to ensure that jail auditors have jail experience. ACA is looking for new people to do
this work.

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 5

There is a new “Jail Reader”, ACA Reader: Jails, available on the ACA website. Kathy
pointed out that the “Reader” has essays on training and management issues,
technology, future concerns, security, health care and reentry. Many of the articles
were originally featured in Corrections Today and Correctional Health Today.
A member of the group inquired about how often the standards were revised and
how that process works. Kathy informed the group that anyone can make
suggestions for standards revisions on the ACA website. When a suggestion is
made, other people on the site can respond and make comments. The Standards
Committee meets twice per year, at the conferences, and reviews all suggestions.
Kathy brought up the issue of audits for PREA standards. ACA is looking at an
auditing piece. They have met and it still seems there are more questions than
answers about the process. ACA will use current auditors as PREA auditors when the
time comes. Also, if your facility is already accredited, ACA will not charge for the
additional PREA audit. ACA is also looking at adopting PREA Standards as an
addendum to the current CORE and Adult Local Detention Facility (ALDF) Standards.
However, the process will be handled as two separate audits, as PREA audits are
public information and ACA audits are not.
Kathy pointed out that the PREA Standards will become effective on August 19, 2012
with the first audits, of Federal Bureau of Prisons facilities, due by August 2013.
Apparently, DOJ has not provided a clear auditing process at this point. ACA is
working with them to finalize this process.
Kathy also mentioned that the auditors cannot have had a prior financial relationship
with the facility being audited. What this means is not really clear and there are lots
of unanswered questions, e.g. can ACA conduct PREA audits in accredited facilities,
where they have previously done an audit, if they do the audit at no charge?
Kathy reiterated that local jails will not face monetary penalties for non-compliance
with the PREA Standards.
Ralph Nichols asked if DOJ has to be responsible for the auditing process. Carrie Hill
responded that all PREA auditors must receive training to be a PREA auditor.
Bill Wilson asked if ACA had lost any jails in the accreditation process, because they
just want to comply with the Core Standards. Kathy said that a facility can move up
to full ALDF accreditation after completing the Core accreditation, but they cannot
move backward.

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 6

Kathy reported that ACA is in the process of updating their website to make it more
user-friendly. In about two weeks the minutes of the Standards Committee meeting
will be on the website. They will be meeting next week in Denver at the conference.
A member asked about the cost of ACA audits. Kathy told the group that a Core
Standards audit is $6,000.00 plus up to $2,000.00 for the cost of the auditor. ALDF
audits are $12,500.00 including the cost of the auditor(s). Someone remarked that
in some states agencies use inmate funds to pay for the audit, but this varies from
state to state.
Ralph Nichols asked about the auditing process. Kathy told the group that agencies
must meet all of the applicable mandatory standards and 90% of the applicable
nonmandatory standards to receive accreditation. The audit results can be used to
track outcomes, trends, for training purposes and to improve operations.
More information on the Core Standards is available at
www.nicicc.gov/nationaljailexchange.

Iowa, Minnesota and Indiana Standards/Inspections
Indiana
Ken Whipker, Director of the Indiana Department of Corrections, began this session
by passing out the current and proposed new jail standards for Indiana. (Refer to
Appendix V.) He described a three year development process in which 95 jails had
input to the process and the fiscal impact of the new standards. He pointed out that
anyone who built and operate their facilities under the old standards would be
“grandfathered” in. However, if an agency makes changes to their facility, or builds
a new facility, the new standards will apply. He reported that the new standards will
be approved by the end of August, 2012 and become effective January 2013. Any
new facilities constructed after January 1, 2013 will be under the new standards.
Ken went on to say that under the new standards inspectors have no ability to shut
down a jail, only make recommendations to the agency for corrective action.
Mike Funk asked if there was any language in the proposed standards dealing with
electronic communications for inmates, e.g. email. Ken replied that electronic
communications for inmates was not brought up during the development process,
but he sees most jails going paperless by using kiosks or other electronic means for

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 7

inmates to communicate with family and friends, rather than traditional mail. He has
not seen anything written in other standards regarding this issue.
Tim Thompson commented that there is a resource posted in the “vault” on the Chief
Jail Inspector’s Forum on the NIC website that has all the data and research behind
why certain items should be included in jail standards. He feels that this is a valuable
resource. He also commented that evidence based practices were used also in the
Ohio Jail Evaluation process.
Denny Macomber asked who made comments on the proposed standards, besides
the jail. Ken said they solicited comments from the Indiana Civil Liberties Union and
the attorney general. He also commented that the state sheriff’s association was
involved in the process and reviewed the document at every step in the process.
Bill Wilson asked if the proposed standards would go out for public comment. Ken
replied that the document is not currently publically available. There were various
comments in the group regarding the slow process in developing standards and
many obstacles to overcome in the process. Gary Wion informed the group that
California revises their standards every two years and the process goes very
smoothly as they are use to the process.
Minnesota
Tim Thompson, Program Manager for Facilities Inspection and Enforcement for the
State of Minnesota, provided the group with information on the Minnesota
“Statewide Inspection System”. In this on-line system, every facility provides data
on their facility into the system, including daily population, booking information,
incidents, deaths, etc. This information is used by the inspectors to generate
reports. It is used in the investigations of in-custody deaths and to ensure that
facilities don’t exceed population caps.
Tim demonstrated the various reports available on the system – deaths, incident
reports. He pointed out that if a report documents a standards violation, e.g. 30
minute bed checks were not done in a specific facility, they will send a letter to the
facility to ensure the problem is fixed. Each facility will print out their logs for 30
minute checks and send them to the inspectors for review.
Bill Wilson commented that there may be a legal issue if data is missing regarding
checks. Lots of facilities use electronic, paper and video to document various
activities. With only electronic checks, there is the possibility of employees hacking

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 8

the system to falsify checks. Staff can also just “hit the button” and not actually
check on the inmates.
Tim went on to further explain the functionality of the system. It allows him to see
each inspector’s workload and look at the status of every facility in the state. He can
also make notes and changes to specifics for facilities and inspectors.
The section on rules and compliance lists all of the rules. This feature allows the
inspector to go through each rule following the inspection and make notes on
compliance with the rule. The final inspection report is developed from the
information entered in the system by the inspector. The report contains information
on areas of non compliance, suggested remedies and due dates for the facility to
come into compliance.
Tim also informed the group that the system also works with information from other
agencies who have access to the system, e.g. state law enforcement.
Several participants had questions about the system:






A question was asked regarding who has access to these reports, specifically
the press. Tim responded that they do provide information to the press.
Who maintains the system? One full time IT person. Once information is
added to the system, it will stay in the system, so in the future the inspector
only has to verify the information.
Bill Wilson commented that Virginia has a similar system.
Mike Funk commented that all of his jurisdictions submit their inspection
information in writing.

Iowa
Delbert Longley, Chief Jail Inspector from the Iowa Department of Corrections, gave
a presentation on the process Iowa has used for updating and modifying their state
jail inspection standards. (Refer to Appendix VI for a copy of the PowerPoint
presentation.) He provided the group with the background of how the jail inspection
process developed in Iowa.
Del then provided the group with a copy of the Iowa Department of Corrections Jail
Inspection Report. (Refer to Appendix VI.) He went over each step of the inspection
process in Iowa discussing potential problems and the process used by the
inspectors to identify and help remedy those problems. Each step on the Report
relates to a written standard, with a narrative describing the standard.

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 9

Of special note were:











Section 50.10 (3) Conflict of Interest - Business transactions with prisoners
(this does not involve smuggling of contraband).
Section 50.13 (f) Suicide prevention - Following 69 suicide attempts and 9
suicides in 2009, the code was revised to require all jail staff to have suicide
prevention training.
Section 50.21 Discipline and Grievance procedures - Inspectors really take a
close look at prisoner disciplinary procedures and the grievance process in
each facility. There are 18 required procedures in this area.
The form also has a specific section for direct supervision jails, Section 50.25.
Jail built before 1984 do not have to comply with today’s standards. The form
has a list of basic standards for inspection that apply to these older facilities.
There is a separate Juvenile Detention Monitoring Report use for jails that
house juvenile offenders, focusing on separation of adult prisoners and
juveniles.
There is an Inspection Checklist at the end of the Report that allows the
inspector to check remaining items and finalize the report.

For a full copy of the Iowa State Jail Standards go to:
http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/coolice/default.asp?category=billinfo&service=iowacode&ga=84

Federal Agency Update
Overview and Updates
Wolfgang Calvert, Senior Inspector, and Patrick Cortez, Senior Inspector, from the
United States Marshal’s Service provided the group with an update on detention
facility training, conditions of confinement and core detention standards. Wolfgang
began the presentation by giving a few facts regarding the U.S. Marshal’s Service
(USMS).




The USMS subcontracts for jail space in every state and the U.S. territories.
Jails that are actively housing federal inmates, or who will soon, are subject to
inspection by the USMS.
The structure of the USMS mirrors the geographical structure of the 94 U.S.
District Courts. California, for example, has four districts.

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 10










The USMS contracts with approximately 1800 facilities to house over 63,000
inmates.
The way the districts are set up, any particular jail, depending on the location,
may house inmates from more than one district.
Detention facility inspectors actually go to jails for inspections.
A new position, Detention Management Inspector, has been developed to
work with jurisdictions with high federal prisoner populations.
Information on prisoner management is also available on the USMS website.
This provides guidelines for managing federal prisoners in a jail setting.
The USMS is working with NIC on training issues. They just completed a
survey on the status of jails in relation to policies and procedures and internet
access.
For the exact locations of district offices and other information regarding
federal prisoners go to www.usmarshals.gov.

Wolfgang went on to discuss suicide prevention. The USMS wants to raise awareness
of the suicide prevention training that is available on their website. The training lists
expectations for suicide prevention training. He asked the group to please take a
look and provide advice and suggestions for improvement.
Wolfgang reported that in 2014 the Office of the Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT)
will become part of the USMS. The OFDT is currently responsible for procuring
detention facilities to house federal prisoners, managing detention contracts and
intergovernmental agreements (IGA’s) with the exception of those held by Indian,
juvenile, or ICE. OFDT also has a group that documents the quality assurance
review of county, state and private correctional facilities to ensure compliance with
Federal Performance-Based Detention Standards. When OFDT merges with USMS
they will take over facility inspections. The standards will probably closely resemble
ACA Core Standards.
Department of Justice (DOJ) Core Detention Standards
Wolfgang then began a discussion of the DOJ Core Detention Standards. (Refer to
Appendix VII for a copy of the PowerPoint presentation.) He made several important
points regarding local jail responsibilities when housing federal prisoners.



When the USMS turns over a federal prisoner to a local jail, the jail determines
how the inmate will be housed and handled.
Some of the group commented on the lack of important classification
information provided for incoming federal prisoners. Wolfgang told the group

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 11











they need to request a USM 129 form, and for more in-depth information ask
for the USM 130. Carrie Hill suggested that local jails have language in their
contracts or IGA’s that require the USMS to provide both of those forms when
they bring a prisoner for housing. Wolfgang also suggested that local facilities
develop a relationship with Bureau of Prison facilities in their areas, as another
conduit for information on a particular inmate. He emphasized that all
information given to a jurisdiction is confidential. A discussion and questions
continued around the lack of information. Carrie thanked Wolfgang for the
information on the forms.
There was a consensus that there is pressure on local facilities to house
federal prisoners because of the revenue generated by those prisoners.
However, if the lack of information hinders the facility’s ability to properly
classify and house federal prisoners.
The USMS only handle pretrial inmates, occasionally they have civil detainees,
but they are housed like any other federal prisoner.
Housing federal prisoners can lead to inspections by a number of agencies.
Someone asked if a facility must be compliant with DOJ Core Standards prior
to housing federal prisoners. Wolfgang responded that the determination to
house federal prisoners or not house federal prisoners in a specific facility is
up to the District Director. There are practical issues which must be taken
into account, e.g. the need to house the prisoner in a location close to the
court of jurisdiction. When problems arise, USMS will try to work with a
facility to correct the problems, rather than move the prisoners.
Another member of the group asked if federal prisoners ever sue after being
held in a noncompliant facility. Wolfgang responded that a prisoner might
allege this but . . . This was followed by considerable discussion among the
chiefs regarding compliance and noncompliance with DOJ Core Standards and
potential liability.
Carrie Hill asked if the USMS would ever enter into a contract or IGA with a
facility that states that the department’s policy and procedures would apply to
all inmates, even federal prisoners. In that circumstance, would they still
conduct facility inspections? Wolfgang stated that state requirements or
standards supersede the DOJ Core Standards.

Wolfgang resumed the presentation with a brief discussion of IGA’s and then began
a presentation on the detention Facility Investigative Report. Some of the more
important points made during the remainder of the presentation follow.

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 12

















USMS tracks staffing information, inmate capacity (with the total broken down
by type of inmate, e.g. local, ICE, federal). This is based on a concern about
crowding and/or not enough staff to safely monitor the inmate population.
Each facility is given a code, similar to a social security number, that remains
with the facility for life, even if the name of the facility changes.
Each facility has a status, which may be subject to change, i.e. new, dormant.
Facilities with an IGA for housing federal inmates are able to access federal
excess property.
Gary Wion from the California Board of Standards and Community Corrections
mentioned that in California inspectors do not inspect housing units in jails
when those housing units contain only federal prisoners. There was concern
that this can lead to the housing of federal inmates in units that won’t pass
the state inspection.
The form tracks written and verbal complaints made by prisoners. The
information is compiled into statistics regarding complaints per inmate
population.
Inspector’s conduct a visual review of the facility, looking for basic flaws in
living areas, dayrooms, kitchen, and medical areas.
The Administrative/Management section of the form asks very generic
questions regarding policy and procedures, internal inspections, records,
admission and orientation, personal property and monies, releases, and
accommodations for the disabled. There is no grading; a facility is either
compliant or noncompliant in each area.
Wolfgang briefly went over the remaining areas on the form: medical/mental
health screenings within 14 days, suicide prevention, detainee deaths (USMS
is getting more involved in death investigations), involuntary medical
treatment, infectious disease, medical staffing, security and control (post
orders, pertinent logs, policy and procedure, control of contraband, use of
force – tasers restraint chairs), emergency plans, food service (adequacy,
special diets, inspections of subcontractor facilities), and access to legal
paperwork, attorneys and law library.
Facilities with IGAs get cursory inspections, while contract facilities get full
inspections

Wolfgang made a final key point – he advised that each jurisdiction get to know the
Detention Management Inspector in their district.

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 13

Jail Suicide Prevention:
Legal Trends

Current Research, Policy and Procedures and

Lindsay Hayes from the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives (NCIA)
began his presentation on suicide prevention with an historical perspective on suicide
in jails. In 1986 NCIA, with financial support from NIC, did the first suicide survey
among jails. This survey was a self report but the jail inspectors helped to get
accurate information. In 2010 NCIA released a follow-up report, National Study of
Jail Suicide: 20 Years Later April 2010. The follow-up report provided an interesting
perspective in the progress of suicide prevention in America’s Jails. For a full copy of
the report go to www.nicic.gov/library/024308. Both the 1986 report and the current
report gathered data on the extent and distribution of suicides in local jails, as well
as descriptive data on demographic characteristics of the jail facility.
Lindsay reported that the rate of suicide in jails has decreased, presumably due to
improved screening, policies and procedures and training in jails. Many states are
now incorporating suicide prevention requirements in their standards, however there
needs to be guidance on what “suicide prevention” really means. Jurisdictions need
a blueprint on what a suicide prevention program should look like. The need for
some guidance in preparing a suicide prevention program led to the development of
the “guiding principles for suicide prevention”.
Lindsay then went over the major findings from the study. (Refer to Appendix VIII
for a copy of the PowerPoint presentation.) Some of the highlights of the findings
were:







Seven percent of all suicides were in custody on charges of sexual assault or
murder of a child. Jurisdictions should consider immediate referral to medical
or mental health when individuals are incarcerated on these charges.
The percentage of suicides that occur in the first 24-hours in custody had
gone down to 23% of suicides, from 51% in the 1986 study. This can be
attributed largely to improvements in the initial screening of inmates, now we
have to train staff to look for suicidal tendencies later in the incarceration.
Almost 1/3 of suicides occurred between 3:01 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., dispelling
the theory that most suicides occur during the middle of the night.
Ninety-three percent of suicides were by hanging, with 66% using their
bedding and 30% using their bunk as the anchoring device. Jurisdictions
must ensure that there are no bunk holes or other anchoring areas in suicide
cells.

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 14





Eight percent were on suicide watch when they died.
The theory of “No Harm” contracts is not effective.
They did not find that more suicides occur during the holidays. This may be
because staff has a tendency to keep a closer eye on inmates during those
times.

Lindsay pointed out that having a prevention policy is not enough – a comprehensive
program for suicide prevention includes training, levels of confinement/observation,
and screening for past behavior. Tim Thompson commented that instead of writing
policy requiring 15 minute checks for inmates on suicide watch; defer to mental
health staff, either in-house or on-call. Bill Wilson commented that some jails use
trained inmates to do constant supervision of suicidal inmates, this is used at Riker’s
Island. Richard Kinney asked about the distinction between constant supervision and
intermittent supervision. Lindsay replied that constant supervision should be used
for high risk inmates, while staggered close observation should be used for inmates
with a lower level of risk. Carrie Hill commented that the definition of constant
supervision is very important – it means one on one, all the time.
The discussion turned to the use of CPR, with Lindsay pointing out that the study
indicated that while 80% of staff was trained in CPR, it was used on 63% of the time
in suicides. This could have two explanations: 1) the inmate was already dead or 2)
the staff member refused to perform CPR. Someone asked if the use of defibrillators
had any impact on suicide. Lindsay responded that it depends on how long the
victim has been unconscious. Finally, Lindsay pointed out that it is essential to
conduct a mortality review to include medical, mental health and correctional staff to
assess the incident and take steps to prevent this in the future.
Lindsay then reviewed Table 43, from the class handout. (Refer to Appendix VIII.)
The table provides a summary of the comparison of the two suicide reports. He
informed the group that both reports are available from the NIC library.
Lindsay then began a presentation on the “Guiding Principles for Suicide Prevention.”
He discussed the assessment of suicide risk as not being a onetime event, but an ongoing process. He pointed out that assessments should be done in private, not in
the middle of a busy booking area, with numerous people listening. Intake
screenings are time sensitive and need follow-up. He gave an example that the
arrestee simply denying suicidal ideation, does not necessarily mean they are not
actually suicidal.

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 15

Lindsay pointed out that any suicide prevention training does not take the place of
“meaningful” suicide prevention training. Facilities that maintain a multidisciplinary
approach to suicide prevention, avoid preventable suicides. “One size does not fit
all” in suicide prevention.
One of the most difficult decisions can be taking someone off of suicide watch.
Lindsay stressed that it is essential that a qualified mental health professional
(QMHP), licensed by the state, master’s degree level or above, make that decision.
Denny Macomber asked if using a telemedicine system is appropriate if the nearest
QMHP is nine hours away. It seems that some jails and prisons are going to this
type of system. Lindsay advised that you need to be careful of the misuse of this
medium, if at all possible a QMHP should come to the facility for a face to face
evaluation. Then Denny asked if there are limitations on what types of information
can be relayed over the phone – is HIPPA a factor? Lindsay responded that there is
no privacy issue when dealing with a suicide risk. Confidentiality for telephone triage
does not exist. When using a remote system it is essential to document the name,
agency, contact information and the advice given. If possible, the call should be
recorded. Carrie Hill stated that there is a HIPPA exemption for law enforcement.
Removing an inmate from suicide watch is never a “security decision, always a
clinical decision”.
Lindsay moved on to discuss principle 13 – Lack of inmates on suicide precautions
should not be interpreted to mean that there are no currently suicidal inmates in
your facility, nor a barometer of sound suicide prevention practices. You can’t make
the argument that your facility is housing more mentally ill and/or other high risk
individuals and then state there are not any suicidal inmates in your facility today.
He also highlighted principle 16 – the crux of prevention is programming, including
the following elements: staff training, intake screening/assessment, communication,
housing, levels of observation/management, intervention, reporting, and followup/morbidity-mortality review.
The next topic was standards of care. Lindsay mentioned some resources such as
the National Commission on Correctional Healthcare, ACA, Homeland Security and
ICE standards. He then passed out a copy of the Jail Suicide/Mental Health Update
from Spring 2005. This document contains a guide for developing and maintaining a
sound suicide prevention policy. (Refer to Appendix VIII.) He covered the following
topics for the remainder of the presentation.

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 16

1. Initial training (8Hours) recommended but not required
a. Suicide research
b. Staff attitudes
c. Facility environment
d. Identification of suicidal inmates
e. Components of the plan
f. Liability issues
2. Annual training (2 hours)
a. Review of initial training
b. Reviews of suicides and attempts
c. Review of changes in department policy
3. Intake screening form completed by trained correctional officer or medical
staff
a. Past suicidal ideation/attempts
b. Current suicidal ideation
c. Prior mental health treatment
d. Recent significant loss (job, relationship, death, etc)
e. Hopelessness
f. History of suicidal behavior in family or significant other
g. Suicide risk during prior department confinement
h. Transporting officer thinks there is a problem
4. Communication –3 levels
5. Housing – avoid isolation, the decision on where to house should not be based
on staffing levels or bed availability
a. To the extent possible a suicidal inmate should be housed in GP, MH or
infirmary, located close to staff
b. Cells suicide resistant CA recommends cordless phones.
6. Levels of supervision/management
a. Close observation –expresses suicidal ideation
b. Constant observation – actively suicidal and shouldn’t even be in jail
c. Upgrading, downgrading, and discontinuing suicide precautions – needs
to be an arrangement to have this person assessed by a QMHP in a
face to face interview.
7. Intervention – emergency response
a. Housing units should contain an emergency response bag
b. At least one Automated External Defibrillator (AED)
c. Nonmedical staff should not wait to enter the cell or begin life-saving
measures, this can show a lack of response and present liability
Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 17

8. Reporting
9. Morbidity/mortality review
a. Look at what happened, don’t exclude all of the disciplines this will
severely jeopardize the integrity of the review.
b. Possible precipitating factors
c. Medical/MH services reports involvement
d. Recommendations.
In the final segment, Lindsay did a brief case law review. (Refer to pages 11-18 of
the handout in of Appendix VIII).
Lindsay asked if there were any more questions or comments. There were none, so
the session closed for the day.

Legal Issues in Today’s Jail
The second day of the meeting opened with a presentation on legal issues from
Carrie Hill, Esq. Carrie provided her contact information (clsh@comcast.net – 612306-4831) and encouraged the network members to contact her with questions.
Carrie began the presentation by making three points: 1) policy and procedure in
jails must be backed by case law; as the law changes, so does the policy; 2) incident
reports must stand on their own, based on policy and procedure; and 3) jails must
audit themselves regularly for constitutionality. She briefly went over the agenda for
the presentation. (Refer to Appendix IX for a copy of the PowerPoint presentation.)
Avoiding Deliberate Indifference
Carrie emphasized that “the law does not require perfection, but you must do
something”. She then discussed the test for deliberate indifference:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Is there a substantial risk of harm?
Did the jail staff have knowledge of the risk?
Did jail staff disregard the risk, despite their knowledge of the risk?
Did the conduct of jail staff cause harm?

Carrie then discussed a case, Starr v Baca, as an example of deliberate indifference.
In this case officers opened a cell door to allow a rival gang member to enter a cell,
despite requests by the inmates for help. Starr was stabbed twenty-three times, and

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 18

his cellmate was also stabbed repeatedly. Deputies did not respond to their pleas for
help until the assaulting inmates left the cell. The deputies also assaulted Mr. Starr
and delayed medical assistance. In this case the plaintiff held Sheriff Baca personally
responsible because he knew about the conditions in the jail, based on numerous
prior incidents of racially motivated beatings and deaths, yet he did nothing to
remedy those conditions. Baca tried to show that he wasn’t personally responsible
because of several legal precedences and the fact that the numbers of assaults in the
jail system are increasing due to the increased sophistication of the inmate
population as a result of release policies in the state prison system. The 9th Circuit
sided with Starr and determined that Sheriff Baca could be held personally
responsible for the actions of deputies in this case. The Supreme Court refused to
hear the appeal.
Carrie went on to provide advice on handling incidents with potential liability:








When assaults occur, punish the perpetrator both criminally and
administratively, even if the district attorney won’t prosecute.
Keep the criminal investigation completely separate from the administrative
investigation – they will run simultaneously, don’t wait until the criminal
complaint is completed.
Discipline officers, when necessary and provide retraining.
Make sure there is a rationale for what you do (Turner v Safley) and what you
are doing in the interim to correct the situation.
The totality of conditions in a jail cannot be unconstitutional, only individual
conditions.
The Office of the Sheriff must be proactive in addressing problems, rather
than reactive in court.

A Network member brought up a situation regarding crowding in a jail where he was
told that if you don’t look into the problem you won’t be responsible. The jail got an
architect to deem that the facility had a higher occupancy rate to solve the problem.
Using Internal Audits
Carrie then spoke about using internal audits as a means to ward off claims of
deliberate indifference. She emphasized that departments must know the law.
Jurisdictions should create and train on policies and procedures that are based on
legal guidelines.

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 19

Legal Definitions
Carrie then went over several legal definitions: the First Amendment, Religious
Rights, the Fourth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment – Conditions of Confinement,
and Eighth Amendment – Use of Force. (Refer to Appendix XII.)
This was followed by a brief discussion of incident reports. Carrie stressed the point
that incident reports are not a group project; each report must stand alone and
contain the facts of the incident, as seen by the reporting officer. They should
answer the question, why did I do what I did.
Carrie then showed the group a video of an incident in an actual jail. In the video an
officer repeatedly assaults an unarmed, unhandcuffed inmate, with seemingly no
provocation. A supervisor takes out a taser and stands by while the assault occurs.
There were numerous officers in the area watching. No one attempts to either
restrain the inmate or prevent the assault. When it appears that a medical staff
member is trying to intervene, she is accosted by the sergeant.
Carrie then discussed the video and the issues related to this conduct in a jail. She
pointed out that it was obvious that this was not unusual conduct on the part of the
officers, as they knew they were being videotaped. She also mentioned that in this
case there was a $1.6 million verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Important points to
remember when an incident of this type occurs included:






Put everyone on leave who was a party to the incident and conduct a full
investigation.
Train, or retrain, on booking procedures, use of force, communications and
use of restraints.
When an incident occurs, lockdown the area. In the video an inmate worker
came to clean up during the incident.
Coordinate the actions of staff.
Supervisors and managers must insure that there is a culture of
professionalism. The video showed a complete lack of professionalism.

Inmate Communications
This section of the presentation began with a review of the First Amendment. (Refer
to Appendix IX, pages 3-9.) Carrie informed the group that there are four factors to
determine whether a first amendment violation exists: 1) safety, 2) security, 3) order

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 20

and control, and 4) discipline. These are legitimate concerns when developing
policies regarding inmate communications. She also pointed out that there must be
a rational connection between the regulation and legitimate governmental interests.
She mentioned the Turner v Safley test. She also gave several examples of how the
courts will usually only focus on one of the four factors when reviewing inmate
claims. How an agency defines specific types of mail matters e.g. privileged mail and
personal mail. Definitions can vary from state to state depending on state statutes
or standards.
The discussion then went to the practice of limiting inmate mail to postcards. Carrie
pointed out that there has been litigation regarding this practice and in cases where
there was a settlement, both regular mail and postcards were allowed. She stressed
that agencies should never implement post card only policies for legal mail.
Carrie then discussed the use of electronic communications for inmates. She
mentioned that the use of kiosks for electronic communication for inmates could
prove to be a money maker for the jail. Some issues she brought up in the
discussion included:







Jails will still have the ability to read incoming and outgoing email, only legal
mail cannot be read.
The systems can screen for “buzz words” to screen mail for gang activity or
other illicit activities.
The availability of electronic mail probably won’t eliminate regular mail, as not
everyone has access to a computer or the desire to use electronic
communications.
Nebraska, Ohio and other states currently use Skype and other messaging
services for inmate communications.
The systems could also have other uses such as depositing funds for inmates
or sending in grievances.

There was considerable discussion about electronic communications for inmates.
Denny Macomber pointed out that Nebraska has a system that allows for access for
legal representation and indigent inmates. Carrie mentioned that this may not totally
address indigent mail issues; agencies may still have to provide free stamps and
paper to indigent inmates. Also, Carrie stated that if an agency wants to have some
sort of checks and screen video communications, such as Skype, to enable the
agency to stop the communication, there must be a clear rationale of the

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 21

circumstances for stopping the transmission.
beginning of the transmission.

There must be a warning at the

Carrie then brought up the topic of publications and the barring of publications. She
began the discussion with the issues that have surfaced around unsolicited
publications sent to inmates from Prison Legal News or Convict News. She said that
these organizations will insist that it is legal mail, the agency will deny the
publication, and they will sue and never go away.
Carrie explained that agencies that reject publications must do so on an issue by
issue basis, there should be no “list” of banned publications. All banned publications
must be returned to the publisher with a form (Carrie has a copy of the form
available) explaining why the publication was returned. The rejection must be based
on case law and clearly explained to the publisher. These publications cannot be
simply put in the inmate’s property. She gave some examples of rules that should be
given a second look.



“No staples” policies – when inmates are allowed other material that contain
staples.
“No nudity” policies – when publications like National Geographic are allowed
because of the educational value.

Carrie gave an example of a jail that didn’t allow publications to come into the
facility, but subscribed to numerous publications that were available to the inmates,
including Prison Legal News. The inmates were allowed to select the publications,
with some limitations. She also made the point that length of stay and the size of
the facility are relevant when making policy decisions regarding publications. Fire
safety is not relevant when making policy decisions regarding publications or inmate
mail.
Strip Searches
The next topic was strip searches. Carrie told the group that the issue of arrestee
strip searches was “getting interesting”. The status of the inmate seems to be the
key when strip searching an inmate. She went over the definitions relevant to strip
searches. (Refer to Appendix IX, pages 9-13.) She pointed out that since Bell v
Wolfish (1979), which allowed everyone to be strip searched, only in the past few
years have more cases caused changes in strip search policies.

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 22

Carrie pointed out that it is important to balance privacy rights with safety and
security. There is a four part test when looking at strip search policies:
1.
2.
3.
4.

The need for the search.
How intrusive is the search?
Who is doing the search
Where is the search being done?

Carrie made several points regarding strip search policies.




When doing audits there should be a focus on search policies and procedures.
The more intrusive the search, the greater the need for a rationale.
Be sure to plan for a search policy for gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender
inmates, as those searches can present other issues.

She also pointed out that definitions are critical in search policies.
Appendix XII for definitions.)

(Refer to

Carrie then brought up recent court decisions that have a major effect on strip
search policies and procedures.






Powell v Barrett (2008) found that reasonable suspicion is not required before
strip searching an arrestee as part of the booking process and moving them to
general population.
Bull v City and County of San Francisco (2010) and Edgerly v City and County
of San Francisco (2010) also found that reasonable suspicion was not required
to strip search arrestees going into the population. San Francisco provided
great statistics on contraband in the facilities that helped bolster their
arguments.
In 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5/4 opinion) upheld Bell v Wolfish and
justified strip searches of all arrestees entering the inmate population. Carrie
recommended that agencies should use the language from the court when
developing their policies and procedures. One issue that was not addressed
was inmates who will not be in general population, who won’t have contact
with other inmates. Also, the term “general population” was not defined by
the courts.

Carrie then provided some “non legal” advice to the group.

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 23







There is a problem with standards that are not based on case law. Given the
new case law, state standards should be reviewed and, if appropriate, revised
based on this new case law.
There should never be cross gender strip searches.
These are
unconstitutional, barring exigent circumstances.
Never strip search inmates coming back from court with release orders.
Forced clothing removal can be done by any gender and can be videotaped.
This can happen when an order has been given to the inmate prior to the
search – “either you remove your clothes or we will do it for you and once we
start we won’t stop”.

Transsexual and transgender strip searches can have issues according to Carrie. She
suggests that when an individual of unknown gender comes into a facility that the
individual is pat searched by a female officer first. Based on the results of the pat
search a determination of who shall conduct the strip search can be based on
genitalia. She also suggested that there be rules on how these searches are done.
Agencies should be careful about allowing the inmate to choose which gender will do
the search. Have two officers present during the search to protect both the inmate
and the officers. Kristi Dietz told the group that in Wisconsin they do these searches
using a barrier with a camera on the officer, but not on the inmate.
Carrie again brought up the importance of definitions in policy development for strip
searches. She brought up a 2011 decision in Byrd v Maricopa County Sheriff’s
Department. In this instance female cadets were allowed to pat search male inmates
in their boxer shorts, despite male officers being present at the officer’s station. The
court ruled that while if the search were actually a pat search of a partially clothed
inmate, it might have been reasonable. However, because Byrd was subjected to a
cross-gender strip search while nearly nude, the search was patently unreasonable.
As a final issue, Carrie brought up the use of body scans, in the place of strip
searches. The scans can detect contraband without the inmate having to remove
his/her clothing. She personally likes the “Secure Pass Body Scanner” which was
developed by medical people. The Bureau of Prisons is putting them in all of their
facilities and other states are also using this technology. This process is less
intrusive and does not require officers to touch the inmates.

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 24

Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA)
Following the lunch break, Carrie Hill and Richard Kinney did a presentation on PREA
and the new requirements, at the request of the participants. (Refer to Appendix IX
pages 21-41.)
Overview - Carrie and Richard began their presentation by providing a brief
overview of the requirements put forth in the PREA standards. Carrie mentioned that
there have been some changes to the final draft of the standards that should be
reviewed by agencies. There are several points that were made about the
standards:









There are four categories of facilities: adult prisons and jails were lumped
together, and lock-ups, community confinement facilities and juvenile facilities
placed in separate categories. Jail advocates had made an effort not to be in
the same category as prisons, but to no avail.
The standards may not “impose substantial additional costs compared to the
costs presently expended by Federal, State, and local prison authorities”.
There are several dates that are important to be aware of:
o Effective date: August 20, 2012
o Compliance date: August 2013
o First audits (1/3 of facilities) will be completed by August 2014. They will
start with the federal facilities.
o All facilities must be audited by August 2016
An increase in reported assaults may be the result of increased reporting on
the part of inmates in the facility, rather than an increase in actual assaults.
Language barring retaliation for reporting abuse should be part of any new
policies and procedures.
Meeting PREA standards may not be the highest standard to be set – it may
not be enough to meet the constitutional minimum.

The presenters then tried to clarify the applicability of PREA standards to jails. Carrie
pointed out that while the final standards do apply to jails, currently there is no
financial penalty for noncompliance. However, unified systems, systems where the
prison and jail systems are one entity, are subject to financial penalties for non
compliance. She also mentioned that penalties involve withholding federal money to
states, that penalty could also trickle down to jails with states withholding money to
counties.

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 25

Carrie when on to state that PREA is not mandatory in local jails and there is some
potential that the courts could determine that Congress overstepped their bounds by
applying the standards to local jails. It is also not clear what the implications of
noncompliance in a jail that houses state inmates.
There were numerous comments and questions from the group. The participants
noted that there is a lot of insecurity in the jail community, especially those jails that
contract with their states to house state inmates. There was also a comment about
the potential for counties to raise the per diem rates for state inmates to cover the
cost of PREA. Another participant asked about jails that house parole violators and
the state reimburses that agency to house the parolee. This could also extend to
local jails that house federal inmates.
Danny Downes commented that on numerous occasions county jails testified before
the commission asking not to be lumped together with prisons, but their arguments
did not seem to make an impact. Carrie also testified before the Commission, right
after the rape victims. Everyone representing the jail attempted to make the
Commission understand the challenges of implementing PREA in jails, especially
small jails. Denny Macomber commented that in Nebraska the state reimburses the
jails as soon as an inmate is sentenced to prison. He was wondering about the
implications of this practice. Carrie replied that as the inmate was already under the
care, custody and control of the county it may not have the same implications as
counties that house state inmates under contract with the state. However, she
pointed out, the duty to protect inmates far exceeds PREA standards.
Definitions - Carrie then went over the definitions established in the standards.
(Refer to Appendix XII.) The definitions are very specific and encompassing. She
also discussed former inmates reporting their abuse after release.
Carrie went on to discuss the definition of sexual abuse. The definition has two
categories: inmate on inmate abuse and staff on inmate abuse. She went over the
definitions. The definition of staff on inmate abuse clarifies contact unrelated to
official duties. The extensive definition also includes voyeurism. As the potential for
inmates to claim voyeurism is high, Carrie recommended that jails install privacy
screens for toilets and showers. Richard pointed out that sexual harassment is also
considered abuse. He expressed his hope that all jails already have a sexual
harassment policy. He also told the group that it is important that staff be aware of
repeated acts of harassment by inmates. Carrie presented a list of steps that should
be taken to prevent sexual abuse.

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 26

PREA Coordinator v PREA Compliance Manager - The discussion then turned to
the requirements for a PREA Coordinator versus a PREA Compliance Manager. Carrie
clarified that the Coordinator is no longer required to be a full time position;
however, the designated Coordinator “must have sufficient time and authority to
perform the required responsibilities”. She recommends that the coordinator be of a
high rank and be someone within the jail. The PREA Compliance Manager position is
used for agencies that have more than one facility. Each facility must have a
designated Compliance Manager. This position does not need to be an upper
management position, as is required for the Coordinator.
Inmate Screening - Carrie then went on to discuss the screening process for
identifying inmates who may be at risk for abuse or be abusers. It is up to each
agency to develop a screening form. She also emphasized that the inmates need to
be aware of PREA. It should be explained in the inmate handbook, in an orientation
video or any other method. If you have no other options, the agency can conduct a
class with the inmates.
Transgender and Intersex Inmates - The next topic involved transgender and
intersex inmates. Carrie made several points to the group regarding the screening
and housing of transgender inmates.




Housing and programming must be reviewed twice per year.
They shall be allowed to shower separately from other inmates.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex inmates may not be housed in
dedicated housing unless it is court ordered.

Carrie then discussed the limits PREA has put on housing at risk inmates in protective
custody (involuntary segregated housing). Inmates cannot be segregated unless
there has been an assessment of available housing and no alternatives can be found.
There were several comments from the participants regarding the feasibility of
implementing this standard.
Supervision and Monitoring – Carrie pointed out that the standards allow for
video monitoring of inmates, but never in lieu of actual supervision by staff. She
pointed out that the language in the standards is rather “wishy-washy” regarding
where you can and can’t place cameras. Two points were made regarding
supervision requirements.


Staff of the opposite gender must announce their presence when entering a
unit.

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 27



No staff should monitor a camera that is likely to view inmates of the opposite
gender while they are showering, dressing, etc.

This information sparked discussion in the group regarding the feasibility of
implementing this standard. There were several questions regarding opposite
gender officers announcing themselves – would once at the beginning of a shift be
sufficient or must they announce themselves each time they enter a unit? What
about in direct supervision facilities, would this eliminate any cross gender
supervision? Danny was asked to get clarification on this issue. There was also
discussion on what “monitoring a camera” actually means.
Staffing Levels – Carrie told the group that the bottom line is that facilities can
determine staffing levels based on their needs. There were no specific staffing ratios
put forth in the standards. However, the standards do provide 11 factors to consider
when facilities determine their staffing levels. There was concern that in states
where the jail inspector’s determine staffing levels that there might be a conflict with
PREA.
Unannounced Rounds - Carrie pointed out that PREA requires unannounced
supervisory rounds. This is an effort to deter staff sexual abuse or harassment of
inmates. The standards also prohibit staff members from letting coworkers know
they are coming into a unit.
Youthful Inmates – Under the PREA standards any inmates under age 18 will be
referred to as youthful inmates, they are no longer considered to be juveniles. Carrie
informed the group that the standards do not forbid the placement of youthful
inmates, who are under the supervision of an adult court, in adult prisons and jails.
However, the standard imposes three requirements for housing youthful inmates in
adult jails:
1. No youthful inmate may be placed in a housing unit where he or she will have
contact with any adult.
2. Outside of housing units agencies must maintain “sight and sound” separation
to prevent adults seeing or communicating with youth or provide direct staff
supervision when youthful inmates and adults are together.
3. Agencies need to avoid placing youthful inmates in isolation and afford them
daily large muscle exercise and access to special education services, and
access to other programs and work opportunities.

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 28

This information spurred much discussion in the group. There were questions
regarding why PREA did not incorporate the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) standards regarding confining juveniles in adult
facilities. Richard commented on the conflict between PREA and OJJDP – in the
summary DOJ had decided not to incorporate OJJDP standards. A comment was
made that this was because there were no jail representatives on the PREA
Commission. This standard was viewed as a major problem in states that routinely
house juveniles being tried as adults in adult facilities and treats those juveniles as
adults. Carrie commented that the conflicting laws and standards are going to be
confusing to the courts.
Searches – Carrie opened the next section with the PREA definitions of pat
searches, strip searches and exigent circumstances. She again emphasized that
definitions matter. The standards ban cross-gender pat down searches of female
inmates in adult prisons and jails. Small jails, with less than 50 beds, will have five
years to comply with this standard. Exigent circumstances were defined as those
situations that are “temporary or unforeseen”. Carrie pointed out that the PREA strip
search definition does not incorporate the new Supreme Court definition and that
agencies should use the Supreme Court language in their revised policies. The same
for the language defining body cavity searches. Carrie went on to discuss cross
gender strip searches. These too are forbidden except under exigent circumstances.
Gender Nonconforming, Intersex or Transgender Inmates / Searches and
Staff Training - Carrie then addressed searching inmates who are “gender nonconforming”, intersex or transgender. She told the group to pay attention to the
definition of “gender non-conforming” – defined to mean “a person whose
appearance or manner does not conform to traditional societal gender expectations”.
While the definition of “intersex” states “a person who’s sexual or reproductive
anatomy or chromosomal pattern does not seem to fit typical definitions of male or
female”. This is also referred to as hermaphroditic. In the case of transgender
inmates the definition focuses on the inmate’s “gender identity (internal sense of
feeling male or female) is different from the persons assigned sex at birth”. She
advised the group to focus not as much on gender issues, but on the issue of safety
and security of the inmate or other inmates, predator or prey.
PREA standards around the searching of this segment of the inmate population state
that inmates can’t be searched for the sole purpose of defining the inmate’s gender.
However, Carrie told the group that the inmate can be asked about gender or it can

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 29

be discovered as part of a routine medical exam. She feels that there is a lot of
potential for litigation in these cases.
Carrie went on to tell the group that all staff must be initially trained on these issues
with a refresher training every two years. She emphasized that this standard
includes every facility and the initial training must be done by August 2014.
Detecting and Reporting Sexual Abuse – Carrie began this session by making
the group aware of steps each facility must take to detect sexual abuse, educate
their inmates about PREA and have a process for both external and internal reporting
of sexual abuse. Policies must be in place to make inmates aware of the facility
policies regarding a zero tolerance for sexual abuse and how to report abuse. This
extends to inmates who do not speak English and those inmates with disabilities.
Inmates should be oriented to this information during the intake process and they
should attend a class or watch a video presentation on the subject within the first 30
days of incarceration. Carrie pointed out that the rules state that inmates who are
currently incarcerated should receive this education within one year of the effective
date of the PREA standards.
PREA Audits – Carrie began the last session discussing the audit process for PREA.
She made several important points about the auditing process:









Audits will be done every three years, with the initial audits completed by
August 2016.
There is currently no auditing instrument available.
All auditors must receive training and be certified by DOJ. The training will be
available on-line.
The National PREA Resource Center is available to assist agencies at
http://www.prearesourcecenter.org/.
There are three ratings in the audit – Exceeds standards, meets standards and
does not meet standards (which requires corrective action).
Individual states/governor will decide who does the audits. The auditor
cannot be under the jurisdiction of the Sheriff, they must be an outside party.
“Full compliance” can be achieved through compliance with all standards.
Jurisdictions must differentiate between substantiated charges, allegations,
and malicious (deliberately fabricated) allegations for reporting purposes.

Carrie provided a list of potential resources on the web. (Refer to Appendix IX page
41.)

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 30

There were numerous comments from the network members regarding these issues.
Denny pointed out that jurisdictions must be careful where they receive their
information regarding PREA. Richard reported that in New York allegations of sexual
abuse increased dramatically after the standards were released. He cautioned the
group to not be alarmed by this. Danny emphasized the importance of being pro
active. One of the worst jails in the initial study, in terms of allegations of sexual
abuse, turned things around when the director took charge of the situation. He
cautioned the group to do as much as they can to not leave themselves exposed.
As the legal issues segment lasted until 3:15 p.m., several sessions on the agenda
were tabled until the next meeting.

Surviving Hard Times: Marketing the Jail Inspection Process
Denny Macomber and Shannon Herklotz presented the last session of the meeting.
They discussed strategies used in Nebraska to keep their agency afloat during severe
budget cuts. (Refer to Appendix X for a copy of the PowerPoint presentation.)
Denny began the session with an overview of the situation in Nebraska. Nebraska
implemented jail standards in the 1980’s. The jails in Nebraska enjoyed many years
of good relationships with the inspectors, compliance with the standards, and
collaborative problem solving when issues arose. However, several years ago the
governor of Nebraska thought things were going so well he questioned the need for
jail standards and the inspection process and proposed the elimination of the Jail
Standards Division. The employees of the Division read about their potential
elimination in the newspaper.
How Was the Jail Standards Division Saved?
Denny reviewed the process used by the Division to save their organization. First,
they did a good job of marketing their services. They then elicited support from
numerous groups to lobby on their behalf including: Nebraska Sheriff’s Association,
Nebraska Association of County Officials, Nebraska Insurance and Risk Management
Association, Nebraska County Attorneys Association, the ACLU and the Federal
Prosecutor for the State of Nebraska. This support was essential in saving the
Division.
Additionally, Denny reported they collected data regarding litigation in states without
jail standards compared to states with jail standards. There were also people in the

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 31

state who looked at data comparing the money saved by cutting the Jail Standards
Division and the cost of replicating those services.
Denny then made several points regarding strategies for marketing, providing
products and services, cutting costs, and self promotion. He emphasized the
importance of doing your job well, ensuring your product meets the needs of your
consumer and networking. The Jail Standards Division runs the academy so he has
the opportunity to meet everyone who works at a jail in Nebraska.
An additional tool the Division used was to emphasize the services provided to jails
that they could not do on their own, e.g. monthly and annual reports on data
collected in all of the state’s jails and providing assistance in problem solving (they
don’t just inspect facilities but help solve problems). They also compiled information
on the value provided for the dollars spent i.e. sharing a training facility, capital
resources and expertise. Denny pointed out those jails that pass inspections get
reduced insurance rates and reduced costs for litigation.
Denny also stressed the importance of self promotion. It is essential that agencies
be available, that they evaluate everything to ensure they are meeting the needs of
their consumers. He emphasized that who works in your organization does make a
difference.
Denny then reviewed a list of basic marketing questions each agency should ask,
e.g. what is our goal as a jail inspection agency, who are our core customers, etc.
(Refer to Appendix X for a complete list.)
Finally, Denny went through a list of survival strategies:











Know your customers
Know what they need
Conduct task analyses
Build relationships
Go to events – network
Be innovative
Create value
Educate and foster learning
Provide leadership – be a good person
Be knowledgeable – know your stuff

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 32

Tim Thompson talked about the importance of attending state and national Sheriff’s
Association and NACO conferences to get to know those people so you will have
access when you need it.
Del Longley stressed the importance of getting legislative support for the inspection
process
Bill Wilson commented that the new governor in Virginia wants to cut the Board of
Corrections and asked if he can have some of the data on litigation. Denny told him
to look at newspaper articles at corrections.com or in law journals.
Denny closed the presentation by telling the group that 11 agencies were disbanded
in Nebraska during cutbacks – the Jail Standards Division was the only agency to
survive.

Evaluation/Closeout
Danny began the closeout session by passing out hotel evaluations. He tabled two
presentations, Montana Update with Steve Metzger and the OJJDP Update with
Richard Kinney and Tim Thompson, until the next meeting. He asked the group to
please email him with recommendations for additional agenda items for the next
meeting at d2downes@bop.gov. He can also be contacted through the Network
Forum.
Danny then mentioned that one of the deputy directors approached him about
opening the Forum to the deputy directors. He pointed out that the Forum hasn’t
been very active recently. He felt that it might improve the Forum if more people
were participating. Tim Thompson asked that the directors be given more time to
make the Forum work. Gary Wion commented that the director’s need to remind
each other to use the Forum, perhaps through monthly phone reminders. A
suggestion was make to either allow Network members to access the Forum through
email or, at a minimum, get email notices of postings on the Forum. There was a
motion to allow deputy directors to become part of the Forum, it was seconded and
passed.
Danny committed to starting work on development of a one day PREA workshop. He
will work with Carrie Hill and Dee Halley (NIC PREA coordinator) on this project.

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 33

Finally, a suggestion was made for a topic for the next meeting: performance based
standards – implementation, inspection and monitoring.
The meeting was adjourned.

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 34

APPENDICES

Chief Jail Inspector’s Network

Page 35

APPENDIX I

REVISED AGENDA

US Department of Justice
National Institute of Corrections

Program
12J2701

CHIEF JAIL INSPECTORS’ NETWORK
July 18-19, 2012

National Corrections Academy, Aurora, CO

Wednesday, July 18
8:00 am

Introduction and Overview ...................................................... Danny Downes
NIC Information Center Overview ............................................... Susan Powell

8:30 am

NSA Update ........................................................................ Denny Macomber

9:00 am

Jail Standards Update ........................................................ Kathy Black-Dennis

9:30

Iowa, Minnesota and Indiana Standards/Inspections

10:30 am

Federal Agency Update ...................... Wolfgang Calvert/Patrick Cortez, USMS

12:00 pm

Lunch

1:00 pm

Federal Agency Update con’t

2:00 pm

Suicide Prevention ............................................................... Lindsay M. Hayes

5:00

Adjourn

Delbert Longley
Tim Thompson
Ken Whipker

Thursday, July 19
8:00 am

Legal Issues ..................................................................................... Carrie Hill

12:00 pm

Lunch

1:00 pm

Prison Rape Elimination Act..................................... Carrie Hill/Richard Kinney

3:30

Marketing/Survival Strategies ................ Denny Macomber/Shannon Herklotz

4:30

Evaluation/Closeout ................................................................ Danny Downes

5:00

Adjourn

APPENDIX II

INTRODUCTION

Introduction and Overview

CHIEF JAIL INSPECTORS’
NETWORK MEETING
INTRODUCTION AND
OVERVIEW
US Department of Justice / National Institute of Corrections

NIC DIVISIONS

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
CORRECTIONS

Introduction and Overview



NIC is a small federal agency within the
Department of Justice, Bureau of
Prisons.



NIC was established to be the primary
source of federal assistance to state and
local correctional agencies.

National Institute of Corrections / United States Department of Justice

Introduction and Overview

Jails
Prisons
 Community Corrections
 Academy
 Office of Offender Workforce Development
 Research and Evaluation
 Administration

NIC ASSISTANCE

2

Introduction and Overview

 Training




National Institute of Corrections / United States Department of Justice

 Technical Assistance
 Information Services

3

National Institute of Corrections / United States Department of Justice

4

HOUSEKEEPING









Introduction and Overview

PARTICIPANT INTRODUCTIONS

Participant folder





Introduction and Overview

Altitude awareness
Meals and hotel information
Cell phones
Smoking
Emergency data form
Name badge

 Your name
 State, organization or

area of authority
 How long have you worked in
standards/inspections and/or law
enforcement?

Schedule, Seating Arrangement, Breaks
Participant list

National Institute of Corrections / United States Department of Justice

5

Introduction and Overview

6

Introduction and Overview

NIC INFORMATION
CENTER OVERVIEW
SUSAN POWELL

QUESTIONS?

National Institute of Corrections / United States Department of Justice

National Institute of Corrections / United States Department of Justice

7

National Institute of Corrections / United States Department of Justice

8

Introduction and Overview

NSA UPDATE
DENNY MACOMBER

National Institute of Corrections / United States Department of Justice

Introduction and Overview

JAIL STANDARDS UPDATE
KATHY BLACK-DENNIS

9

Introduction and Overview

National Institute of Corrections / United States Department of Justice

Introduction and Overview

STANDARDS/INSPECTIONS

MARKETING/SURVIVAL
STRATEGIES

IOWA DELBERT LONGLEY
MINNESOTA TIM THOMPSON
INDIANA KEN WHIPKER

DENNY MACOMBER
SHANNON HERKLOTZ

National Institute of Corrections / United States Department of Justice

11

10

National Institute of Corrections / United States Department of Justice

12

Introduction and Overview

Introduction and Overview

SUICIDE PREVENTION

LUNCH

LINDSAY M. HAYES
NATIONAL CENTER ON INSTITUTIONS
AND ALTERNATIVES

National Institute of Corrections / United States Department of Justice

13

Introduction and Overview

14

Introduction and Overview

LEGAL ISSUES

ADJOURN
National Institute of Corrections / United States Department of Justice

National Institute of Corrections / United States Department of Justice

CARRIE HILL
15

National Institute of Corrections / United States Department of Justice

16

Introduction and Overview

Introduction and Overview

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE
DELINQUENCY PREVENTION (OJJDP)
UPDATE
RICHARD KINNEY
TIM THOMPSON

LUNCH
National Institute of Corrections / United States Department of Justice

17

Introduction and Overview

National Institute of Corrections / United States Department of Justice

Introduction and Overview

FEDERAL AGENCY UPDATE

MONTANA UPDATE

WOLFGANG CALVERT
PATRICK CORTEZ

STEVE METZGER

National Institute of Corrections / United States Department of Justice

19

18

National Institute of Corrections / United States Department of Justice

20

Introduction and Overview

PREA UPDATE

DISCUSSION/PLANNING

RICHARD KINNEY
National Institute of Corrections / United States Department of Justice

21

Introduction and Overview

National Institute of Corrections / United States Department of Justice

22

Introduction and Overview

ADJOURN

EVALUATION/CLOSEOUT

National Institute of Corrections / United States Department of Justice

Introduction and Overview

23

National Institute of Corrections / United States Department of Justice

24

APPENDIX III

PARTICIPANT LIST

National Institute of Corrections
Danny Downes
Adria Tafoya

FINAL PARTICIPANT LIST
12J2701
Chief Jail Inspector’s Network Meeting

Aurora, Colorado

Wednesday, July 18, 2012 – Thursday, July 19, 2012

Alves, Nelson

508-279-3822

Auditor
Massachusetts Department of Correction

nbalves@doc.state.ma.us

36 Dwinell Road
Taunton, MA 2780
Calvert, Wolfgang

202-307-9087

Sr. Inspector (GS-13)
US Marshals Service

wolfgang.calvert@usdoj.gov

2604 Jefferson Davis HWY; CS-4 Suite 1100
Alexandria, DC 22301-1025
Carson, Marilyn

302-272-2345

Risk Management Safety Officer
State of Delaware

Marilyn.Carson@state.de.us

221 Tidbury Crossing
Camden, DE 19934
Cortez, Patrick

202-527-2935

Senior Inspector
United States Marshals Service

Pedro.Cortez@usdoj.gov

2604 Jefferson Davis Highway, CS4-Suite 1100
Alexandria, VA 22301
Dietz, Kristi

6082405052

Director, Office of Detention Facilities
WI Dept of Corrections

Kristi.Dietz@wisconsin.gov

3099 E Washington Ave
Madison, WI 53707
Engen, Steven

701-328-6652

Director of Staff Development
ND DOCR
3100 Railroad Ave
bismarck, ND 58501

sengen@nd.gov

Funk, Mike

217-558-2200

Unit Manager
Illinois Department of Corrections

mike.funk@doc.illinois.gov

1301 Concordia Court
Springfield, Illinois, IL 62794
Herklotz, Shannon

512-463-5505

Asst. Director of Inspections & Jail Management
Texas Commission on Jail Standards

shannon.herklotz@tcjs.state.tx.us

300 W. 15th St., Suite 503
Austin, TX 78711
Kinney, Richard

518-485-2463

Deputy Director
New York State Commission of Correction

Richard.Kinney@scoc.ny.gov

80 South Swan Street
Albany, NY 12205-2467
Kishbaugh, Kay

717-728-4057- Work

Director

717-943-6762 - Cell

PA Department of Corrections

kkishbaugh@pa.gov

115 Yellow Breeches Drive
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Longley, Delbert

515-725-5731

Chief Jail Inspector
Iowa Department of Corrections

Delbert.Longley@iowa.gov

510 E. 12th St.
Des Moines, IA 50319
Macomber, Denny

402-432-1034

Chief
Nebraska Crime Commission
1444 North 37th Street
Lincoln, NE 68503

dmacomber@radiks.net

Metzger, Steven

406-254-7923

Sergeant/Training Officer
Yellowstone County Detention Facility

smetzger@co.yellowstone.mt.gov

3165 King Avenue East
Billings, MT 59101
Nichols, Ralph

207-287-4392

Director of Operations
State of Maine

ralph.nichols@maine.gov

111 State House Station
Augusta, ME 4333
Ray, Howard

410-585-3830

Executive Director
Maryland Department of Public Saftey

hray@dpscs.state.md.us

Maryland Commission on Correctional Standards
115 Sudbrook Lane, Suite 200
Pikesville, MD 21208

Thompson, Timothy

651-361-7147

Program Manager
State of Minnesota

timothy.thompson@state.mn.us

1450 Energy Park Drive - Suite 200
St. Paul, MN 55108
Vogel, Tom

517.373.4483

Manager, County Jails Services Unit
MI Dept of Corrections

vogelta@michigan.gov

206 E. Michigan Ave., PO Box 30003
Lansing, MI 48846
Whipker, Kenneth

317-232-5764

Director
Indiana Dept. of Correction
302 W. Washington St Rm E334
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2738

kwhipker@idoc.in.gov

Wilson, William

804-674-3499 ext. 1717

Local Facilities Supervisor
Virginia Department of Corrections

william.wilson@vadoc.virginia.gov

6900 Atmore Drive
Richmond, VA 23225
Wion, Gary

9163241641

Deputy Director
Corrections Standards Authority

gary.wion@bscc.ca.gov

600 Bercut
Sacramento, CA 95691
Wood, Brandon

512-463-8236

Assistant Director
Texas Commission on Jail Standards
300 West 15th Suite 503
Austin, TX 78701

brandon.wood@tcjs.state.tx.us

APPENDIX IV

ACA CORE JAIL
STANDARDS

National Jail Exchange 2011

http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

ACA’s Core Jail Standards Focus on the
Basics
By Rod Miller, CRS, Inc. and Connie Clem

The year 2010 brought a breakthrough in U.S. corrections with the introduction of new Core Jail
Standards by the American Correctional Association (ACA). Until 2010, county jails could use ACA’s
Performance Based Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities (“ALDF standards”) to raise practices
to a professional level. But jails did not have a national set of “minimum” jail standards that identified
the conditions and practices required to operate a constitutional jail.
The new Core Jail Standards have been field tested and revised, and jails around the nation are already
using them. At ACA’s summer conference in 2011, it was decided that jails will receive accreditation if
they meet the new standards, changing an earlier policy that offered certification rather than
accreditation.
ACA invited many corrections professionals to help develop the Core Jail Standards. The new standards
are a distillation of their combined professional insight and expertise. Each contributor brought a unique
perspective to the development process, and the Core Jail Standards have a different meaning to
various stakeholders.
This article answers typical questions about how the standards were developed—from the point of view
of one participant who was closely involved in the process from the very beginning.
• What are the Core Jail Standards?
• Why do we need jail standards?
• Why do we need the new Core Jail Standards?
• Who developed the Core Jail Standards?
• What makes a standard “core”?
• How do the Core Jail Standards compare to national and state standards?
• How were the Core Jail Standards field tested?
• How are agencies using the Core Jail Standards?
• What tools is ACA making available for jails that may seek certification on the Core Jail
Standards?

Page 1 National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

National Jail Exchange 2011

http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

What are the Core Jail Standards?
The Core Jail Standards are a new set of standards developed and maintained by ACA to address unmet
needs in the detention field. They are a smaller offshoot of ACA’s full ALDF standards, which have
provided the basis for ACA accreditation for many years.
Traditionally, ACA standards have been developed within a form and structure that responds to three
primary criteria:
1. They must be legally defensible—providing guidance for jail operations at or above constitutional
minimums established by the courts.
2. They must be flexible—allowing agencies to use varied ways to achieve compliance with the intent of
each standard.
3. They must promote advanced professional practice—defining what should be done, not just what
must be done.
The new Core Jail Standards encompass just the first two of these criteria, by focusing on minimum
requirements to operate a constitutional jail. The ALDF standards extend further, to the third criterion of
advanced practice; they exceed the minimum requirements comprised by most state jail standards and
defined in court cases to measure the constitutionality of facilities and operations.
ACA’s ALDF standards have evolved over the past 40 years through four phases of development. (See
Figure 1.)
Figure 1. Evolution of ACA’s Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities
ALDF, First Edition
(1970s)

Standards are based on the experience of the field, as
reflected in the practices of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons.

ALDF, Second Edition
(1980s)

Standards are updated to incorporate expanded
experience gained through agencies’ application of the
First Edition.

ALDF, Third Edition
(1990s)

Standards are updated based on new research
wherever possible.

ALDF, Fourth Edition

Standards are translated into a performance-based
template, shifting the focus to outcomes and

Page 2 National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

National Jail Exchange 2011

http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

(2000s)

effectiveness.

The Core Jail Standards are the first national set of minimum standards for guiding the operation of
constitutional jails. They are a distilled version of the essentials in jail management.
The Core Jail Standards are especially useful for:
• Jails located in states that have no state jail standards;
• Jails whose states’ standards do not address all of the requirements for operating a
constitutional jail; and
• Standards writers who want to have a reliable description of basic minimum requirements for
operating a constitutional jail.

Why do we need jail standards?
There are three main reasons why jail standards are an important asset for jail leaders and managers.
1. Jail standards establish the foundation for sound jail design and operation. A jail’s policies and
procedures translate professional standards into daily operations. Training prepares employees
to implement these procedures and thereby run a constitutional jail. Ongoing employee
supervision ensures consistent implementation of procedures and high levels of performance
for the overall agency.
2. Standards provide the basis for evaluating operations and measuring compliance. Jail
managers agree that jail standards increase professionalism, reduce liability, improve
operations, and increase consistency of jail operations.
3. Jail standards are relevant to jails of all sizes. While larger jails often have more resources for
responding to the challenges they face, smaller facilities must find ways to deal with the same
issues. Standards help managers in any size jail to anticipate the problems that may occur and
prepare responses in advance.

Why do we need the new Core Jail Standards?
In 2004, the working group that developed the fourth edition of ACA’s ALDF standards also identified
the need for a set of national minimum jail standards. At that time, ACA published only its “professional”
standards, including the ALDF and a separate set of standards for small jails. The ALDF standards are an
indicator of professional excellence and are worthwhile to meet, but the 2004 ALDF working group
acknowledged that it is not necessary for all jails to operate at that level. In the more than 40 years that
the ALDF standards have been in existence, only 5% or less of the nation’s 3,200 jails have been
accredited at any given time.
Page 3 National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

National Jail Exchange 2011

http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

The working group recommended that ACA discontinue the small jail standards and replace them with
minimum standards that could be used by jails of all sizes. The needed standards would incorporate
essential elements of the ALDF standards, elements of states’ jail standards, and court-defined
indicators of constitutional levels of operation.
Several factors illustrate both the need for standards and the difficulty of defining and encouraging a
common, national level of jail professionalism and accountability.
• Only 32 states currently have any form of jail standards.
• Many states have only voluntary jail standards.
• In some states that have jail standards, the law does not give any agency enforcement powers
or define a process for enforcement.
• Standards vary in scope and content from state to state.
• Some states have reduced their inspection and enforcement efforts in recent years in
response to budget pressure. 1
The ALDF working group recognized that practitioners who have been working with the ALDF standards
might consider the Core Jail Standards rudimentary. But more than 95% of the nation’s jails are not
involved with ALDF accreditation—and it is these jails that are the primary audience for the Core Jail
Standards.

Who developed the Core Jail Standards?
Dozens of stakeholders donated hundreds of hours of labor to create the Core Jail Standards.
Contributors are recognized at the end of this article. They include the 2004 working group already
mentioned. A 2008 team later worked very hard to produce an initial version of the Core Jail Standards.
The standards were field-tested, and a 2009 working group completed a revised version.
ACA anchored the process, convening committees to draft the Core Jail Standards and providing staff
support. To form the working groups, ACA Executive Director Jim Gondles asked the National Sheriffs’
Association (NSA) and American Jail Association (AJA) to designate committee members. This ensured
that jail administrators from jails of all sizes, and sheriffs from a variety of counties, added their
experience and expertise.
The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) funded travel to some meetings. In the home stretch, Federal
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Director Harley Lappin (now retired) personally chaired work sessions and
brought BOP resources to the table. The ACA Standards Committee reviewed two drafts of the core
standards before adopting them by a unanimous vote in August 2009.

1

Florida eliminated state jail standards and enforcement efforts several years ago. In July 2011, the State of Ohio
reduced its jail inspection bureau to a single employee.

Page 4 National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

National Jail Exchange 2011

http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

What makes a standard “core”?
ACA’s performance-based ALDF standards were the starting point for drafting the minimum Core Jail
Standards. The ACA Standards Committee required that the new core standards would be drawn from
existing ALDF standards in order to reduce confusion in the field and to ensure consistency between the
two ACA publications.
The 2008 working group adapted the content of the ALDF standards, distilling them to present the
content that describes the operations and conditions that are necessary to operate a constitutional jail.
Each ALDF standard includes five components:
1. A Performance Standard—the condition to be achieved and maintained;
2. Outcome Measures—quantifiable data for evaluating the extent to which the desired condition
has been achieved;
3. Expected Practices—specific actions and activities that should be implemented to reach
compliance with the performance standard;
4. Protocols—written tools that provide direction to staff, such as policies, procedures, post
orders, and training curricula; and
5. Process Indicators—sources of evidence that the expected practices are being properly and
consistently implemented according to the protocols
An “expected practice” is similar to a traditional standard as they appeared before the standards were
re-written in the performance-based format. The working group reviewed the “expected practice”
language from each ALDF standard for its suitability to be carried over as a core standard—in whole, in
part, or in principle.
An example of an ALDF standard is given in Figure 2.

Page 5 National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

National Jail Exchange 2011

http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

Figure 2. Example of Performance-Based Standard: Contraband Control

A 2009 memo 2 described the process:
We examined each expected practice and tried to find the practice—or portion of a practice—
that represented minimum requirements. One of our benchmarks was to ask, “Would a jail find
itself in trouble with the courts if it did not comply with X practice?” As we applied this to each
ALDF expected practice, we often found one or two sentences of an expected practice that hit
the nail on the head. We extracted this language for use in the draft. We often found additional
language that exceeded what we found to be a “minimum” requirement. In these cases we
extracted the “core” language from the larger ALDF expected practice.
The memo went on to explain the process of extracting the core language from the broader ALDF
expected practices.
We felt it was imperative to discard the higher-than-minimum language. We had all worked with
practitioners who turned to the ALDF standards as a source of basic guidance but were quickly
turned away by the language that exceeds minimum requirements. This is not a criticism of the
ACA standards, but rather an acknowledgement that ACA has always promulgated the higher
level of “professional” practice in its standards.
Figures 3 and 4 show how examples of how the Core Jail Standards relate to their ALDF counterparts.

2

Memo to Core Jail Standards Committee prior to March 2009 meeting. Rod Miller. February 25, 2009.

Page 6 National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

National Jail Exchange 2011

http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

Figure 3. Translating ALDF Standards to Core Standards: Control Center

Figure 4. Translating ALDF Standards to Core Standards: Single-celled Housing

Reaching a consensus on what was “core” required tapping into the substantial experience evident
around the table every time a committee met. Three other types of resources were always at the table:
1. The ALDF Standards, 4th Edition;
2. Mandatory minimum jail standards from several states; and
Page 7 National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

National Jail Exchange 2011

http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

3. Caselaw, primarily from The Detention and Corrections Caselaw Catalog, 3 summarizing more
than 8,000 federal court decisions that address issues in detention and corrections.

How do the Core Jail Standards compare to national and state standards?
By definition, the Core Jail Standards are a subset of ACA’s broader professional ALDF standards. The
core standards are not only shorter in form, they also address a narrower range of issues. There are only
138 expected practices in the Core Jail Standards, as compared with almost 400 expected practices in
the current ALDF standards.
State standards vary widely in breadth and scope. Figure 5 illustrates the scope of the Core Jail
Standards, the ALDF standards, and the range of state standards. This comparison uses two hypothetical
state examples, one a state with basic standards (low scope) and the other with more ambitious
standards (high scope).
Figure 5. Scope of ALDF, Core, and Selected State Jail Standards

States jail standards take different approaches with regard to:


3

Scope of the standards (aspects of jail management and operation that are addressed);

th

st

Published by CRS, Inc., Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. The 20 and 21 editions were available in 2008 and 2009; the
nd
22 edition was released in 2010. Information at http://www.correction.org.

Page 8 National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

National Jail Exchange 2011

http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange



Level of detail provided in the standards;



Provisions for inspection; and



Duty and authority to enforce compliance.

For example, Figure 6 compares the scope of the first draft of the Core Jail Standards to Michigan’s
minimum standards for jails. With a total of 32 provisions, the Michigan jail standards are considered to
have a very narrow scope. Several functional areas are not addressed at all by the Michigan standards.
Figure 6. Comparison of First Draft of the Core Jail Standards to Michigan Minimum Standards for Jails

By contrast, the jail standards developed for use in Tennessee by the Tennessee Corrections Institute
address a broader range of issues, providing 86 standards. Figure 7 shows how the issues addressed in
Tennessee’s standards compare with the field test draft of the Core Jail Standards. (Different versions of
the Core Jail Standards were used for these comparisons, with a different total number of standards.)

Page 9 National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

National Jail Exchange 2011

http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

Figure 7: Comparison of Field Test Draft Core Jail Standards to Tennessee Jail Standards

How were the Core Jail Standards field tested?
The first draft of the Core Jail Standards was field tested in 2008 in the U.S. Army disciplinary barracks at
Fort Knox, Kentucky, leading to the facility’s accreditation. In May 2009, ACA asked Mackinac County,
Michigan, to field test the final draft to provide insights to the ACA Standards Committee for its meeting
in early August. Although the short time frame was daunting, Sheriff Scott Strait agreed to take on the
challenge.
NIC assisted by sending former Hillsborough County, Florida, jail director David Parrish to Mackinac
County to review the county’s preparations and identify deficiencies. His insights proved invaluable, and
his encouragement gave Mackinac officials the confidence to finish the process. The county also
received additional assistance from the NIC Information Center, the U.S. Army (which provided sample
policies and procedures), and other sources.
By late July 2009, the county’s preparations were complete. ACA sent David Haasenritter, the head of
the U.S. Army’s jail system, to conduct a formal audit. Mark Flowers, ACA’s standards and accreditation
director, also participated in the audit.
Haasenritter opened the audit by warning Sheriff Strait and Jail Administrator Tim Ahlborn that even
though it was only a field test, the audit would be taken seriously. According to Sheriff Strait, “He made
Page National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

10

National Jail Exchange 2011

http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

sure that we had done everything right. At the end of the two-day audit, it was clear that Mackinac
County had made the grade.”
The Mackinac County jail formally received accreditation from ACA at the association’s annual
conference in Nashville on August 10, 2009. At the accreditation hearing the day before, the fivemember Commission on Accreditation panel had praised the county and thanked its representatives for
advancing the profession by testing the standards on short notice.
The Core Jail Standards had been adopted the preceding Friday by the ACA Standards Committee.
During testimony to the committee before its vote to adopt the standards, Sheriff Strait told members
that he had been “looking for a road map” that would help him operate a safe, secure, and
constitutional jail. Now that road map had arrived.

How are agencies using the Core Jail Standards?
The new standards apply to jails of all sizes. During their development, many larger jails had expressed a
strong interest in the new standards and asked that ACA set no size limits for the application of the
standards.
ACA officials decided to make the Core Jail Standards available to the field at no cost, with the hope that
this would make them accessible to the counties that most needed the guidance they provide. (See note
at the end of this article on how to obtain a copy of the Core Jail Standards.)
ACA also has developed a new, lower-cost audit process for accreditation using the Core Jail Standards.
Costs to agencies are typically around $6,000 plus travel expenses for the auditors.
Any jail can use the Core Jail Standards for self- and peer audits of their jail facilities and operations. A
self-audit form is also available for agency use.
Agencies are using the new standards in a variety of ways.


Because state jail standards do not address all of the areas that pose liability, Michigan sheriffs
and jail managers are developing a self- and peer-audit system that uses the core jail standards.
The Michigan Sheriffs Association is exploring strategies for organizing a system of peer audits
that would offer sheriffs and jail managers the opportunity to have their facilities and operations
evaluated by an independent group of practitioners. NIC has provided technical assistance to
the effort, which is being led by Sheriff Mike Lovelace in Marquette County.



Tennessee officials were using the Core Jail Standards as a reference in a 2011 revision of the
state’s jail standards.



The Bureau of Indian Affairs has used the core standards as the foundation for jail guidelines
that are being finalized in 2011 and will be applied in tribal jails

Page National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

11

National Jail Exchange 2011

http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange



Several other state governments have indicated that the core standards will be helpful as they
to review and update their jail standards.

What tools is ACA making available for jails that may seek certification
on the Core Jail Standards?
ACA is developing several new tools to help managers implement and comply with the Core Jail
Standards.


Outcome measures are being defined for each of the standards that will include a detailed
explanation of each term and element.



An Excel-based program will make it easier to deploy outcome measures and to use them to
identify trends (see Figure 8).



A compilation of federal court decisions that underpin the Core Jail Standards will help jail
managers understand and communicate the related legal issues.



A “how to” manual will explain the standards and provide guidance for agencies that want to
move toward compliance.

Figure 8. Sample of Excel-Based Program for Outcome Measures

Page National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

12

National Jail Exchange 2011

http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

Conclusion
The jail profession has responded with interest to the Core Jail Standards. In 2010, NIC sent the Core Jail
Standards to every city and county jail. The standards have found practical uses at the local level,
providing jail managers with needed guidance. By late 2011, several jails had received certification or
accreditation on the Core Jail Standards, and many more have begun working with ACA to prepare for
accreditation reviews.
The Core Jail Standards are a good idea whose time has come. They represent a new paradigm for ACA,
which continues to provide professional standards to all of the disciplines that comprise the field of
corrections. While the ACA professional standards continue to evolve, for the first time, there’s
something that has been proven helpful and accessible to all agencies. This will be of great benefit to jail
leaders, jail workers, and jail residents throughout the country. We salute the working groups, the
supporting agencies and organizations, and the pioneering jail jurisdictions that have been early
adopters.

Resources
ACA has given permission for the author to share the Core Jail Standards with jails in an electronic
format. A self-audit tool is also available. To request either of these files, contact Rod Miller at
rod@correction.org.

About the Author
Rod Miller is the founder of Community Resource Services, Inc., a non-profit organization established in
1972 that provides services to clients at the local, regional, state, and national levels. Rod has authored
many texts on such topics as staffing analysis, vulnerability assessment, jail planning and design,
standards and jail inmate work programs. CRS, Inc., publishes the Detention and Corrections Caselaw
Catalog and the Detention and Corrections Caselaw Quarterly. Rod can be reached at (717) 338-9100 or
rod@correction.org. See www.correction.org for more details.

Page National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

13

National Jail Exchange 2011

http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

Appendix A. Participants in the Core Standards Development Process

David Parrish, Hillsborough County, Florida

2000
ALDF
Working
Group

2008
Working
Group

2009
Working
Group



Chair

Vice
Chair

Harley Lappin, Director, Federal Bureau of
Prisons
Sandra Bedea-Mueller, Ocean County
Department of Corrections, New Jersey

Chair



Mark Fitzgibbons, Beaufort County Department

of Corrections, South Carolina
Jerry Frey, Hampden County Sheriff's Dept.,
Massachusetts



Steve Ingley, Executive Director, AJA



Owen Quarnberg, Utah Sheriffs' Association



Tom Rosazza, Colorado Springs, Colorado



Blake Taylor, South Carolina Department of
Corrections



Hal Wilbur, Broward County Dept. of
Corrections, Florida



John Bittick, Sheriff, Monroe County, Georgia



Stanley Glanz, Sheriff, Tulsa County, Oklahoma



David Goad, Sheriff, Alleghany County,
Maryland



Page National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

14



National Jail Exchange 2011

http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

Robert Hall, Grand Traverse County Sheriff’s
Office, Michigan



Sid Hamberlin, Bonneville County Sheriff’s
Office, Idaho



Margo Hurse, Jackson County Detention
Center, Missouri



Ted Kamatchus, Sheriff, Marshall County, Iowa



Mike Pinson, Arlington County Sheriff's Office,
Virginia



Gwyn Smith-Ingley, Executive Director, AJA



Everette Van Hoesen, Sheriff, Kay County,
Oklahoma





Jeffrey Beard, Secretary, Pennsylvania Dept. of
Corrections



Ron Budzinski FAIA, Peoria, Illinois



David Haasenritter, Army Review Board
Agency



Jim Hart, Hamilton County, Tennessee and
University of Tennessee technical assistance
team



Jamie Haight, Federal Bureau of Prisons,
Washington, D.C.



Virginia Hutchinson, Chief, NIC Jails Division,
Washington, D.C.



John May M.D., Armor Correctional Health
Services, Florida



Page National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

15

National Jail Exchange 2011

http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

David Ward, Frederick County Sheriff’s Office,
Maryland



Rod Miller, CRS, Inc., Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 



















Jim Gondles, Executive Director, ACA
Mark Flowers, Director of Standards and
Accreditation. ACA
Jeff Washington, Deputy Executive Director,
ACA



Bob Verdeyen, Former Director of Standards
and Accreditation, ACA



Document available at:
http://community.nicic.gov/blogs/national_jail_exchange/archive/2011/12/27/aca-s-core-jailstandards-focus-on-the-basics.aspx

The National Jail Exchange is an ongoing electronic journal focusing on providing information to jails
practitioners and is sponsored by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC). The contents of the articles,
the points of view expressed by the authors, and comments posted in reaction to the articles do not
necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the National Institute of Corrections.
To write an article or to learn more about the National Jail Exchange, visit the homepage for this journal
at: http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange.

Page National Jail Exchange – http://NICIC.gov/NationalJailExchange

16

APPENDIX V

INDIANA

TITLE 210 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION

Field Code Changed

Proposed Rule
LSA Document #09-793
DIGEST
Amends 210 IAC 3-1-1 to add new definitions to provide greater clarity throughout the administrative rule. Amends
210 IAC 3-1-2, concerning administration and organization, to provide clarification for jail management and level of supervision
and to provide parameters for required written report. Amends 210 IAC 3-1-3 concerning fiscal management regarding the
internal handling of monies. Amends 210 IAC 3-1-4 concerning jail personnel and the establishment of policies, including a code
of ethics, that is to be provided to new employees. Amends 210 IAC 3-1-5, concerning staff training and development, to add a
minimum numbers of hours of documented training required of jail commanders in addition to the orientation and training
needed prior to job assignment and required certified training. Amends 210 IAC 3-1-6, concerning management information
systems and inmate records, to add new requirements for information that is to be obtained regarding the intake of an offender
and make provisions for written procedures prior to the release of an offender. Amends 210 IAC 3-1-7, concerning physical
plant, to add and update the minimum requirements for all inmate living, activity, and receiving areas in addition to new
construction and renovations for adult detention facilities in order to bring them into compliance with applicable ACA standards.
Amends 210 IAC 3-1-8 concerning the commissary. Amends 210 IAC 3-1-9, concerning safety and sanitation, to add provisions
for maintenance of safety data sheets and necessary cleaning materials to be made readily accessible. Amends 210 IAC 3-1-10
concerning clothing, bedding, and personal hygiene. Amends 210 IAC 3-1-11 concerning medical care and health services.
Amends 210 IAC 3-1-12, concerning diet and food preparation, to add time for review of diets, menus, kitchen facilities, and
kitchen workers. Amends 210 IAC 3-1-13 concerning jail policies for security and control. Amends 210 IAC 3-1-14 concerning
the supervision of inmates. Amends 210 IAC 3-1-15 concerning inmate rights. Amends 210 IAC 3-1-16, concerning mail and
telephone communication, to add provisions for jail officials to monitor an offender’s incoming and outgoing mail
correspondence and telephone communications. Amends 210 IAC 3-1-17, concerning written rules for discipline of inmates, to
add rules of inmate conduct for the maintenance of order and discipline among inmates. Amends 210 IAC 3-1-18, concerning
inmate classification, to add written procedures for overriding an inmate’s objective classification result to accommodate local
needs. Amends 210 IAC 3-1-19, concerning new inmate admissions, to provide for the establishment of written procedures for
the reception, orientation, release, or transfer of inmates. Adds 210 IAC 3-1-20 concerning suicide screening and prevention.
Effective 30 days after filing with the Publisher.
IC 4-22-2.1-5 Statement Concerning Rules Affecting Small Businesses
210 IAC 3-1-1; 210 IAC 3-1-2; 210 IAC 3-1-3; 210 IAC 3-1-4; 210 IAC 3-1-5; 210 IAC 3-1-6; 210 IAC 3-1-7; 210 IAC 31-8; 210 IAC 3-1-9; 210 IAC 3-1-10; 210 IAC 3-1-11; 210 IAC 3-1-12; 210 IAC 3-1-13; 210 IAC 3-1-14; 210 IAC 3-1-15;
210 IAC 3-1-16; 210 IAC 3-1-17; 210 IAC 3-1-18; 210 IAC 3-1-19; 210 IAC 3-1-20
SECTION 1. 210 IAC 3-1-1 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
210 IAC 3-1-1 Definitions
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-8-2-1; IC 11-12-4-2
Sec. 1. Definitions. (a) "Administrative segregation" shall mean means the physical separation of inmates who are:
(1) determined to be mentally ill;
(2) escape prone;
(3) assaultive or violent;
(4) undergoing a disciplinary investigation; or
(5) likely to need protection from other inmates;
where such administrative segregation separation is determined to be necessary in order to achieve the objective of protecting
protect the welfare of prisoners and staff.
(b) "Arrestee" means a newly detained inmate awaiting arraignment.

Comment [A1]: I believe it is imperative that the
word “department” be changed throughout this
document to “Office of the Sheriff”. Typically
“department” refers to the IDOC.

Comment [A2]: Whereas some of the proposed
standards may appear to more appropriate for a
policy, it is essential to remember that no such
mechanism exists for a policy type issue to be
relayed to all 92 counties. Jail standards may at
times seem to appear more appropriate for policy,
however this level of depth is often essential due to
the turnover of sheriffs as a result of term limits,.

(c) "Bed" means a permanently installed fixture used for sleeping that is elevated at least twelve (12) inches off
the floor.
(d) "Chronic care" shall mean means medical service rendered to an inmate over a long period of time, i.e., for
example, the treatment of:
(1) diabetes;
(2) asthma; or
(3) epilepsy.
(e) "Commissioner" means the chief executive of the department.
(f) "Contraband" shall mean means property the possesion of which is that, if in possession, is a violation of an
Indiana or federal statute.
(g) "Convalescent care" shall mean means medical service rendered to an inmate to assist in the recovery from illness
or injury.
(h) “Department” means the department of correction established under IC 11-8-2-1.
(i) "Director, detention services" means the staff member appointed as the commissioner's designee and agent
who shall do the following:
(1) Supervise the jail inspectors.
(2) Oversee the inspection of all jails.
(3) Ensure reports are properly prepared and distributed.
(4) Provide technical assistance to counties upon request.
(j) "Disciplinary segregation" shall mean that status means the assigned status of an inmate, as a consequence or means
of control resulting from a for violation of jail rules, which consists of confinement in a cell, room, or other housing unit separate
from inmates who are not on disciplinary segregation status.
(k) "Disturbance" means any unauthorized inmate activity that disrupts the normal operation of a jail.
(l) "Emergency care" shall mean means care for an acute illness or unexpected health care need that cannot be deferred
until the next scheduled sick call or physician's visit.
(m) "Indigent" means any inmate with a balance of less than fifteen dollars ($15) in his or her inmate trust
account during the preceding thirty (30) days, or sixty (60) days thereafter.? How do the courts define this term? What
happens if the inmate gets $15 on the 55th day?
(n) "Inmate" shall mean any means a person detained or who is confined in any a jail. governed by these rules.
(o) "Inspection" means an on-site visit to a jail by an inspector serving as an agent of the commissioner.
(p) "Jail" shall mean a means any secure county operated or privately contracted detention facility used to confine
prisoners prior to appearance in court and sentenced prisoners. inmates.
(q) "Jail administrator", unless expressly stated otherwise, shall mean means a sheriff or other another individual who
has been assigned, designated, or delegated full-time responsibility and authority for the administration and operation of the jail
by the sheriff.
(r) "Jail officer" shall mean means a sheriff's employee whose primary duties are the daily or ongoing supervision of
jail inmates.
(s) "Major disturbance" means a disruption in the normal operation of the jail that threatens:
(1) staff control of the inmates; or

Comment [A3]:
The time frames are those established by IC 1112-5-5, which does not prescribe a dollar limit.
The $15.00 mirrors that prescribed by IDOC.
If an inmate were to receive $15.00 on the 55th
day that amount would be collected/deducted to
pay any outstanding deficits on the inmate’s
trust account.
Not sure if the court have ever defined as it
pertains to the inmate trust account.

(2) the safety or security of the jail.
(t) "Medically trained personnel" means those jail staff trained to perform a specific medical function that does
not require an independent medical judgment.
(u) "Medical preventive maintenance" shall mean means those health services including health education, medical
services, and instruction in self-care for chronic conditions.
(v) "Notice of noncompliance" means the report prepared and distributed by the jail inspector, which shall be
deemed as statutory notice of noncompliance in accordance with IC 11-12-4-2.

(w) "Obscene materials" means material that, to the average person when applying
contemporary standards, appeals to the prurient interest, which depicts or describes sexual conduct
that, when taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The term is
defined at IC 35-49-2-1. IC 11-11-3-6 provides “in the case of a confined adult, the department may not
exclude printed matter on the grounds it is obscene or pornographic unless it is obscene under Indiana law.
(x) "Operational capacity" means the total number of rated beds within a jail, including those located in
temporary holding areas such as the following:
(1) Booking.
(2) Segregation.
(3) Medical.
(y) "Overcrowding" means the total number of inmates exceeds the rated bed capacity of a jail.
(z) "Policy" shall mean means a statement declaring the following:
(1) Mission.
(2) Purpose. and idealogical
(3) Ideological position.
(aa) "Procedure" shall mean means a statement establishing the action plan to accomplish the policy.
(bb) "Prohibited property" shall mean means property, other than contraband: that
(1) the Jail Administrator sheriff does not permit an inmate to possess;
(2) that exceeds the quantity authorized property; or
(3) that is the personal or authorized property of another inmate.
Property that an inmate is otherwise permitted to possess may become prohibited property if it has been altered or due
to the means by which it is possessed or used.
(cc) "Physician" shall mean means an individual holding a license to practice medicine in Indiana issued by the medical
licensing board of Indiana.
(dd) "Publishers only rule" means the material mailed to an inmate directly from the publisher, distributor, or
an accredited institution of higher learning.
(ee) "Qualified medical personnel" shall mean means individuals engaged in the delivery of a medical or health care
service who have been licensed, certified, or otherwise properly qualified under the laws of Indiana applicable to that particular
service.
(ff) "Rated bed capacity" means the total number of permanently installed beds.
(gg) "Secured perimeter" means that portion of a jail in which inmates are secured and inmate movement is

Comment [A4]: Agreed. This definition quotes
the statutory definition as outlined in IC 35-49-2-1.

controlled by staff.
(hh) "Strip search" means the purposeful observation of the unclothed body, based on reasonable suspicion,
solely for the purpose of:
(1) detecting contraband; or
(2) deterring the introduction of contraband into the jail.
(ii) "Temporary holding" means the status assigned to the following:
(1) Newly admitted inmates.
(2) Inmates in padded cells and detoxification cells.
(jj) "Unusual occurrence" shall mean means any significant incident or disruption of normal jail procedures, policies,
routines, or activities, such as the following:
(1) A fire.
(2) A riot.
(3) A natural disaster.
(4) A suicide.
(5) An escape.
(6) An assault.
(7) A medical emergency.
(8) A hostage taking. or other
(9) Any other violation of jail rules or state laws.
(Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-1; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 a.m.: 4 IR 1808; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42
a.m.: 25 IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR-210070277RFA)
SECTION 2. 210 IAC 3-1-2 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
210 IAC 3-1-2 Administration and organization
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 2. Administration and Organization. (a) Each jail shall be managed by a single jail administrator, supervised by
the sheriff, to whom all employees or units of management are responsible.
(b) Each Jail Administrator sheriff shall prepare annually and submit, not later than March 31 after the conclusion
of each calendar year, a written report setting forth the annual statistical data and the extent and availability of services and
programs to inmates Said identifying major events that have occurred in the jail and unfunded operational needs. The
report shall be directed to the circuit court judge, and copies shall be provided to the state jail inspector, president of the county
council or city-county council, prosecutor, and president of the County board of commissioners. The report shall also be
provided to the county auditor and be maintained as a public record. At a minimum, the report shall include the
following:
(1) The total number of beds.
(2) The total number of bookings with at least the top ten (10) identified by offense.
(3) The average daily inmate population.
(4) The total number of jail and in-custody deaths by type (suicide, natural causes, homicide) with a summary of
each occurrence.
(5) The number of escapes, with a summary of each occurrence.
(6) The total number of juveniles booked into the jail via waiver or direct file.
(7) The availability of services provided at the jail.
(8) A statement on the adequacy of jail staffing levels with major deficiencies identified.
(9) A statement on the maintenance and upkeep of the jail, with major deficiencies identified.
(10) Unfunded needs and projects essential to jail operation and maintenance.
(c) Each sheriff shall develop and maintain a manual of policies and procedures which that shall guide the operation
of his county's the jail. This manual shall be jail property. All policies and procedures must be in writing and bear the

signature approval of the sheriff. The sheriff shall encourage the participation of other community agencies in the development
of policy for the jail through coordinated planning and interagency consultation. The advice and consultation of the sheriff's staff
should also be sought included in the development of policies and procedures for each jail. The manual shall be reviewed and
updated as needed, reviewed annually, and distributed documented with the sheriff's signature page in the manual. The
manual shall be made available to all employees. jail staff. It shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) A statement of the:
(A) mission;
(B) philosophy;
(C) goals; and
(D) purposes;
of the jail.
(2) Operations and maintenance of the jail.
(3) Organizational structure of the jail, its staff and program with grouping of similar functions, services and activities
into administrative sub-units; structure of the jail.
(4) Delineation of channels of communication;
(5) (4) A procedure for the monitoring of operations and programs through required inspections and reviews.
(6) (5) A system of written reports to be directed to the sheriff or jail administrator, at the sheriff's request, regarding
the normal operation of the jail, including, as at a minimum, the following:
(A) Information on major development.
(B) Serious incidents.
(C) Population data.
(D) Staff and inmate morale.
(E) Major problems and proposed plans to resolve them.
(7) (6) Staff training and professional development.
(8) (7) Employee-management relations. and
(9) (8) Staff-inmate communication. communications and interactions.
(Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-2; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 a.m.: 4 IR 1809; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42
a.m.: 25 IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR-210070277RFA)
SECTION 3. 210 IAC 3-1-3 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
210 IAC 3-1-3 Fiscal management
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 3. Fiscal Management. (a) Each sheriff shall establish written procedures to govern the internal handling of monies
All such procedures shall be consistent with all requirements of the state board of accounts and state law.
(b) Each sheriff shall maintain fiscal records which will clearly indicate the annual costs for his county's jail. Any such
records shall reflect all monies collected and disbursed during any budget period and shall be established in compliance with all
requirements of the State Board of Accounts.
(c) Each sheriff shall prepare and present annually a budget request to the appropriate government funding body. The
jail budget request should accurately reflect the needs and objectives of the subject facility.
(d) Each sheriff shall maintain a written inventory of county jail property. The inventory shall be reviewed and updated
annually. (Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-3; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 a.m.: 4 IR 1809; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001,
10:42 a.m.: 25 IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR-210070277RFA)
SECTION 4. 210 IAC 3-1-4 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
210 IAC 3-1-4 Personnel
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1

Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 4. Personnel. (a) Each sheriff shall establish written jail personnel policies and procedures that include a code of
ethics, and a copy shall be provided to each new jail employee. (Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-4; filed Jul 27,
1981, 10:30 a.m.: 4 IR 1810; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42 a.m.: 25 IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.:
20070725-IR-210070277RFA)
SECTION 5. 210 IAC 3-1-5 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
210 IAC 3-1-5 Training and staff development
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 5. Training and Staff Development. (a) Each sheriff shall establish a written training and staff development plan for
all jail employees. This plan shall be:
(1) based on the jail's manual of policies and procedures; It shall be and
(2) evaluated and revised as needed annually.
(b) Each new jail officer shall receive forty (40) the following:
(1) A minimum of eighty (80)[cost to be addressed] hours of orientation and training at the jail prior to job
assignment. and shall receive
(2) An additional forty (40) hours certified training during the first year of employment. Each jail officer shall receive
documented training each year thereafter.
The forty (40) hours of certified training during in the first year of employment shall be received through the Indiana law
enforcement training board. Each jail officer shall receive necessary training each subsequent year to ensure compliance
with these standards.
(c) In addition to the training required in subsection (b), each jail commander shall receive a minimum of
twenty-four (24) hours of documented training each calendar year. Cost to be addressed.
(c) (d) All personnel authorized to use firearms shall be trained in weaponry on a continuing in-service and documented
firearms training course. Failure to qualify for continued firearm use shall be deemed just cause for administrative reevaluation
or dismissal.
(1) No employee shall be authorized by the sheriff to use firearms unless that employee has been given training in the
legal requirements of firearm use and the legal aspects of the use of deadly force.
(2) Detailed training records are required and shall be maintained on all firearms training.
training.

(d) (e) Each sheriff shall include training as a budget item in his jail's the annual budget request to pay for this required

(f) A training file shall be maintained for each jail employee. (Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-5; filed Jul
27, 1981, 10:30 a.m.: 4 IR 1810; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42 a.m.: 25 IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.:
20070725-IR-210070277RFA)
SECTION 6. 210 IAC 3-1-6 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
210 IAC 3-1-6 Management information systems and inmate records
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 6. Management Information Systems and Inmate Records. (a) An intake form shall be completed for every inmate
admitted to any county jail. Such The form shall contain, but is not limited to, the following information, unless otherwise
prohibited by statute:
(1) Booking number.
(2) Date and time of intake.

Comment [A5]: This training is provided on the
job, thus no additional cost to the county should be
incurred.

Comment [A6]: Not sure how to adequately
address this question. There are several ways to
obtain the needed continuing education prescribed.
It could be satisfied via correspondence courses,
participation in regional meetings, etc.

(3) Name and aliases.
(4) Last known address.
(5) Date and time of commitment and authority therefor.
(6) Name, title, and signature of delivering officer.
(7) Specific charge or charges.
(8) Physical description, including any scars, marks, or tattoos.
(9) Mug shot and fingerprints.
(10) Sex.
(11) Age and date of birth.
(12) Place of birth.
(13) Race.
(14) Occupation.
(15) Name and address of last place of employment; employer.
(16) Health status.
(17) Name and relationship of next of kin.
(18) Address of next of kin.
(19) Court and sentence.
(20) Notation of cash and personal property. and
(21) Space for remarks (to include Notation of any:
(A) open wounds; of
(B) sores requiring treatment;
(C) evidence of disease or body vermin; or tatoos).
(D) tattoos.
(22) Name of health insurance carrier.
(23) Name of primary care physician.
(24) Education level, to include the name and location of last school attended if no high school diploma.
(25) Prior commitments.
(26) Nationality or citizenship.
(27) Social Security number, and if any Social Security benefits are currently being received.
(b) Records shall be maintained on all inmates committed or assigned to any county jail. Such The records shall
contain, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Intake information.
(2) Commitment papers and court order or orders.
(3) Cash and personal property receipts.
(4) Reports of disciplinary actions or unusual occurrences.
(5) Work record.
(6) Program involvement. and
(7) Medical orders issued by the jail physician or his or her designee.
(c) Each sheriff shall do the following:
(1) Maintain on a daily basis written data concerning population movement, including but not limited to, the following:
(1) (A) Admission.
(2) (B) Processing. and
(3) (C) Release of pretrial detainees and sentenced inmates.
(d) Each sheriff shall (2) Establish a written procedure requiring the prompt reporting of all incidents that:
(A) result in physical harm;
(B) threaten the safety of any person in the jail; or
(C) threaten the security of the jail.
(e) Each sheriff shall (3) Establish written policies and procedures regarding access to and release of inmate records.
Such The policies and procedures shall insure ensure that inmate records are current, accurate, and safeguarded from
unauthorized and improper disclosure.
(f) (d) An inmate's medical record file shall not be in any way part of the confinement record.

(e) Each sheriff shall establish a written procedure requiring that, prior to the release of any offender, the jail
staff shall:
(1) perform an IDACS and NCIC search; or
(2) contact the department to determine whether:
(A) the offender is currently under the department's jurisdiction; or
(B) there are any other outstanding wants or warrants for the offender.
(Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-6; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 a.m.: 4 IR 1810; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42
a.m.: 25 IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR-210070277RFA)
SECTION 7. 210 IAC 3-1-7 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
210 IAC 3-1-7 Physical plant
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 7. Physical Plant. (a) All inmate living and activity areas in each jail shall provide for the following minimum
requirements:
(1) Illumination shall be sufficient for reading and writing throughout the living area. Readings of at least twenty (20)
foot-candles are required at desk level and in grooming areas.
(2) Circulation of fresh air sufficient to remove stale air and orders odors from the living area. This requirement shall
be satisfied if the County Board of Health certifies jail inspector documents, per ACA standards, that the air in the
living area is not harmful to the inmates. provides sufficient cubic feet of air per minute per inmate.
(3) A heating system sufficient to insure healthful ensure healthy and comfortable living and working conditions for all
inmates and staff. Temperatures shall be maintained at a comfortable level, consistent with exterior conditions, clothing
and bedding issued. acceptable with ACA standards' quality of life. Define ACA and which standards.
Incorporate by reference? See Rule Drafting Manual, pages 77-78.
(4) Each cell shall have direct access to the following:
(A) A toilet.
(B) A washbasin with hot and cold[cost to be addressed] running water. and
(C) A bunk.
(5) There shall be at least one (1) toilet and one (1) shower per twelve (12) male inmates in the activity area. and per
eight (8) female inmates.[cost to be addressed?] This requirement shall be satisfied as to toilet access if cells are
accessible to the inmates at all the time.
(b) The reception inmate receiving area shall be located inside the security perimeter but outside inmate living quarters
It shall and have the following minimum components:
(1) Weapon lockers, located outside the security area.
(2) A temporary holding space which that has the following:
(A) Sufficient seating capacity for all inmates assigned.
(B) Audio and visual communication. and
(C) Available toilets and washbasins with hot and cold running water.
(3) A booking area, with CCTV camera recording[cost to be addressed].
(4) A medical examination area.
(5) Shower facilities.
(6) Vault or Secure area for storage of inmate's personal property. and
(7) Telephone facilities.
(c) To provide security and assure compliance with fire safety regulations, Supply areas shall be separate from inmate
living and activity areas and kept secured when not in use. There shall be adequate space for the following:
(1) Storage and security of keys.
(2) Weapons.
(3) Medications.
(4) Tools.

Comment [A7]: Add definition: ACA =
American Correctional Association
I recommend this be changed to read “64-84
degrees” consistent with (and then add the deleted
language back in).
Comment [A8]: This is no change from existing
standards, thus there is no additional costs.
Comment [A9]: Change back to 1:12 ratio and
there will be no additional costs to the county.

Comment [A10]: Approx cost is $500.00 to add
and program a camera.

(5) Evidence.
(6) Recovered stolen property.
(7) Bedding.
(8) Housekeeping equipment and supplies.
(9) Clothing.
(10) Prisoner's property.
(11) Commissary and hygiene items. and
(12) Records.
(d) Arsenals Weapons storage shall be located outside the security perimeter of the inmate living and activity areas.
Provisions shall be made for the secure storage, care, and issuance of weapons and related security equipment. The arsenal shall
be equipped with an alarm system.
(e) Each jail shall have the following:
(1) At least one (1) area suitable for inmates who must be under special medical supervision, which shall include a
negative airflow system for the control of communicable diseases.[cost to be addressed?]
(f) Each jail shall have (2) A space available for the supervision of offenders who represent special behavioral problems
including intoxification intoxication and self-destructive behavior. This area shall:
(A) be equipped with audio-video communication; and
(B) have access to toilet facilities and running water.
(g) There shall be (3) One (1) bed for each inmate, and the capacity of a jail shall be determined with the sheriff taking
into consideration the following factors:
(A) A bed for each inmate.
(B) The size of the cell or sleeping area.
(C) The size of the day room or range to which the prisoner has free access during nonsleeping hours.
(D) Time spent in activities out of the cell. and/or time spent out of range.

Comment [A11]: This is currently being done
for all new jail construction, and older jails are
grandfathered, thus there is no additional costs to the
county.

(f) The state jail inspector may adjust the rated capacity of any jail in the event that if there is a change in the physical
plant structure, or the use of that the facility indicate that such indicates a change would be is appropriate. Prior to any
adjustment in rated capacity The state jail inspector shall will review the proposed adjustment with the sheriff and the County
Commissioners. prior to any adjustment in the facility's rated capacity.

Comment [A12]: Steve: This comment is
directed back to IDOC to format this piece properly.

(h) (g) All major jail construction, renovations, or additions beginning January 1, 1982 after the effective date of
this article shall comply with the most current jail construction standards established by the American Correctional
Association (ACA) for Adult Local Detention Facilities, 4th Edition, and any subsequent changes in effect prior to the
effective date of this article, with the exception of those standards listed in subsection (h). New or revised ACA standards
shall not be adopted without amending this article. Counties shall not be held to physical plant standards not in effect
prior to the construction of their jail except as may be ordered by the courts or statute. However, renovation of an
existing jail must bring the jail into compliance with applicable ACA standards for the area under renovation.
Incorporate by reference – use proper form. See Pages 77-78 of Rule Drafting Manual.Cost to be addressed.

Comment [A13]: This is a new requirement.
Approx cost is ___________

(h) The following physical plant standards are applicable to all new construction, additions, or renovations after
the effective date of this article: [Address costs]
(1) There shall be a toilet in, or adjacent to, all indoor exercise areas.
(2) All cells may be multiple occupancy, providing there is at least thirty-five (35) square feet of space per
inmate. In dormitories, there shall be at least fifty (50) square feet of total space per inmate.
(3) Natural light shall be provided in any temporary holding area designed to hold inmates longer than seventytwo (72) hours.
(4) Detoxification cells shall have fixed seating elevated not less more than twelve (12) inches from the floor.
There shall be a water hose connection adjacent to this area accessible by staff only.
(5) All cellblocks shall have at least one (1) floor drain.
(6) There shall be no unsecured opening greater than five (5) inches in the secured perimeter of the jail.
(7) Sight separation of male and female inmates is required except for incidental contact.
(8) Video visitation is authorized.
(9) Collapsible devices shall be used in cells to suspend clothing. Clothing hooks may not be used.

Comment [A16]: The requirement already exists,
this just minimizes the height of the seating.

Cost: They are asking for the cost of the ACA
standards manual. Cost is $50.00 for the ACA
Standards.

Comment [A14]: This reduces existing costs.
Existing requirement prescribed approx 70 SF per,
and this reduces the total to 50 SF per.
Comment [A15]: This reduces costs. Currently
natural light is required in all. This eliminates this
requirement if inmates are held in an area of the jail
for less than 72 hrs.

Comment [A17]: This is a new requirement.
Approx cost per drain is ___________.
Comment [A18]: This is the current construction
standard. This just spells it out in writing.
Comment [A19]: Current requirement.
Comment [A20]: Not required but rather merely
authorizes counties to go to video visitation, many of
which now are operating in this manner. Cost is
approx $5000.00 per station installed.
Comment [A21]: Place to suspend clothing is an
existing requirement. This just prohibits this type of
device from being used.

(10) CCTV cameras shall be placed in:
(A) all inmate day rooms;
(B) all temporary holding cells;
(C) all booking areas;
(D) the intoxilizer room; and
(E) all isolation cells;
to assist staff in the supervision and control of inmates. The privacy rights of inmates shall be observed in toilet
and shower areas. CCTV equipment shall serve as a supplement to, not a substitute for, staff supervision.

Comment [A22]: This is a current requirement
Comment [A23]: This is a current requirement
Comment [A24]: This is new, and costs approx
$2000 per camera to install and program.
Comment [A25]: This is a current requirement
Comment [A26]: This is a current requirement

(i) Each sheriff shall have a written plan for preventive maintenance. The plan shall be reviewed annually and updated
annually. as needed. (Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-7; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 a.m.: 4 IR 1811; readopted filed Nov
15, 2001, 10:42 a.m.: 25 IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR-210070277RFA)
SECTION 8. 210 IAC 3-1-8 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
210 IAC 3-1-8 Commissary
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 8. Commissary. (a) Each If a jail provides inmate commissary services, it shall be managed and operated in a
manner consistent with Indiana law. (Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-8; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 a.m.: 4 IR 1811;
readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42 a.m.: 25 IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR-210070277RFA)
SECTION 9. 210 IAC 3-1-9 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
210 IAC 3-1-9 Safety and sanitation
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 9. Safety and Sanitation. (a) Each jail shall be maintained in a safe and sanitary condition in compliance with state
and local health, sanitation, safety, and fire laws.
(b) Inmates incarcerated in each jail shall have the responsibility for maintaining their own cells and living areas in a
safe and sanitary condition. Jail officials shall make Necessary cleaning equipment including mops, brooms, scouring cleanser,
soap and disinfectant, available materials shall be provided to inmates on a daily basis to assist inmates in meeting their
cleaning responsibility. and as needed.
(c) Each All areas of a jail shall be inspected by a designated jail official at least once per week. Each living area shall
be inspected by designated jail officials daily. Written inspection reports shall be maintained, and steps shall be taken promptly
to remedy unsafe or unsanitary conditions.
(d) Each jail shall be inspected weekly monthly by a licensed exterminator[lower cost to be addressed] for evidence
of insects and rodents. Licensed extermination services shall be obtained to spray or treat facilities as often as necessary. to
eliminate insects and rodents. Inmates shall be removed from an area if spraying or fogging is necessary and cannot properly be
accomplished if inmates are present.
(e) Faulty plumbing fixtures shall be promptly repaired or replaced as may be necessary. after receipt and confirmation
of a report of malfunctioning equipment.
(f) Exits shall be:
(1) clearly marked;
(2) continuously illuminated;
(3) kept clear of obstructions; and
(4) in usuable usable condition.

Comment [A27]: I think this could be deleted.
Staff can inspect.

(g) The sheriff shall do the following:
(1) Establish a written evacuation plan for use in the event of fire or major emergency. Appropriate evacuation
instructions shall be posted maintained in all living and working areas of each jail. the main control room and all
satellite control rooms. Staff fire drills shall be conducted as required by the state fire marshal and the results of
each drill documented.
(h) The Sheriff shall (2) Request that the local board of health inspect the jail at least semi-annually. annually.
(i) The Sheriff shall (3) Establish written policies and procedures concerning safety, sanitation, and control of supplies.
Material safety data sheets for all caustic, toxic, or flammable materials shall be maintained in the control room
or an area accessible to staff twenty-four (24) hours per day.
(Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-9; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 a.m.: 4 IR 1811; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42
a.m.: 25 IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR-210070277RFA)
SECTION 10. 210 IAC 3-1-10 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
210 IAC 3-1-10 Clothing, bedding, and personal hygiene
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 10. Clothing and Personal Hygiene. (a) Each jail shall provide for the issue of clean, suitable clothing, bedding and
towels linen, a towel, and a sleeping mat to each new inmate. Clean Each inmate shall be provided adequate material and
disinfectant to cleanse his or her sleeping mat prior to transfer or release. Jail clothing bedding and towels authorized
personal undergarments shall be laundered or exchanged at least weekly. Bed linen shall be issued at least laundered
weekly, These items and blankets shall be laundered at least monthly. All clothing and bedding shall be maintained in
serviceable condition, and in sufficient number quantity to supply each jail's inmate population.
(b) Each inmate shall be provided with items necessary to maintain personal hygiene. Shaving materials bar soap,
toothbrush, and toothpaste. Industrial hand soap shall not be issued to inmates. Women available at least three (3) times per
week unless the inmate poses a security, safety, or suicide risk. Female inmates shall be provided with choice of tampons or
personal sanitary napkins. items to maintain personal hygiene.[costs to be addressed.]
(c) Inmates shall:
(1) shower and shampoo his or her hair upon admission to the jail's general population; and shall
(2) be afforded the opportunity to shower at least three (3) times per week thereafter unless an emergency or a threat to
jail security exists.
(d) Each inmate shall be:
(1) allowed, upon request, to have his or her hair cut at least once every six (6) weeks at his or her own expense; and
(e) All Inmates shall be (2) provided the opportunity to wear their personal clothing when they appear in court for a
jury trial.
(f) (e) The sheriff may supervise and control the hygiene, grooming, and attire of jail inmates to the extent reasonably
necessary to maintain a sanitary, safe, and secure environment. The sheriff shall reserve the right, with reasonable cause, to
order an inmate's hair be cut by a licensed barber or beautician in order to maintain a sanitary and secure living and
work environment. (Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-10; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 a.m.: 4 IR 1812; readopted filed
Nov 15, 2001, 10:42 a.m.: 25 IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR-210070277RFA)
SECTION 11. 210 IAC 3-1-11 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
210 IAC 3-1-11 Medical care and health services
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 11. Medical Care and Health Services. (a) A duly licensed physician shall be responsible for medical services in
each jail.

Comment [A28]: No additional costs. This just
cleans up the previous language by prescribing the
frequency.

(b) Procedures necessary to deliver medical services to inmates shall be:
(1) in writing; and shall be
(2) approved by the responsible physician; and
(3) reviewed by the sheriff.
(c) State licensing and/or or certification, or both, requirements and restrictions shall apply to all health care personnel
working with jail inmates. Copies of all licensing and/or or certification, or both, credentials shall be on file with the sheriff. Jail
security regulations shall apply to all medical personnel.
(d) Whenever medical services are to be delivered routinely in any jail, adequate space, equipment, supplies, and
materials as determined by the responsible physician shall be provided.
(e) First aid kits shall be available in each jail. The responsible physician shall approve the contents number and
location of such kits and the procedure for periodic inspection of all first aid kits.
(f) Each inmate shall be medically screened upon admission to jail and before placement in the general population or
living area. Screening data must be recorded on a form approved by the responsible physician and shall include, but not be
limited to, the following:
(1) Current illnesses and health problems, including those specific to women.
(2) History of drug and/or or alcohol, or both, use.
(3) Current medications taken.
(4) Special health requirements.
(5) Screening of other health problems designated by the responsible physician.
(6) Behavioral observations, including state of consciousness and observable mental status.
(7) Notation of the following:
(A) Body deformities.
(B) Trauma markings.
(C) Bruises.
(D) Lesions.
(E) Jaundice. and ease
(F) Restriction of movement.
(8) Condition of skin and visible body orifices, including rashes and infestation. and
(9) Disposition or referral of the inmate to qualified medical personnel on an emergency basis.
(g) Within fourteen (14) days following arrival at the jail, an inmate shall be given the opportunity to receive undergo a
medical examination assessment conducted by the responsible physician or his designees. a licensed nurse.
(h) An inmate shall be informed upon admission that medical complaints shall be collected daily and responded to by
medically trained personnel. Qualified medical personnel shall follow up on all complaints and allocate treatment according to
priority of need. A physician shall be available at least once a week weekly to evaluate and respond to inmate medical
complaints.
(i) Each jail shall provide arrange for twenty-four (24) hour emergency medical, and dental, and psychological care
availability pursuant to a written plan which that includes, as a minimum, arrangements for the following:
(1) Emergency evacuation of the inmate from within the facility.
(2) Use of an emergency medical vehicle.
(3) Use of one (1) or more designated hospital emergency rooms or other appropriate health facilities.
(4) Emergency on call physicians and dentist services when the emergency health facility is not located in a nearby
community. and
(5) Security procedures that provide for the immediate transfer of inmates when appropriate.
(6) Emergency psychological services to prevent personal injury.[Cost to be addressed?]
(j) Jail personnel shall be trained in the use of emergency care procedures and shall have current training in basic first
aid equipment. At least one (1) person per shift shall have training in receiving, screening, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR),

Comment [A29]: I would change this to read
“Arrangements for emergency …….. “ Cost as
negotiated by each county not to exceed the
prevailing Medicaid/Medicare rates.”

and recognition of symptons symptoms of the common illnesses. most common to the facility. All jail officers shall be trained
regarding recognition of symptoms of mental illness and retardation and suicide screening and prevention.
(1) No jail shall accept delivery of an unconscious or critically injured person. In consultation with the responsible
physician, the sheriff shall establish a blood alcohol content (BAC) level above which the jail may refuse to
accept an inmate without medical screening. All medical screenings prior to booking shall be at the arrestee's
expense. A copy of this policy shall be provided to local law enforcement agencies.
(2) All Any inmate injured inmates while detained in the jail shall be examined immediately by a competent medical
person. A description of the injury should be recorded and photographs taken when appropriate. Any inmate's refusal
of medical care shall be:
(A) thoroughly documented;
(B) signed by the inmate; and
(C) witnessed by staff.
(k) Jail officials shall use their best efforts to obtain any medication prescribed by a physician. All medications shall be
administered in the dosage and with the frequency prescribed. No substitutions of medications shall be made without the
prescribing responsible physician's written approval.
(1) Any jail officer who administers medication shall have received documented training from through the responsible
physician. and The jail administrator:
(A) is accountable for administering the administration of medications according to orders; and
(B) must record the all administration of medication in a manner and on a form approved by the responsible
physician.
(2) A structured system for pharmacy storage, accountability, and distribution shall be established in accordance with
recognized medical standards as determined by the responsible physician.
(3) An inmate's prescribed medication, by a responsible physician, shall accompany the inmate in the original
container with the inmate's medical records upon transfer to another facility or upon release.
(l) Each jail The responsible physician shall be listed list the jail with the Drug Enforcement Administration as a place
of practice. by the responsible physician. Missing controlled substances shall be reported to the Indiana board of pharmacy
using DEA Form 160.
(m) Each sheriff shall do the following:
(1) Establish policies and procedures for the development and disposition of each inmate's medical records. and shall
(2) Provide secure and confidential storage of such the records consistent with physician-patient privileges.
Nonmedical personnel shall have access to these records as provided by law. A sealed copy of an inmate's facility medical
record shall accompany the inmate upon transfer to another facility.
(n) Each sheriff shall have a policy providing for the provision of private medical, dental, and optometry services
when requested by the inmate. The services shall be at the inmate's own expense. (Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-111; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 a.m.: 4 IR 1812; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42 a.m.: 25 IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6,
2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR-210070277RFA)
SECTION 12. 210 IAC 3-1-12 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
210 IAC 3-1-12 Diet and food preparation
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 12. Diet and Food Preparation. (a) Each sheriff shall establish written policies and procedures concerning the
quantity and quality of food served to inmates.
(b) Food shall not be used as a reward or withheld as a disciplinary measure. All meals shall be served under the
supervision of the jail administrator or his or her designee. There shall be no not more than fourteen (14) hours between the
evening meal and breakfast. Inmates shall be served three (3) meals each day. At least one (1) meal each day shall be served hot.
(c) Menus shall:

(1) be prepared in advance, and records of all menus and all meals served shall be retained; Menus shall meet the
approval of
(2) be approved by a qualified dietician; and food preparation and the storage shall be in compliance with local and
state health standards. Each menu shall include the recommended dietary allowance for food nutrients specified by the
National Academy of Science, Food and Nutrition Board.
(3) reflect the average daily caloric intake; and
(4) be reviewed every two (2) years or after any substantial change in daily inmate physical activity.
All food service areas and equipment shall be inspected daily by administrative jail personnel. All food must be placed on racks
off the floor. Food must be covered or enclosed while being transported to the inmate area.
be met:

(d) To insure ensure that the jail kitchen is maintained in a safe and sanitary condition, the following requirements shall
(1) All kitchen equipment and floors shall be cleaned daily. Walls and vents shall be cleaned regularly.
(2) The sheriff or jail administrator shall request that the local health officer, or an otherwise qualified agency, conduct
periodic inspections of the kitchen facilities at least annually, to insure ensure compliance with established health and
sanitary standards.
(3) Eating utensils shall be sanitized after each use. Alternatively, plastic disposal utensils may be used for each meal.
(4) Kitchen equipment must be operational and safe for use.
(5) Inmates working in the kitchen shall be given a preservice examination and periodic examinations a daily visual
examination thereafter to insure ensure that they do not have any contagious diseases or other ailments which that
could facilitate food contamination. Inmates shall wear clothing approved for food handling when they are assigned to
working in the kitchen and during the delivery of food to inmates.

(e) Medical diets approved by the responsible physician shall be honored. Religious diets shall be honored to the extent
that the required food is readily accessible in the community where the jail is located. Any refusal to grant a medical or religious
diet shall be reported in writing to the sheriff or jail administrator.
(f) Each sheriff shall establish in writing a control system to monitor and control food pilferage, misuse, or spoilage.
(Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-12; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 a.m.: 4 IR 1813; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42
a.m.: 25 IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR-210070277RFA)
SECTION 13. 210 IAC 3-1-13 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
210 IAC 3-1-13 Security and control
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 13. Security and Control. (a) Each sheriff shall establish a manual setting forth the jail's policies and procedures for
security and control. This manual shall be distributed available to all jail personnel and shall be reviewed annually and updated
as needed. Documentation of this review shall be signed by the sheriff and maintained in front of the manual. The manual
shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) Supervision.
(2) Searches and seizures.
(3) Facility security.
(4) Shakedowns.
(5) Firearms and other weapons.
(6) Maintenance of security equipment.
(7) Key control.
(8) Tool Control of the following:
(A) Tools.
(B) Sharp culinary equipment.
(C) Medical instruments.
(D) Razors.
(9) Records control and release of information.
(10) Population count.

(11) Chemical agents.
(12) Post orders.
(13) Escapes.
(14) Emergency situations, including the following:
(A) A fire.
(B) A disturbance.
(C) An assault.
(D) A taking of hostages.
(E) Natural disasters.
(15) Transportation of inmates. and,
(16) The use of physical force.
(17) Responding to a suicide attempt or suicidal inmate.
Jail officers shall be trained consistent with provisions of the security and control manual. Pre Pretraining and posttraining
examinations shall be administered to each jail officer and the results made part of the employee's record.
(b) Inmates shall not be permitted to handle, use, or have jail keys of any type in their possession. There shall be at least
one (1) full set of keys, separate from those in use, stored in a safe place accessible only to jail personnel, for use in event of an
emergency. Keys are to be color coded and classified pursuant to a key numbering and lettering system.
(c) The use of physical force by jail personnel shall be restricted to instances of justifiable self-protection, protection of
inmates from self-harm, protection of others, protection of property, and prevention of escapes. Only that force shall be used
only to the degree necessary and to control an inmate consistent with any stautory statutory limitations shall be authorized.
Written reports following any use of force shall be promptly submitted to the sheriff or his or her designee.
(1) Only weapons approved by the sheriff shall be used by jail personnel in emergency situations. Any jail employee
who discharges a firearm in the course of his or her duty shall promptly submit a written report to the sheriff.
(2) Lethal weapons shall not be permitted beyond a designated area to which inmates have no access, except in
emergency situations as approved by the sheriff.
(3) Persons designated to authorize the use of tear gas, mace, or other chemical agents nonlethal repellants or security
devices shall be:
(A) named in writing; and shall be
(B) trained in the proper employment deployment of the chemical agents. these items.
(4) Each sheriff shall establish procedures for the treatment of persons injured as a result of a weapon or chemical
agent. the application of force.
(d) Each jail shall maintain a secure communication control center separate from other jail detention and administrative
functions. Jail officers and other personnel assigned to jail duty shall be trained in security measures and the handling of special
incidents such as the following:
(1) Assaults.
(2) Disturbances.
(3) Deaths.
(4) Fires. and
(5) Suicide attempts.
(6) Natural disasters.
Each jail shall have an audio communication system between the communication control center and the inmate living area that
can be activated from the inmate living areas in an emergency.[cost to be addressed?]
(e) Each jail shall have equipment necessary to maintain central lights, power, and communication in an emergency.
Emergency equipment shall be:
(1) tested at least weekly for effectiveness; and shall be
(2) promptly repaired or replaced as necessary.
(f) Security equipment shall be:
(1) sufficient to meet facility needs; and shall be
(2) stored in a secure place, but readily accessible area. to staff.
There shall be a sufficient quantity of restraints, mechanical or disposable, or both, to evacuate all inmates from the jail

Comment [A30]: Approx cost is $75.00 per
station

in an emergency.[cost to be addressed?]
(g) All:
(1) security perimeter entrances;
(2) control center doors;
(3) cellblock doors; and
(4) cell doors opening into a corridor;
shall be kept locked except when used for admission or exit of employees, inmates, or visitors and emergencies. No jail officer
shall enter a high security cell area, or any other area in which a disturbance is occurring, without backup assistance being
alerted and available for immediate assistance.
(h) Jail officials may perform searches and seize contraband or prohibited property. Sheriffs may limit the personal
items an inmate may possess in their living area by both quantity and volume. However, an inmate may possess those
legal papers necessary for access to the courts and legal matters pertaining to their current court case or cases and
responses to grievances. How does this comport with IC 11-11-7-1?Jail officials may shall inform an inmate inmates of the
items of property he is they are permitted to possess, in which event all other property not contraband is prohibited property.
Property that an inmate is otherwise permitted to possess may become prohibited property due to the means by which it is
possessed or used or if the quantity possessed exceeds that permitted. The sheriff or jail administrator shall establish written
procedure providing for a written record concerning the seizure of contraband or prohibited property, receipts for property
seized, and appropriate disposition of seized property.
(1) Notice in writing shall be given inmates and visitors as to the items not considered contraband or prohibited
property.
(2) Visitors and inmates may shall be searched at jails where contact visiting is permitted. Visitors must be provided:
(A) clear notice of the possibility of a search; and
(B) the opportunity to decline their visit request upon receiving the notice.
(3) Body cavity searches of visitors may be conducted: only
(A) by medical personnel of the same sex as the person being searched. Visitors must be given clear notice of
the possibility of body cavity searches and may decline their request to visit upon receiving this notice. The
grounds on which body cavity searches may be conducted shall be clearly stated; only; and
(B) solely as a result of the execution of a search warrant.
(4) Inmates permitted to leave the jail temporarily, for any reason, shall be thoroughly searched prior to leaving and
strip searchedbefore reentering the jail.Doesn’t a mandatory strip search on re-entry conflict with (7), below? Searches
and seizures shall be conducted so as to avoid unnecessary force, embarrassment, or indignity to inmates.
(5) The sheriff shall establish written policies and procedures concerning the following:
(A) Contraband, prohibited property, searches and seizures of property.
(B) Searches. Personal searches may include the following:
(i) Pat down searches.
(ii) Frisk searches.
(iii) Strip searches.
(iv) Body cavity searches.
(v) Metal detection scanners.
(vi) Other designated, legally approved devices.
Cell and area searches will also be conducted routinely by staff.
(6) Incidental visual observation during clothing exchange and showering is not considered a search. However,
the use of:
(A) privacy barriers;
(B) opaque partitions; and
(C) same gender observation;
are encouraged.
(7) Generally, the least invasive form of search and observation should be conducted. Strip searches shall only be
conducted when a reasonable suspicion exists that an inmate may be in possession of weapons, drugs, or
contraband. Mere admission to a jail (arrestee) is insufficient cause alone to conduct a strip search.
(8) All strip searches and body cavity searches conducted shall be:
(A) documented on the form prescribed by the Indiana Sheriff's Association; and
(B) maintained in the inmate's file.

Comment [A31]: No additional costs. It is out
of place here and should have been inserted as a part
of item (1) above.

Comment [A32]: This expands IC 11-11-7-12
primarily because it includes pretrial inmates, which
IDOC does not.
Comment [A33]: Not sure what the question is
here. Example: If an inmate was issued one
sleeping mat, but has two, the second would be
considered prohibited property.

Comment [A34]: I would really like to see this
stay, so I have modified item 7 below .

Comment [A35]: or has had exposure to the
public or public areas subsequent to detention.

(i) Arrestee strip searches shall be conducted only when there is reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is in
possession of a contraband item. Reasonable belief must be based on an individualized suspicion relevant to the
following:
(1) The current charge or charges or previous conviction or convictions for any of the following:
(A) Escape.
(B) Possession of drugs or weapons.
(C) Crimes of violence.
(2) Fugitive or detainer for any of the above crimes.
(3) Current or a history of institutional possession of contraband or prohibited property or attempted escape.
(4) Refusal to submit to a frisk or pat search.
(5) Contact with the public or exposure to public areas after arrest.
(6) Weapons or drugs discovered during pat or frisk search.
(7) Alerted by a metal or drug detection device.
(8) Reliable information arrestee possesses drugs, weapons, or contraband.
(j) Inmate strip searches shall be conducted only when there is reasonable suspicion that the inmate is in
possession of a contraband item. Reasonable belief may be based on an individualized suspicion relevant to the following:
(1) Reliable information that the inmate possesses contraband.
(2) The discovery of contraband in the inmate's cell or living area.
(3) A serious incident in which the inmate was involved or present.
(4) A refusal to submit to a frisk or pat search.
(5) Contact with the public or exposure to public areas.
(6) After a contact visit.
(7) Returned to custody from community status, for example, weekenders, work crew, or work release.
(8) Medical appointment, etc.
(9) Alerted by a metal or drug detection device.
(10) Placement in segregation for disciplinary reasons or self-protection.
(11) Court ordered detention after outside court appearance.
(12) Court authorized as a condition of confinement or probation.
(13) Inmate exposure to tools, medical instruments, or sharp culinary items.
(k) As a best practice each sheriff shall enter into a mutual aid agreement with necessary local and adjacent
county law enforcement agencies for the provision of services in the event of an emergency exceeding the department's
capability. Aid agreements shall also be established with local agencies for the provision of housing, material, and
services in an emergency. Where is the legal authority of DOC to mandate mutual aid agreements?
(l) In the event of a disturbance, a sheriff may place groups of inmates in lockdown status until such time as an
investigation into the disturbance can be completed and the safety and security of the jail is assured. Such decision shall
be reviewed by the sheriff at least every seven (7) days. (Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-13; filed Jul 27, 1981,
10:30 a.m.: 4 IR 1814; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42 a.m.: 25 IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.:
20070725-IR-210070277RFA)

Comment [A36]: I know of no authority so I
prefaced the requirement. Not sure this will satisfy
AG though.

SECTION 14. 210 IAC 3-1-14 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
210 IAC 3-1-14 Supervision of inmates
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 14. Supervision of Inmates. (a) There shall be sufficient jail personnel present in the jail at all times to provide
adequate twenty-four hour supervision of inmates and to ensure staff and inmate safety.
(1) A jail officer shall provide personal observation conduct a visual check, not including observation by a monitoring
device, of each inmate at least once every sixty (60) minutes. between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Such The
observation checks may be conducted on an irregular schedule but and shall be documented.[cost to be addressed?]
(2) High risk, Suicidal inmates shall be provided appropriate, more frequent, supervision consistent with that behavior.

Comment [A37]: No additional costs. This just
requires on duty staff to walk through and document
it 24 hours per day as opposed to just at night.

the jail's suicide screening and prevention procedures.
(3) High risk inmates shall be provided more frequent supervision consistent with their classification level.
(b) The sheriff shall establish the following:
(1) A written procedure for the supervision of female inmates by male staff and the supervision of male inmates by
female staff. These procedures shall take into consideration the privacy rights and needs of inmates. All reports of
inappropriate sexual conduct by staff shall be investigated, and a copy of the investigation must be provided to
the county prosecutor upon completion.
(c) The sheriff shall establish (2) Written procedures for the segregation of inmates with serious behavioral problems,
inmates requiring protective custody, or inmates charged with disciplinary misconduct.
(1) (A) An inmate charged with disciplinary misconduct may be confined or separated from the general
population of the jail. An inmate may be administratively segregated for a reasonable period of time if his
or her continued presence in the general population poses a serious threat to himself or herself, others,
property, or the security of the jail. Jail officials shall review the status of that inmate administratively
segregated inmates at least once every seven (7) days to determine if the reason basis for segregation still
exists. Time spent confined or separated from the general population before a determination of guilt must be
credited toward any period of disciplinary segregation imposed.
(2) (B) No inmate shall be kept in disciplinary segregation for a period in excess of thirty (30) days for any
single instance of disciplined conduct without administrative review.
(3) (C) Jail officials shall maintain a permanent written record of inmate behavior and activity while in
disciplinary and administrative segregation. areas.
(d) (c) Each area of the jail shall be visited:
(1) by the sheriff or his or her designee at least once weekly; and
(2) daily by supervisory staff.
All inspections visits shall be documented.
(e) (d) Inmates shall not be authorized to supervise or exert control or assume any authority over other inmates.
(Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-14; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 a.m.: 4 IR 1815; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42
a.m.: 25 IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR-210070277RFA)
SECTION 15. 210 IAC 3-1-15 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
210 IAC 3-1-15 Inmate rights
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 3-7-46-6; IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 15. Inmate Rights. (a) The right of jail inmates to have access to the courts shall be insured. ensured. Inmates shall
have confidential access to their attorneys and the authorized representatives of their attorneys. Jail Inmates not represented by
counsel shall have reasonable access to the courts to challenge their sentences and conditions of confinement and
reasonable access to an adequate law library. Inmates with an appointed public defender shall be provided the opportunity
to speak to their attorney.
(b) Inmates shall not be subject to discrimination based on any of the following:
(1) Race.
(2) National origin.
(3) Color.
(4) Creed.
(5) Sex.
(6) Economic status. or
(7) Political belief.
There shall be equal access to programs or services for male and female inmates.

(c) Inmates shall have the right of access to reading material materials except pornography
obscene materials as defined by Indiana law, or images depicting nudity, this seems to be directly
contrary to IC 11-11-3-6: in the case of a confined adult, the department may not exclude printed matter
on the grounds it is obscene or pornographic unless it is obscene under Indiana law.
and reading matter which that jail officials have reasonable grounds to believe poses an immediate pose danger to the safety of
an individual or a serious threat to the security of the jail. A sheriff may limit the amount of reading material an inmate
possesses in his or her cell or cellblock for fire and safety concerns.
(d) An inmate is entitled to believe in the religion of his or her choice, and attendance at religious services is not
required. To the greatest extent possible consistent with jail security, programs, and resources, an inmate is entitled to the
following:
(1) Observe the religious days of worship or holidays of his or her religion.
(2) Possess and wear religious artifacts that do not compromise the safety and security of the jail.
(3) Receive and possess religious literature and for his or her individual use.
(4) Communicate, correspond with, and be visited by a clergyman clergy or religious counselor of his or her choice
during reasonable times, as approved by a community pastoral committee or sheriff, or both. The sheriff
reserves the right to determine the pastoral status of clergy and may limit nonclergy.
(e) An inmate shall be given provided a reasonable opportunity for physical exercise and recreation outside of his the
immediate living quarters and out of doors where sleeping areas, outdoors, if feasible, and consistent with the security and
resources of the jail. Segregated inmates shall be offered the opportunity for at least one (1) hour of daily exercise outside
of their cell.
(f) Each The sheriff shall make arrangements with election officials to facilitate an provide a list of all inmates, right
to vote by absentee ballot provided that the inmate is otherwise qualified to vote. sentenced and incarcerated, to the county
clerk quarterly, as required by IC 3-7-46-6.
(g) Each jail shall maintain a written inmate work assignment plan providing for inmate employment, subject to the:
(1) number of available work opportunities; and the
(2) maintenance of facility security.
Unsentenced inmates may volunteer for work assignments within the jail but shall not be required to work except as may be
necessary to maintain their living quarters in a safe and sanitary condition.
(h) All inmates shall have the right to file written grievances regarding treatment of conditions in the jail with the sheriff
or his or her designee. Grievances shall be promptly investigated, and a written report stating the disposition of the grievance
shall be provided to the inmate. The inmate shall be provided a written response or advised of the status of the grievance
within ten (10) calendar days. The sheriff shall establish in writing a grievance procedure, including at least one (1) level of
appeal, which shall be made known and distributed to all inmates upon arrival and initial screening. If a grievance form is
specified, inmates shall be provided the opportunity to obtain the specified form or forms at least once daily. To ensure
the grievance history of a jail or inmate can be properly evaluated, there shall be a separate format used for the
following:
(1) Grievances.
(2) Routine requests.
(3) Medical requests.
(i) Inmates may receive visitors at reasonable times. during established hours of visitation. Jail officials may,
however, for the purposes of maintaining jail security, individual safety, and administrative manageability, place reasonable
restrictions on visitation. Visitation by minors within the secure perimeter of a jail may be restricted as necessary for the
orderly management and security of a facility. Visitors with a prior criminal conviction may be denied visitation. At a
minimum a jail’s visitation policy shall include the following. Visitors may also be denied for:
(1) unacceptable attire;
(2) disruptive behavior;
(3) failure to control minor children; or

Comment [A38]: Much as I hate to admit it I
believe they are correct. Is there any way Howard
can reword?

(4) failure to provide picture identification as established by jail policy.
A copy of this visitation policy shall be posted in the visitation area.
(1) Each sheriff shall establish written procedures providing for inmate telephone access; general visitation; special
visitation; visitation for high security risk inmates; and visitor registration, including search procedures.
(Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-15; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 a.m.: 4 IR 1816; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42
a.m.: 25 IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR-210070277RFA)[IC 11-11-3-9 speaks to visitors– seems
to recommend a policy rather than a rule.]

Comment [A39]: Change “this” to “the”

Comment [A40]: I would bounce this off of
Howard. They are probably correct.

SECTION 16. 210 IAC 3-1-16 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
210 IAC 3-1-16 Mail and telephone communication
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 16. Mail. (a) Each sheriff shall establish a written procedure consistent with Indiana law governing inmate mail
correspondence.
(b) An inmate may send and receive an unlimited amount of correspondence to or from any person outside the jail in
any language. The sheriff may restrict correspondence between However, inmates shall be prohibited from corresponding
with other inmates within the jail or with inmates of any other jail or penal institution. other correctional institutions without
the prior written approval of the sheriff or designee.
(c) Correspondence to or from government officials, courts, or attorneys or representatives of the public news media
may not be opened, read, censored, copied or otherwise interfered with in regard to its prompt delivery or transmission.
However, if jail officials have reasonable grounds to believe that a piece of correspondence may contain contraband or
prohibited property, said correspondence may be opened by shall be considered privileged mail. Jail officials may open and
inspect privileged correspondence in the presence of the addressee inmate for the purpose of examining the contents for
contraband or prohibited property. Upon completion of the inspection, the item of correspondence must be promptly delivered or
transmitted without:
(1) reading;
(2) censoring;
(3) copying; or
(4) further interfering with its delivery or transmission.
(d) Correspondence from a person not enumerated in paragraph (c) of this section subsection (c) may be opened to:
(1) inspect for and remove contraband or prohibited property; and to
(2) permit removal of funds for crediting the addressee's account. Such
The correspondence may not be read, censored, copied, or otherwise interfered with unless jail officials have reasonable grounds
to believe that it poses an immediate danger to the safety of an individual or a serious threat to the security of the jail. The
addressee must be informed in writing of the amount of any funds removed.
(e) Correspondence to a person not enumerated in paragraph (c) of this section subsection (c) may be sealed by the
inmate. However, if jail officials have reasonable grounds to believe that such the correspondence:
(1) may contain contraband or prohibited property; or
(2) poses:
(A) an immediate danger to the safety of an individual; or
(B) a serious threat to the security of the jail;
it may be opened for inspection and removal of the contraband or the prohibited property, when appropriate, or reading and
appropriate action.
(f) Whenever jail officials delay incoming or outgoing mail for more than forty-eight (48) hours or how does this
comport with the “promptly” requirement of IC 11-11-3-4? censor, copy, or withhold correspondence, the addressee inmate
shall be given prompt written notice in writing. except as provided immediately below. Jail officials shall maintain a record of
each decision to withhold, copy, censor, delay, or otherwise interfere with the prompt transmission of correspondence. Notice to
the inmate of action taken on correspondence is not required based on reasonable suspicion or upon receipt of a written

Comment [A41]: I think this does comport. It
provides a time frame after which the written notice
must be provided. Jails differ from prisons in
many ways. Many jails have administrative staff
that receive and review mail as an additional duty
during normal duty days/hours, as opposed to having
a dedicated mail clerk. This provides allowance for
the smaller jails that operate in this manner.
The 48 hours was derived from the consent decree
involving this issue at the Indiana Boys School.

request from a supervising authority of any federal, state, or county agency stating the agency has reasonable grounds to
believe that a crime is being committed or has been committed by the confined person and requesting the jail monitor the
confined person's correspondence.
(g) Jail officials may open all incoming and outgoing packages to inspect for and remove funds, contraband, or
prohibited property. If contraband or prohibited property is removed from a package, the inmate must be notified in writing. of
such removal.
(h) Jail officials may inspect all printed matter and exclude any material that is contraband or prohibited property.
Following examination, printed matter may not be excluded on the grounds it is obscene or pornographic unless it is obscene
under Indiana law. be read, rejected, censored, or copied based on the matrix in Table 1. A periodical may be excluded only
on an issue by issue basis. Jail officials who withhold printed matter must promptly notify the addressee inmate of this action in
writing.
Table 1: Mail Policy Matrix
INCOMING
INSPECT
READ
CENSOR
COPY
REJECT
MISC
Books, magazines, and
May, with
newspapers:
May, with
reasonable cause to
May, at
May, at
"Publisher only rule"
Personal
No
probable
believe contents are
random.
random.
applies. Legally
cause.
in violation of policy
obscene material may
and procedures.
be denied.
Public and
Yes, in
With reasonable
Privileged /
government officials
presence of
No
No
No
cause. Author has
Legal
mail has privileged
inmate.
right to protest.
status.
Yes, with
May, at
Yes, if clear and
"Publishers only rule"
Religious
Yes
No
reasonable
random.
present danger.
applies.
cause.
OUTGOING
INSPECT
READ
CENSOR
COPY
REJECT
MISC
May, with
Yes, may at May, at
May, with
Personal
No
reasonable
random.
random.
reasonable cause.
cause.
Yes, in
Public and
presence of
Yes, with reasonable
Privileged /
government officials
inmate upon
No
No
No
cause, in the
Legal
mail has privileged
reasonable
presence of inmate.
status.
cause.
Yes, with
May, at
Yes, if clear and
Religious
Yes
No
reasonable
random.
present danger.
cause.
(i) Inmates shall not be permitted to mail, receive, or possess the following:
(1) Any matter tending to incite:
(A) murder;
(B) arson;
(C) a riot; or
(D) any form of violence or physical harm to any person or:
(i) ethnic;
(ii) gender;
(iii) racial;
(iv) religious; or
(v) other;
group.
(2) Any matter pertaining to blackmail or extortion.

Comment [A42]: TURNER v. SAFLEY,
482 U.S. 78 (1987)
Essentially First Amendment rights may be
impinged upon in a correctional setting providing
there is a legitimate penological interest in doing so,
that there is a valid, rational connection that can be
articulated, and that it is done by the least intrusive
means.

(3) Sending, receiving, or possessing contraband or prohibited property.
(4) Plans to escape or assist an escape.
(5) Plans to disrupt the order or breach the security of any facility.
(6) Plans for any activity that violates the law, jail policy, or procedure.
(7) Coded messages.
(8) A description or recipe for any:
(A) weapon;
(B) explosive;
(C) poison; or
(D) destructive device.
(9) Illustrations, explanations, or descriptions of how to sabotage or disrupt:
(A) computers;
(B) communications; or
(C) electronics.
(10) Recordable media.
(11) Catalogs, advertisements, brochures, and material whose primary purpose is to sell a product or products
or service or services, when taken as a whole, that lack serious literary, artistic, political, educational, or
scientific value. Violates IC 11-11-3-6.
(12) Maps. Violates 11-11-3-6?
(13) Any matter pertaining to gambling or a lottery.
(14) Markings on an envelope or wrapper that are obscene materials as defined by Indiana law. in this
article.[Statute says Indiana law.]
(15) Obscene material and information concerning where, how, or from whom obscene material may be
obtained.
Doesn’t this whole list violate IC 11-11-3-6: A confined person may acquire and possess printed matter on any
subject, from any source. The department may inspect all printed matter and exclude any material that is contraband or
prohibited property. IC 11-11-2-1
Definitions
Sec. 1. As used in this chapter:
"Contraband" means property the possession of which is in violation of an Indiana or federal statute.
"Prohibited property" means property other than contraband that the department does not permit a confined person to
possess. The term includes money in a confined person's account that was derived from inmate fraud (IC 35-43-5-20).
What does case law say on these types of first amendment restrictions? How does all of this comport with IC 11-11-34?
week.

(i) (j) Indigent inmates shall be furnished with free writing supplies and postage sufficient for at least two (2) letters per

(k) Upon mailing, indigent inmates shall be provided one (1) free copy of each legal correspondence that
addresses issues involving their conditions of confinement.
(l) Inmate telephone conversations may be subject to monitoring and recording provided inmates are informed
prior to or during each call, by signs posted on or near the telephones, or in the rule book provided each inmate.
Conversations between an inmate and his or her legal representative may not be monitored or recorded without a court
order.
(m) Inmate telephones may be turned off in those cellblocks affected prior to the transport of inmates into the
community or transfer to another facility, or for security reasons. (Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-16; filed Jul 27,
1981, 10:30 a.m.: 4 IR 1816; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42 a.m.: 25 IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.:
20070725-IR-210070277RFA)
SECTION 17. 210 IAC 3-1-17 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
210 IAC 3-1-17 Discipline written rules

Comment [A43]: Okay. See Turner v. Safley.
Comment [A44]: Massachusetts inmates
challenged a state regulation that banned their
receipt of sexually explicit publications or
publications featuring nudity, as well as a
correctional policy against displaying such materials
in their cells. Rejecting the plaintiffs' First
Amendment claims, the federal appeals court found
that there was a rational connection between
legitimate governmental interests and the means
used to further them. Prison security concerns
supported the cell display policy. Josselyn v.
Dennehy, #08-1095, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 12272
(1st Cir. Cir.).
The fact that a Kansas regulation banning sexually
explicit materials from being mailed to prisoners
covered a broader range of materials in its definition
of nudity than regulations at other prison systems
was not a sufficient basis to invalidate it. Strope v.
Collins. No. 08-3188, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 3713
(10th Cir.).
California State Department of Corrections
administrative bulletin banning sexually explicit
materials depicting frontal nudity did not violate a
prisoner's First Amendment rights. Correctional
officials properly sought to reduce sexual
harassment of female guards and prevent the
development of a hostile work environment and also
enhance prison security. Further, depriving prisoners
of such sexually explicit materials did not impose an
"atypical and significant hardship" in relation to the
"ordinary incidents of prison life," and was therefore
not a violation of due process. Additionally, the
prisoner did not successfully show a violation of
equal protection rights, as he did not claim that he
was treated any differently than similarly situated
prisoners with respect to the possession of such
materials. Munro v. Tristan, No. 03-16770, 116 Fed.
Appx. 820 (9th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
279:40 UPDATE: Federal appeals court rules that
Arizona county jail system's policy prohibiting the
possession of all material depicting nudity, including
such magazines as Playboy was reasonably related to
legitimate penological interests in protecting
employees and inmates against sexual harassment or
assault. Mauro v. Arpaio, No. 97-16021, 188 F.3d
1054 (9th Cir. 1999).
Prison regulations concerning receipt of publications
by subscription are valid if reasonably related to
legitimate penological interests. Thornburgh v.
Abbott, 109 S.Ct. 1874 (1989).
Prison regulations prohibiting publication of
"inflammatory" and "vulgar" articles not
unconstitutionally vague. Diaz v. Watts, 234
Cal.Rptr. 334 (App. 1987).
271:100 Prison policy banning inmate possession of
music tapes with "parental warning" label
concerning explicit lyrics did not violate prisoners'
First Amendment rights. Herlein v. Higgins, No. 982271, 172 F.3d 1089 (8th Cir. 1999).
...
Comment [A45]: See my opening comment at
the beginning of this document.

Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 35-50-6-4; IC 35-50-6-5
Sec. 17. Discipline. (a) Each sheriff shall establish written rules of inmate conduct for the maintenance of order and
discipline among inmates. Such The rules shall describe the:
(1) conduct for which disciplinary action may be imposed; the
(2) type of disciplinary action that may be taken; and the
(3) disciplinary procedure to be followed.
Copies of these rules shall be posted in the living areas or distributed to all inmates. The disciplinary action imposed shall be
proportionate to the seriousness of the rule violation. The use of physical force as a means of discipline is prohibited.
(b) All jail personnel who have regular inmate contact shall be provided training sufficient to make them thoroughly
familiar with the rules of inmate conduct and the sanctions available.
(c) Any of the following may be imposed as disciplinary action on jail inmates:
(1) A report, which may be made part of the inmate's record;
(2) Extra work cannot be imposed on pretrial detainees or arrestees. For inmates, extra work cannot exceed:
(A) a total of twenty (20) hours for one (1) rule violation; or
(B) four (4) hours in any twenty-four (24) hour period.
(3) Loss or limitation of privileges.
(4) Change in work assignment;
(5) (4) Restitution.
(6) Transfer to the Department of Correction for safe-keeping;
(7) (5) Segregation from the general population for a fixed period of time.
(8) (6) Reassignment to a lower credit time class under IC 35-50-6-4.
(9) (7) Deprivation of earned credit time under IC 35-50-6-5.
(d) The following shall not be imposed as disciplinary action on jail inmates:
(1) Corporal punishment.
(2) Confinement without an opportunity for at least one-half one (1) hour of daily exercise five (5) days each week
outside of immediate living quarters, unless jail officials find and document that this opportunity will jeopardize the
physical safety of the inmate or others or the security of the jail.
(3) A substantial change in:
(A) heating;
(B) lighting; or
(C) ventilation.
(4) Restrictions on:
(A) clothing;
(B) bedding;
(C) mail; visitation,
(D) reading and writing materials; or
(E) the use of hygienic facilities;
except for abuse of these, unless jail officials find and document that this opportunity will jeopardize the physical
safety of the inmate or others or the security of the jail.
(5) Restrictions on the following:
(A) Medical and dental care.
(B) Access to the following:
(i) Courts.
(ii) Legal counsel.
(iii) Government officials. or
(iv) Grievance proceedings. and access to
(v) Personal legal papers and legal research materials.
(6) A deviation from the diet provided to other inmates, unless approved by the responsible physician.
(7) Extra work exceeding a total of twenty (20) hours for one (1) rule violation, or exceeding four (4) hours in any

twenty-four (24) hour period.
(e) Before imposing any disciplinary action, jail officials shall afford the inmate charged with misconduct a hearing to
determine his or her guilt or innocence and the disposition of the charge. The charged inmate may waive his or her right to a
hearing in writing. Also, before a charge is made, the inmate and a jail official may agree to a disciplinary action in the forms
form of extra work or loss or limitation of privileges if no record of the conduct or disciplinary action is placed in the inmate's
file. In connection with the required hearing, the inmate is entitled to the following:
(1) To have not less than twenty-four (24) hours advance written notice of the date, time and place of following:
(A) The hearing. and of
(B) The alleged misconduct. and
(C) The rule the misconduct is alleged to have violated.
(2) To have reasonable time to prepare for the hearing.
(3) To have an impartial decision maker.
(4) To appear and speak in his or her own behalf.
(5) To call witnesses and present evidence.
(6) To confront and cross-examine witnesses, unless the decision maker finds that to do so would subject a witness to a
substantial risk of harm.
(7) To have advice and representation by a lay advocate in those hearings based upon a charge of institutional
misconduct when the decision maker determines he or she lacks the competency to:
(A) understand the issues involved; or to
(B) participate in the hearing.
(8) To have a written statement of the following:
(A) The findings of fact.
(B) The evidence relied upon. and
(C) The reasons for the action taken.
(9) To have immunity if his or her testimony or any evidence derived from his or her testimony is used in any criminal
proceedings.
(10) To have his or her record expunged of any reference to the charge if he or she is found not guilty or if a finding of
guilt is later overturned.
Any finding of guilt must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence presented at the hearing.
(f) An inmate shall receive written notice of any formal charge against him or her within twenty-four (24) hours of
knowledge or discovery or the conclusion of an investigation of the alleged offense, by jail officials, excepting weekends and
holidays. The notice shall specify the following:
(1) The date, time, and place of the hearing.
(2) The alleged misconduct.
(3) The rule the misconduct is alleged to have violated.
(4) The right to a hearing. and
(5) An explanation of the hearing process.
The hearing shall be held within seventy-two (72) hours, excluding weekends and holidays, of the alleged violation. unless the
inmate requests additional time to prepare for the hearing.
(g) The sheriff may delegate authority in writing to one (1) or more designees to conduct hearings for alleged violations
of facility rules.
(h) An inmate may appeal the disciplinary decision of a hearing authority to the sheriff. The appeal may challenge the:
(1) finding of guilt; or the
(2) type and degree of disciplinary action taken.
Any appeal shall be initiated within ten (10) days of the disciplinary decision. The sheriff may reduce but not increase any
disciplinary action imposed by the hearing authority. (Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-17; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30
a.m.: 4 IR 1817; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42 a.m.: 25 IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR210070277RFA)
SECTION 18. 210 IAC 3-1-18 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:

210 IAC 3-1-18 Inmate classification
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 18. (a) Each sheriff shall establish a written plan for the following:
(1) Classifying and assigning inmates according to sex.
(2) The seriousness of their alleged crimes.
(3) The degree of risk of violence to other inmates.
(4) Their status as either youth or adults and pretrial detainees or convicted persons.
When the jail is at or near capacity, the sheriff shall use the best effort to maintain proper classification and segregation. develop
and implement an objective classification system within two (2) years of the effective date of this article. This system shall
include written procedures for overriding an inmate's objective classification result to accommodate local needs, for
example, physical plant design, program availability, etc.
(b) Juveniles alleged to be delinquent or adjudicated delinquent shall be held: only
(1) in a manner reasonably calculated to protect their personal safety; and
(2) in accordance with IC 31-6-1-21.3 and IC 31-6-4-6.5(b)(1). all applicable law.
(c) Inmates with contagious or communicable diseases shall be segregated from other inmates upon direction of the
responsible physician. Intoxicated or suicidal inmates and those inmates experiencing delirium tremens or drug withdrawal,
shall also be segregated and given close observation. Allegedly insane or incompetent inmates who are held in custody:
(1) during examination of their mental condition; or
(2) while awaiting commitment to a mental institution;
shall be segregated and given close observation.
(d) Inmates shall not be segregated by:
(1) race;
(2) color;
(3) creed; or
(4) national origin;
in living area assignments. (Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-18; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 a.m.: 4 IR 1818; filed Jan 31,
1996, 4:00 p.m.: 19 IR 1312; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42 a.m.: 25 IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.:
20070725-IR-210070277RFA)
SECTION 19. 210 IAC 3-1-19 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
210 IAC 3-1-19 New inmate admissions
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 19. Reception, Orientation, Property Control and Release. (a) Each sheriff shall establish written procedures for
the following:
(1) Governing the reception and orientation of newly admitted inmates. Such The procedures shall include, but not be
limited to, the following:
(1) (A) Verification of commitment papers.
(2) (B) Complete search of the individual section 13(h)(3) of this rule.
(3) (C) Disposition of clothing and personal property.
(4) (D) Medical screening, including tests for infectious diseases, as approved by the responsible physician.
(5) (E) Telephone calls.
(6) (F) Showers and hair care, if necessary.
(7) (G) Issue of jail clothing and supplies.
(8) (H) Photographing and fingerprinting. including
(I) Notation of identifying marks or unusual characteristics.
(9) (J) Interview for obtaining identifying data.

(10) Classification for assignment to the living area;
(11) Assignment to the living area.
(b) Each sheriff shall establish written procedures (2) Providing for the following:
(A) A written, itemized inventory of all personal property of newly admitted inmates.
(B) The secure storage of such the property, including money and other valuables. and
(3) For the release or transfer of inmates, to include the return or transfer of each inmate’s personal property. upon
release, as well as the procedures governing release of The inmate handbook shall reflect inmates are responsible for
the restitution of any negative balance remaining on the inmate's trust account. If an inmate is transferred to
another facility, a sheriff may request restitution from the inmate's trust account at the receiving facility, and
the holding sheriff must provide a written accounting of all debits on the inmate's trust account, consistent with
the provisions for inmate indigent status.
(Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-19; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 a.m.: 4 IR 1818; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42
a.m.: 25 IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR-210070277RFA)
SECTION 20. 210 IAC 3-1-20 IS ADDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
210 IAC 3-1-20 Suicide screening and prevention
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 20. (a) There shall be a written suicide prevention and intervention program that is reviewed and approved
by a qualified medical or mental health professional.
(b) The program shall include procedures for the following:
(1) Screening/assessment.
(2) Communication.
(3) Housing.
(4) Supervision of low-risk and high-risk suicidal inmates.
(5) Intervention.
(6) Reporting.
(7) Mortality review.
(8) More frequent observation intervals for inmates determined to be at high risk.
(c) All staff responsible for inmate supervision shall be trained in the implementation of the suicide prevention
program. (Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-20) [Costs to be addressed?]
Notice of Public Hearing

Comment [A46]: No additional cost. Six hours
of mental health training is currently required by IC
11-12-4, and the initial on the job training
requirement provides opportunity for jail specific
training.

ARTICLE 3.
Rule 1.

COUNTY JAIL STANDARDS

Maintenance of County Jails

210 IAC 3-1-1 Definitions
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 1. Definitions. "Administrative Segregation" shall mean the physical separation of inmates who are determined to be
mentally ill, escape prone, assaultive or violent, or likely to need protection from other inmates where such administrative segregation
is determined to be necessary in order to achieve the objective of protecting the welfare of prisoners and staff.
"Chronic Care" shall mean medical service rendered to an inmate over a long period of time, i.e., treatment of diabetes, asthma
or epilepsy.
"Contraband" shall mean property the possesion [sic.] of which is in violation of an Indiana or federal statute.
"Convalescent Care" shall mean medical service rendered to an inmate to assist in the recovery from illness or injury.
"Disciplinary Segregation" shall mean that status assigned an inmate, as a consequence or means of control resulting from a
violation of jail rules, which consists of confinement in a cell, room, or other housing unit separate from inmates who are not on
disciplinary segregation status.
"Emergency Care" shall mean care for an acute illness or unexpected health care need that cannot be deferred until the next
scheduled sick call or physician's visit.
"Inmate" shall mean any person detained or confined in any jail governed by these rules [210 IAC 3].
"Jail" shall mean a secure county detention facility used to confine prisoners prior to appearance in court and sentenced
prisoners.
"Jail Administrator", unless expressly stated otherwise, shall mean sheriff or other individual who has been assigned,
designated or delegated full-time responsibility and authority for the administration and operation of the jail by the sheriff.
"Jail Officer" shall mean a sheriff's employee whose primary duties are the daily or ongoing supervision of jail inmates.
"Medical Preventive Maintenance" shall mean those health services including health education, medical services, and
instruction in self-care for chronic conditions.
"Policy" shall mean a statement declaring mission, purpose and idealogical position.
"Procedure" shall mean a statement establishing the action plan to accomplish policy.
"Prohibited Property" shall mean property other than contraband that the Jail Administrator does not permit an inmate to
possess.
"Physician" shall mean an individual holding a license to practice medicine in Indiana, issued by the Medical Licensing Board
of Indiana.
"Qualified Medical Personnel" shall mean individuals engaged in the delivery of a medical or health care service who have
been licensed, certified, or otherwise properly qualified under the laws of Indiana applicable to that particular service.
"Unusual Occurrence" shall mean any significant incident or disruption of normal jail procedures, policies, routines or activities
such as fire, riot, natural disaster, suicide, escape, assault, medical emergency, hostage taking, or other violation of jail rules or state
laws. (Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-1; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 am: 4 IR 1808; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42 a.m.:
25 IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR-210070277RFA)

210 IAC 3-1-2 Administration and organization
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 2. Administration and Organization. (a) Each jail shall be managed by a single Jail Administrator to whom all employees
or units of management are responsible.
(b) Each Jail Administrator shall prepare annually a written report setting forth the extent and availability of services and
programs to inmates. Said report shall be directed to the Circuit Court Judge and copies shall be provided to the State Jail Inspector,
President of the County Council or City-County Council, and President of the County Commissioners.
(c) Each Sheriff shall develop a manual of policies and procedures which shall guide the operation of his county's jail. All
policies and procedures must be in writing. The Sheriff shall encourage the participation of other community agencies in the
development of policy for the jail through coordinated planning and inter-agency consultation. The advice and consultation of the
Indiana Administrative Code

Page 1

COUNTY JAIL STANDARDS
Sheriff 's staff should also be sought in the development of policies and procedures for each jail. The manual shall be reviewed and
updated annually and distributed to all employees. It shall include, but not be limited to:
(1) A statement of the philosophy, goals, and purposes of the jail;
(2) Operations and maintenance of the jail;
(3) Organizational structure of the jail, its staff and program, with grouping of similar functions, services and activities into
administrative sub-units;
(4) Delineation of channels of communication;
(5) A procedure for the monitoring of operations and programs through required inspections and reviews;
(6) A system of written reports to be directed to the sheriff or jail administrator including as a minimum: Information on major
development, serious incidents, population data, staff and inmate morale, major problems and proposed plans to resolve them;
(7) Staff training;
(8) Employee-management relations; and
(9) Staff-inmate communication.
(Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-2; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 am: 4 IR 1809; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42 a.m.: 25
IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR-210070277RFA)

210 IAC 3-1-3 Fiscal management
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 3. Fiscal Management. (a) Each sheriff shall establish written procedures to govern the internal handling of monies. All
such procedures shall be consistent with all requirements of the State Board of Accounts.
(b) Each sheriff shall maintain fiscal records which will clearly indicate the annual costs for his county's jail. Any such records
shall reflect all monies collected and disbursed during any budget period and shall be established in compliance with all requirements
of the State Board of Accounts.
(c) Each sheriff shall prepare and present annually a budget request to the appropriate government funding body. The jail
budget request should accurately reflect the needs and objectives of the subject facility.
(d) Each sheriff shall maintain a written inventory of county jail property. The inventory shall be reviewed and updated
annually. (Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-3; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 am: 4 IR 1809; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42
a.m.: 25 IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR-210070277RFA)

210 IAC 3-1-4 Personnel
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 4. Personnel. (a) Each sheriff shall establish written jail personnel policies and procedures. (Department of Correction;
210 IAC 3-1-4; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 am: 4 IR 1810; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42 a.m.: 25 IR 1269; readopted filed Jul
6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR-210070277RFA)

210 IAC 3-1-5 Training and staff development
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 5. Training and Staff Development. (a) Each sheriff shall establish a written training and staff development plan for all
jail employees. This plan shall be based on the jail's manual of policies and procedures. It shall be evaluated and revised as needed
annually.
(b) Each new jail officer shall receive forty (40) hours of orientation and training at the jail prior to job assignment and shall
receive an additional forty (40) hours certified training during the first year of employment. Each jail officer shall receive documented
training each year thereafter. The forty (40) hours of certified training during the first year of employment shall be received through
the Indiana Law Enforcement Training Board.
(c) All personnel authorized to use firearms shall be trained in weaponry on a continuing in-service and documented firearms
Indiana Administrative Code

Page 2

COUNTY JAIL STANDARDS
training course. Failure to qualify for continued firearm use shall be deemed just cause for administrative re-evaluation or dismissal.
(1) No employee shall be authorized by the sheriff to use firearms unless that employee has been given training in the legal
requirements of firearm use and the legal aspects of the use of deadly force.
(2) Detailed training records are required and shall be maintained on all firearms training.
(d) Each sheriff shall include training as a budget item in his jail's annual budget request to pay for this required training.
(Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-5; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 am: 4 IR 1810; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42 a.m.: 25
IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR-210070277RFA)

210 IAC 3-1-6 Management information systems; inmate records
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 6. Management Information Systems and Inmate Records. (a) An intake form shall be completed for every inmate
admitted to any county jail. Such form shall contain, but not limited to, the following information, unless otherwise prohibited by
statute:
(1) Booking number;
(2) Date and time of intake;
(3) Name and aliases;
(4) Last known address;
(5) Date and time of commitment and authority therefor;
(6) Name, title and signature of delivering officer;
(7) Specific charge(s);
(8) Physical description;
(9) Mug shot and fingerprints;
(10) Sex;
(11) Age and date of birth;
(12) Place of birth;
(13) Race;
(14) Occupation;
(15) Last place of employment;
(16) Health status;
(17) Name and relationship of next of kin;
(18) Address of next of kin;
(19) Court and sentence;
(20) Notation of cash and personal property; and
(21) Space for remarks (to include notation of any open wounds, of sores requiring treatment, evidence of disease or body
vermin, or tatoos).
(b) Records shall be maintained on all inmates committed or assigned to any county jail. Such records shall contain, but are
not limited to;
(1) Intake information;
(2) Commitment papers and court order(s);
(3) Cash and personal property receipts;
(4) Reports of disciplinary actions or unusual occurrences;
(5) Work record;
(6) Program involvement; and
(7) Medical orders issued by the jail physician or his designee.
(c) Each sheriff shall maintain on a daily basis written data concerning population movement, including but not limited to:
(1) Admission;
(2) Processing; and
(3) Release of pre-trial detainees and sentenced inmates.
(d) Each sheriff shall establish a written procedure requiring the prompt reporting of all incidents that result in physical harm,
Indiana Administrative Code

Page 3

COUNTY JAIL STANDARDS
threaten the safety of any person in the jail, or threaten the security of the jail.
(e) Each sheriff shall establish written policies and procedures regarding access to and release of inmate records. Such policies
and procedures shall insure that inmate records are current, accurate and safeguarded from unauthorized and improper disclosure.
(f) An inmate's medical record file shall not be in any way part of the confinement record. (Department of Correction; 210
IAC 3-1-6; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 am: 4 IR 1810; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42 a.m.: 25 IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6,
2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR-210070277RFA)

210 IAC 3-1-7 Physical plant
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 7. Physical Plant. (a) All inmate living and activity areas in each jail shall provide for the following minimum
requirements:
(1) Illumination shall be sufficient for reading and writing throughout the living area; readings of at least 20 foot candles are
required at desk level.
(2) Circulation of fresh air sufficient to remove stale air and orders from the living area. This requirement shall be satisfied
if the County Board of Health certifies that the air in the living area is not harmful to the inmates.
(3) A heating system sufficient to insure healthful and comfortable living and working conditions for all inmates and staff.
Temperatures shall be maintained at a comfortable level consistent with exterior conditions, clothing and bedding issued.
(4) Each cell shall have direct access to a toilet, a washbasin with running water and a bunk.
(5) There shall be at least one toilet and one shower per twelve inmates in the activity area. This requirement shall be satisfied
as to toilet access if cells are accessible to the inmates at all time.
(b) The reception area shall be located inside the security perimeter but outside inmate living quarters. It shall have the
following minimum components:
(1) Weapon lockers, located outside the security area;
(2) Temporary holding space which has sufficient seating capacity for all inmates assigned, audio and visual communication,
and available toilets and washbasins with running water;
(3) Booking area;
(4) Medical examination area;
(5) Shower facilities;
(6) Vault or secure area for storage of inmate's personal property; and
(7) Telephone facilities.
(c) To provide security and assure compliance with fire safety regulations, supply areas shall be separate from inmate living
and activity areas. There shall be adequate space for storage and security of keys, weapons, medications, tools, evidence, recovered
stolen property, bedding, housekeeping equipment and supplies, clothing, prisoner's property, commissary and hygiene items, and
records.
(d) Arsenals shall be located outside the security perimeter of the inmate living and activity areas. Provisions shall be made
for the secure storage, care and issuance of weapons and related security equipment. The arsenal shall be equipped with an alarm
system.
(e) Each jail shall have at least one area suitable for inmates who must be under special medical supervision.
(f) Each jail shall have a space available for the supervision of offenders who represent special behavioral problems including
intoxification and self-destructive behavior. This area shall be equipped with audio-video communication and have access to toilet
and running water.
(g) There shall be one bed for each inmate and the capacity of a jail shall be determined with the sheriff taking into
consideration the following factors: (a) A bed for each inmate; (b) The size of the cell or sleeping area; (c) The size of the day room
or range to which the prisoner has free access during non-sleeping hours; (d) Time spent in activities out-of-cell and/or time spent
out of range.
The State Jail Inspector may adjust the rated capacity of any jail in the event that change in the structure or the use of that
facility indicate that such change would be appropriate. Prior to any adjustment in rated capacity, the State Jail Inspector shall review
the proposed adjustment with the sheriff and the County Commissioners.
(h) All major jail construction beginning January 1, 1982 shall comply with jail construction standards established by the
Indiana Administrative Code

Page 4

COUNTY JAIL STANDARDS
American Correctional Association.
(i) Each sheriff shall have a written plan for preventive maintenance. The plan shall be reviewed and updated annually.
(Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-7; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 am: 4 IR 1811; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42 a.m.: 25
IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR-210070277RFA)

210 IAC 3-1-8 Commissary operations
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 8. Commissary. (a) Each jail commissary shall be managed and operated in a manner consistent with Indiana law.
(Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-8; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 am: 4 IR 1811; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42 a.m.: 25
IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR-210070277RFA)

210 IAC 3-1-9 Safety and sanitation
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 9. Safety and Sanitation. (a) Each jail shall be maintained in a safe and sanitary condition, in compliance with state and
local health, sanitation, safety, and fire laws.
(b) Inmates incarcerated in each jail shall have the responsibility for maintaining their own cells and living areas in a safe and
sanitary condition. Jail officials shall make cleaning equipment, including mops, brooms, scouring cleanser, soap and disinfectant,
available to inmates on a daily basis to assist inmates in meeting their cleaning responsibility.
(c) Each jail shall be inspected by a designated jail official at least once per week. Each living area shall be inspected by
designated jail officials daily. Written inspection reports shall be maintained, and steps shall be taken promptly to remedy unsafe
or unsanitary conditions.
(d) Each jail shall be inspected weekly for evidence of insects and rodents. Licensed extermination services shall be obtained
to spray or treat facilities as often as necessary to eliminate insects and rodents. Inmates shall be removed from an area if spraying
or fogging is necessary and cannot properly be accomplished if inmates are present.
(e) Plumbing fixtures shall be promptly repaired or replaced as may be necessary after receipt and confirmation of a report
of malfunctioning equipment.
(f) Exits shall be clearly marked, continuously illuminated, kept clear and in usuable [sic.] condition.
(g) The sheriff shall establish a written evacuation plan for use in the event of fire or major emergency. Appropriate evacuation
instructions shall be posted in all living and working areas of each jail.
(h) The Sheriff shall request that the local Board of Health inspect the jail at least semi-annually.
(i) The Sheriff shall establish written policies and procedures concerning safety, sanitation, and control of supplies.
(Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-9; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 am: 4 IR 1811; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42 a.m.: 25
IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR-210070277RFA)

210 IAC 3-1-10 Clothing and personal hygiene
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 10. Clothing and Personal Hygiene. (a) Each jail shall provide for the issue of suitable clothing, bedding and towels to
each new inmate. Clean clothing, bedding and towels shall be issued at least weekly. These items shall be maintained in sufficient
number to supply each jail's inmate population.
(b) Each inmate shall be provided with shaving materials, bar soap, toothbrush, and toothpaste. Industrial hand soap shall not
be issued to inmates. Women inmates shall be provided with choice of tampons or sanitary napkins.
(c) Inmates shall shower upon admission to the jail's general population and shall be afforded the opportunity to shower at least
three times per week thereafter unless an emergency or a threat to jail security exists.
(d) Each inmate shall be allowed, upon request, to have his/her hair cut at least once every six weeks.
(e) All inmates shall be provided the opportunity to wear their personal clothing when they appear in court for trial.
Indiana Administrative Code

Page 5

COUNTY JAIL STANDARDS
(f) The Sheriff may supervise and control the hygiene, grooming, and attire of jail inmates to the extent reasonably necessary
to maintain a sanitary, safe and secure environment. (Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-10; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 am: 4
IR 1812; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42 a.m.: 25 IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR210070277RFA)

210 IAC 3-1-11 Medical care and health services
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 11. Medical Care and Health Services. (a) A duly licensed physician shall be responsible for medical services in each jail.
(b) Procedures necessary to deliver medical services to inmates shall be in writing and shall be approved by the responsible
physician.
(c) State licensing and/or certification requirements and restrictions shall apply to all health care personnel working with jail
inmates. Copies of all licensing and/or certification credentials shall be on file with the sheriff. Jail security regulations shall apply
to all medical personnel.
(d) Whenever medical services are to be delivered routinely in any jail, adequate space, equipment, supplies and materials as
determined by the responsible physician shall be provided.
(e) First-aid kits shall be available in each jail. The responsible physician shall approve the contents, number and location of
such kits and the procedure for periodic inspection of all first-aid kits.
(f) Each inmate shall be medically screened upon admission to jail and before placement in the general population or living
area. Screening data must be recorded on a form approved by the responsible physician and shall include, but not be limited to:
(1) Current illnesses and health problems, including those specific to women;
(2) History of drug and/or alcohol use;
(3) Medications taken;
(4) Special health requirements;
(5) Screening of other health problems designated by the responsible physician;
(6) Behavioral observations, including state of consciousness and mental status.
(7) Notation of body deformities, trauma markings, bruises, lesions, jaundice and ease of movement;
(8) Condition of skin and body orifices, including rashes and infestation; and
(9) Disposition/referral of inmate to qualified medical personnel on an emergency basis.
(g) Within fourteen (14) days following arrival at the jail, an inmate shall be given the opportunity to receive a medical
examination conducted by the responsible physician or his designees.
(h) Inmate medical complaints shall be collected daily and responded to by medically trained personnel. Qualified medical
personnel shall follow up all complaints and allocate treatment according to priority of need. A physician shall be available at least
once a week to evaluate and respond to inmate medical complaints.
(i) Each jail shall provide 24-hour emergency medical and dental care availability pursuant to a written plan which includes
as a minimum arrangements for:
(1) Emergency evacuation of the inmate from within the facility;
(2) Use of an emergency medical vehicle;
(3) Use of one or more designated hospital emergency rooms or other appropriate health facilities;
(4) Emergency on-call physicians and dentist services when the emergency health facility is not located in a nearby
community; and
(5) Security procedures that provide for the immediate transfer of inmates when appropriate.
(j) Jail personnel shall be trained in the use of emergency care procedures and shall have current training in basic first-aid
equipment. At least one person per shift shall have training in receiving screening, cardio pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and
recognition of symptons [sic.] of the illnesses most common to the facility. All jail officers shall be trained regarding recognition
of symptoms of mental illness and retardation.
(1) No jail shall accept delivery of an unconscious or critically injured person.
(2) All injured inmates shall be examined immediately, by a competent medical person. A description of the injury should be
recorded and photographs taken when appropriate.
(k) Jail officials shall use their best efforts to obtain any medication prescribed by a physician. All medications shall be
Indiana Administrative Code

Page 6

COUNTY JAIL STANDARDS
administered in the dosage and with the frequency prescribed. No substitutions of medications shall be made without the prescribing
physician's approval.
(1) Any jail officer who administers medication shall have received training from the responsible physician and the jail
administrator, is accountable for administering medications according to orders, and must record the administration of
medication in a manner and on a form approved by the responsible physician.
(2) A structured system for pharmacy storage and distribution shall be established in accordance with recognized medical
standards as determined by the responsible physician.
(l) Each jail shall be listed with the Drug Enforcement Administration as a place of practice by the responsible physician.
(m) Each sheriff shall establish policies and procedures for the development and disposition of each inmate's medical records
and shall provide secure and confidential storage of such records consistent with physician-patient privileges. (Department of
Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-11; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 am: 4 IR 1812; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42 a.m.: 25 IR 1269;
readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR-210070277RFA)

210 IAC 3-1-12 Diet and food preparation; written procedures
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 12. Diet and Food Preparation. (a) Each sheriff shall establish written policies and procedures concerning the quantity
and quality of food served to inmates.
(b) Food shall not be used as a reward or withheld as a disciplinary measure. All meals shall be served under the supervision
of the jail administrator or his designee. There shall be no more than fourteen (14) hours between the evening meal and breakfast.
Inmates shall be served three (3) meals each day. One meal each day shall be served hot.
(c) Menus shall be prepared in advance and records of all menus and all meals served shall be retained. Menus shall meet the
approval of a qualified dietician, and food preparation and the storage shall be in compliance with local and state health standards.
Each menu shall include the recommended dietary allowance for food nutrients specified by the National Academy of Science, Food
and Nutrition Board. All food service areas and equipment shall be inspected daily by administrative jail personnel. All food must
be placed on racks off the floor. Food must be covered while being transported to the inmate area.
(d) To insure that the jail kitchen is maintained in a safe and sanitary condition, the following requirements shall be met:
(1) All kitchen equipment and floors shall be cleaned daily. Walls and vents shall be cleaned regularly.
(2) The sheriff or jail administrator shall request that the local health officer, or an otherwise qualified agency, conduct periodic
inspections of the kitchen facilities to insure compliance with established health and sanitary standards.
(3) Eating utensils shall be sanitized. Alternatively, plastic disposal utensils may be used for each meal.
(4) Kitchen equipment must be operational and safe for use.
(5) Inmates working in the kitchen shall be given a pre-service examination and periodic examinations thereafter to insure that
they do not have any contagious diseases or other ailments which could facilitate food contamination. Inmates shall wear
clothing approved for food handling when they are assigned to the kitchen.
(e) Medical diets approved by the responsible physician shall be honored. Religious diets shall be honored to the extent that
the required food is readily accessible in the community where the jail is located. Any refusal to grant a medical or religious diet shall
be reported in writing to the sheriff or jail administrator.
(f) Each sheriff shall establish in writing a control system to monitor and control food pilferage, misuse or spoilage.
(Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-12; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 am: 4 IR 1813; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42 a.m.: 25
IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR-210070277RFA)

210 IAC 3-1-13 Security and control; written procedures
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 13. Security and Control. (a) Each sheriff shall establish a manual setting forth the jail's policies and procedures for
security and control. This manual shall be distributed to all jail personnel and shall be reviewed annually and updated as needed. The
manual shall include, but not be limited to:
(1) Supervision;
Indiana Administrative Code

Page 7

COUNTY JAIL STANDARDS
(2) Searches and seizures;
(3) Facility security;
(4) Shakedowns;
(5) Firearms and other weapons;
(6) Maintenance of security equipment;
(7) Key control;
(8) Tool control;
(9) Records control;
(10) Population count;
(11) Chemical agents;
(12) Post orders;
(13) Escapes;
(14) Emergency situations, including fire, disturbance, assault, taking hostages, natural disasters;
(15) Transportation of inmates; and
(16) Use of physical force.
Jail officers shall be trained consistent with provisions of the security and control manual. Pre and post training examinations shall
be administered to each jail officer, and the results made part of the employee's record.
(b) Inmates shall not be permitted to handle, use, or have jail keys of any type in their possession. There shall be at least one
full set of keys, separate from those in use, stored in a safe place accessible only to jail personnel, for use in event of an emergency.
Keys are to be color coded and classified pursuant to a key numbering and lettering system.
(c) The use of physical force by jail personnel shall be restricted to instances of justifiable self-protection, protection of others,
protection of property, and prevention of escapes. Force shall be used only to the degree necessary and consistent with any stautory
[sic.] limitations. Written reports following any use of force shall be promptly submitted to the sheriff or his designee.
(1) Only weapons approved by the sheriff shall be used by jail personnel in emergency situations. Any jail employee who
discharges a firearm in the course of his duty shall promptly submit a written report to the sheriff.
(2) Weapons shall not be permitted beyond a designated area to which inmates have no access, except in emergency situations.
(3) Persons designated to authorize the use of tear gas, mace, or other chemical agents shall be named in writing and shall be
trained in the proper employment of the chemical agents.
(4) Each sheriff shall establish procedures for the treatment of persons injured as a result of a weapon or chemical agent.
(d) Each jail shall maintain a secure communication control center separate from other jail detention and administrative
functions. Jail officers and other personnel assigned to jail duty shall be trained in security measures and handling of special incidents
such as assaults, disturbances, fires and natural disasters. Each jail shall have an audio communication system between the
communication control center and the inmate living area.
(e) Each jail shall have equipment necessary to maintain central lights, power and communication in an emergency. Emergency
equipment shall be tested at least weekly for effectiveness and shall be repaired or replaced as necessary.
(f) Security equipment shall be sufficient to meet facility needs and shall be stored in a secure, readily accessible area.
(g) All security perimeter entrances, control center doors, cell block doors, and cell doors opening into a corridor shall be kept
locked except when used for admission or exit of employees, inmates or visitors, and emergencies. No jail officer shall enter a high
security cell area without back-up assistance.
(h) Jail officials may perform searches and seize contraband or prohibited property. Jail officials may inform an inmate of the
items of property he is permitted to possess, in which event all other property not contraband is prohibited property. Property that
an inmate is otherwise permitted to possess may become prohibited property due to the means by which it is possessed or used. The
sheriff or jail administrator shall establish written procedure providing for a written record concerning the seizure of contraband or
prohibited property, receipts for property seized, and appropriate disposition of seized property.
(1) Notice in writing shall be given inmates and visitors as to the items not considered contraband or prohibited property.
(2) Visitors and inmates may be searched at jails where contact visiting is permitted.
(3) Body cavity searches may be conducted only by medical personnel of the same sex as the person being searched. Visitors
must be given clear notice of the possibility of body cavity searches and may decline their request to visit upon receiving this
notice. The grounds on which body cavity searches may be conducted shall be clearly stated.
(4) Inmates permitted to leave the jail temporarily, for any reason, shall be thoroughly searched prior to leaving and before
re-entering the jail. Searches and seizures shall be conducted so as to avoid unnecessary force, embarrassment, or indignity
Indiana Administrative Code

Page 8

COUNTY JAIL STANDARDS
to inmates.
(5) The sheriff shall establish written policies and procedures concerning contraband, prohibited property, searches and
seizures of property.
(Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-13; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 am: 4 IR 1814; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42 a.m.: 25
IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR-210070277RFA)

210 IAC 3-1-14 Inmate supervision
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 14. Supervision of Inmates. (a) There shall be sufficient jail personnel present in the jail to provide adequate twenty-four
hour supervision of inmates.
(1) A jail officer shall provide personal observation not including observation by a monitoring device, of each inmate at least
once every sixty (60) minutes between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Such observation may be conducted on an irregular
schedule but shall be documented.
(2) High risk, suicidal inmates shall be provided appropriate supervision consistent with that behavior.
(b) The sheriff shall establish written procedure for the supervision of female inmates by male staff and the supervision of male
inmates by female staff. These procedures shall take into consideration the privacy rights and needs of inmates.
(c) The sheriff shall establish written procedures for the segregation of inmates with serious behavioral problems, inmates
requiring protective custody, or inmates charged with disciplinary misconduct.
(1) An inmate charged with disciplinary misconduct may be confined or separated from the general population of the jail for
a reasonable period of time if his continued presence in the general population poses a serious threat to himself, others,
property or the security of the jail. Jail officials shall review the status of that inmate at least once every seven (7) days to
determine if the reason for segregation still exists. Time spent confined or separated from the general population before a
determination of guilt must be credited toward any period of disciplinary segregation imposed.
(2) No inmate shall be kept in disciplinary segregation for a period in excess of thirty (30) days for any single instance of
disciplined conduct without administrative review.
(3) Jail officials shall maintain a permanent written record of activity in disciplinary and administrative segregation areas.
(d) Each area of the jail shall be visited by the Sheriff or his designee at least once weekly and daily by supervisory staff. All
inspections shall be documented.
(e) Inmates shall not be authorized to supervise or exert control or assume any authority over other inmates. (Department of
Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-14; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 am: 4 IR 1815; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42 a.m.: 25 IR 1269;
readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR-210070277RFA)

210 IAC 3-1-15 Inmate rights
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 15. Inmate Rights. (a) The right of jail inmates to have access to the courts shall be insured. Inmates shall have
confidential access to their attorneys and the authorized representatives of their attorneys. Jail inmates not represented by counsel
shall have reasonable access to an adequate law library.
(b) Inmates shall not be subject to discrimination based on race, national origin, color, creed, sex, economic status, or political
belief. There shall be equal access to programs or services for male and female inmates.
(c) Inmates shall have the right of access to reading material except pornography as defined by Indiana law or reading matter
which jail officials have reasonable grounds to believe poses an immediate danger to the safety of an individual or a serious threat
to the security of the jail.
(d) An inmate is entitled to believe in the religion of his choice, and attendance at religious services is not required. To the
greatest extent possible consistent with jail security, programs and resources, an inmate is entitled to:
(1) Observe the religious days of worship or holidays of his religion;
(2) Possess and wear religious artifacts;
(3) Receive and possess religious literature; and
Indiana Administrative Code

Page 9

COUNTY JAIL STANDARDS
(4) Communicate, correspond with and be visited by a clergyman or religious counselor of his choice.
(e) An inmate shall be given a reasonable opportunity for physical exercise and recreation outside of his immediate living
quarters and out of doors where feasible, consistent with the security and resources of the jail.
(f) Each sheriff shall make arrangements with election officials to facilitate an inmate's right to vote by absentee ballot provided
that the inmate is otherwise qualified to vote.
(g) Each jail shall maintain a written inmate work assignment plan providing for inmate employment, subject to the number
of available work opportunities and the maintenance of facility security. Unsentenced inmates shall not be required to work except
as may be necessary to maintain their living quarters in a safe and sanitary condition.
(h) All inmates shall have the right to file written grievances regarding treatment of conditions in the jail with the sheriff or
his designee. Grievances shall be promptly investigated, and a written report stating the disposition of the grievance shall be provided
the inmate. The sheriff shall establish in writing a grievance procedure which shall be made known and distributed to all inmates
upon arrival and initial screening.
(i) Inmates may receive visitors at reasonable times. Jail officials may, however, for the purposes of maintaining jail security,
individual safety, and administrative manageability, place reasonable restrictions on visitation.
(1) Each sheriff shall establish written procedures providing for inmate telephone access; general visitation; special visitation;
visitation for high security risk inmates; and visitor registration, including search procedures.
(Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-15; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 am: 4 IR 1816; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42 a.m.: 25
IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR-210070277RFA)

210 IAC 3-1-16 Mail; written procedures
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 16. Mail. (a) Each sheriff shall establish a written procedure consistent with Indiana law governing inmate mail
correspondence.
(b) An inmate may send and receive an unlimited amount of correspondence to or from any person outside the jail in any
language. The sheriff may restrict correspondence between inmates within the jail or with inmates of any other jail or penal
institution.
(c) Correspondence to or from government officials, courts, attorneys, or representatives of the public news media may not
be opened, read, censored, copied or otherwise interfered with in regard to its prompt delivery or transmission. However, if jail
officials have reasonable grounds to believe that a piece of correspondence may contain contraband or prohibited property, said
correspondence may be opened by jail officials in the presence of the addressee for the purpose of examining the contents for
contraband or prohibited property. Upon completion of the inspection, the item of correspondence must be promptly delivered or
transmitted without reading, censoring, copying or further interfering with its delivery or transmission.
(d) Correspondence from a person not enumerated in paragraph (c) of this section may be opened to inspect for and remove
contraband or prohibited property and to permit removal of funds for crediting the addressee's account. Such correspondence may
not be read, censored, copied or otherwise interfered with unless jail officials have reasonable grounds to believe that it poses an
immediate danger to the safety of an individual or a serious threat to the security of the jail. The addressee must be informed in
writing of the amount of any funds removed.
(e) Correspondence to a person not enumerated in paragraph (c) of this section may be sealed by the inmate. However, if jail
officials have reasonable grounds to believe that such correspondence may contain contraband or prohibited property or poses an
immediate danger to the safety of an individual or serious threat to the security of the jail, it may be opened for inspection and
removal of the contraband or the prohibited property, when appropriate, or reading and appropriate action.
(f) Whenever jail officials delay, censor, copy or withhold correspondence, the addressee shall be given prompt notice in
writing. Jail officials shall maintain a record of each decision to withhold, copy, censor, delay or otherwise interfere with the prompt
transmission of correspondence.
(g) Jail officials may open all incoming and outgoing packages to inspect for and remove funds, contraband or prohibited
property. If contraband or prohibited property is removed from a package, the inmate must be notified in writing of such removal.
(h) Jail officials may inspect all printed matter and exclude any material that is contraband or prohibited property. Printed
matter may not be excluded on the grounds it is obscene or pornographic unless it is obscene under Indiana law. A periodical may
be excluded only on an issue by issue basis. Jail officials who withhold printed matter must promptly notify the addressee in writing.
Indiana Administrative Code

Page 10

COUNTY JAIL STANDARDS
(i) Indigent inmates shall be furnished with free writing supplies and postage sufficient for at least two letters per week.
(Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-16; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 am: 4 IR 1816; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42 a.m.: 25
IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR-210070277RFA)

210 IAC 3-1-17 Discipline; written rules
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 35-50-6-4; IC 35-50-6-5
Sec. 17. Discipline. (a) Each sheriff shall establish written rules of inmate conduct for the maintenance of order and discipline
among inmates. Such rules shall describe the conduct for which disciplinary action may be imposed, the type of disciplinary action
that may be taken, and the disciplinary procedure to be followed. Copies of these rules shall be distributed to all inmates. The
disciplinary action imposed shall be proportionate to the seriousness of the rule violation. The use of physical force as a means of
discipline is prohibited.
(b) All jail personnel who have regular inmate contact shall be provided training sufficient to make them thoroughly familiar
with the rules of inmate conduct and the sanctions available.
(c) Any of the following may be imposed as disciplinary action on jail inmates:
(1) A report, which may be made part of the inmate's record;
(2) Extra work;
(3) Loss or limitation of privileges;
(4) Change in work assignment;
(5) Restitution;
(6) Transfer to the Department of Correction for safe-keeping;
(7) Segregation from the general population for a fixed period of time;
(8) Reassignment to a lower credit time class under IC 35-50-6-4;
(9) Deprivation of earned credit time under IC 35-50-6-5.
(d) The following shall not be imposed as disciplinary action on jail inmates:
(1) Corporal punishment;
(2) Confinement without an opportunity for at least one-half hour of daily exercise outside of immediate living quarters, unless
jail officials find and document that this opportunity will jeopardize the physical safety of the inmate, others, or the security
of the jail;
(3) A substantial change in heating, lighting or ventilation;
(4) Restrictions on clothing, bedding, mail, visitation, reading, and writing materials or the use of hygienic facilities, except
for abuse of these;
(5) Restrictions on medical and dental care, access to courts, legal counsel, government officials or grievance proceedings,
and access to personal legal papers and legal research materials;
(6) A deviation from the diet provided to other inmates, unless approved by the responsible physician;
(7) Extra work exceeding a total of twenty (20) hours for one (1) rule violation, or exceeding four (4) hours in any twenty-four
(24) hour period.
(e) Before imposing any disciplinary action, jail officials shall afford the inmate charged with misconduct a hearing to
determine his guilt or innocence and the disposition of the charge. The charged inmate may waive his right to a hearing in writing.
Also, before a charge is made, the inmate and a jail official may agree to a disciplinary action in the forms of extra work or loss or
limitation of privileges if no record of the conduct or disciplinary action is placed in the inmate's file. In connection with the required
hearing, the inmate is entitled to:
(1) Have not less than twenty-four (24) hours advance written notice of the date, time and place of the hearing, and of the
alleged misconduct, and the rule the misconduct is alleged to have violated;
(2) Have reasonable time to prepare for the hearing;
(3) Have an impartial decisionmaker;
(4) Appear and speak in his own behalf;
(5) Call witnesses and present evidence;
(6) Confront and cross-examine witnesses, unless the decisionmaker finds that to do so would subject a witness to a substantial
risk of harm;
Indiana Administrative Code

Page 11

COUNTY JAIL STANDARDS
(7) Have advice and representation by a lay advocate in those hearings based upon a charge of institutional misconduct when
the decisionmaker determines he lacks the competency to understand the issues involved or to participate in the hearing.
(8) Have a written statement of the findings of fact, the evidence relied upon, and the reasons for the action taken;
(9) Have immunity if his testimony or any evidence derived from his testimony is used in any criminal proceedings;
(10) Have his record expunged of any reference to the charge if he is found not guilty or if a finding of guilt is later overturned.
Any finding of guilt must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence presented at the hearing. An inmate shall receive written
notice of any charge against him within twenty-four (24) hours of knowledge or discovery of the alleged offense by jail officials,
excepting weekends and holidays. The notice shall specify the date, time and place of the hearing; the alleged misconduct; the rule
the misconduct is alleged to have violated; the right to a hearing and explanation of the hearing process. The hearing shall be held
within seventy-two (72) hours of the alleged violation unless the inmate requests additional time to prepare for the hearing.
(g) The sheriff may delegate authority in writing to one or more designees to conduct hearings for alleged violations of facility
rules.
(h) An inmate may appeal the disciplinary decision of a hearing authority to the sheriff. The appeal may challenge the finding
of guilt or the type and degree of disciplinary action taken. Any appeal shall be initiated within ten (10) days of the disciplinary
decision. The sheriff may reduce but not increase any disciplinary action imposed by the hearing authority. (Department of
Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-17; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 am: 4 IR 1817; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42 a.m.: 25 IR 1269;
readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR-210070277RFA)

210 IAC 3-1-18 Inmate classification
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 18. (a) Each sheriff shall establish a written plan for the following:
(1) Classifying and assigning inmates according to sex.
(2) The seriousness of their alleged crimes.
(3) The degree of risk of violence to other inmates.
(4) Their status as either youth or adults and pretrial detainees or convicted persons.
When the jail is at or near capacity, the sheriff shall use the best effort to maintain proper classification and segregation.
(b) Juveniles alleged to be delinquent or adjudicated delinquent shall be held only in accordance with IC 31-6-1-21.3 [IC 31-6
was repealed by P.L.1-1997, SECTION 157, eff July 1, 1997.] and IC 31-6-4-6.5(b)(1) [IC 31-6 was repealed by P.L.1-1997,
SECTION 157, eff July 1, 1997.].
(c) Inmates with contagious or communicable diseases shall be segregated from other inmates. Intoxicated inmates and those
inmates experiencing delirium tremens or drug withdrawal shall also be segregated and given close observation. Allegedly insane
or incompetent inmates who are held in custody during examination of their mental condition or while awaiting commitment to a
mental institution shall be segregated and given close observation.
(d) Inmates shall not be segregated by race, color, creed, or national origin in living area assignments. (Department of
Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-18; filed Jul 27, 1981, 10:30 a.m.: 4 IR 1818; filed Jan 31, 1996, 4:00 p.m.: 19 IR 1312; readopted filed
Nov 15, 2001, 10:42 a.m.: 25 IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.: 20070725-IR-210070277RFA)

210 IAC 3-1-19 Written procedures governing new inmate admissions
Authority: IC 11-8-2-5; IC 11-12-4-1
Affected: IC 11-12-4-1
Sec. 19. Reception, Orientation, Property Control and Release. (a) Each sheriff shall establish written procedures governing
the reception and orientation of newly admitted inmates. Such procedures shall include, but not be limited to:
(1) Verification of commitment papers;
(2) Complete search of the individual;
(3) Disposition of clothing and personal property;
(4) Medical screening, including tests for infectious diseases;
(5) Telephone calls;
(6) Showers and hair care if necessary;
Indiana Administrative Code

Page 12

COUNTY JAIL STANDARDS
(7) Issue of jail clothing and supplies;
(8) Photographing and fingerprinting, including notation of identifying marks or unusual characteristics;
(9) Interview for obtaining identifying data;
(10) Classification for assignment to the living area;
(11) Assignment to the living area.
(b) Each sheriff shall establish written procedures providing for a written, itemized inventory of all personal property of newly
admitted inmates; the secure storage of such property, including money and other valuables; and the return of each inmate's personal
property upon release, as well as the procedures governing release of inmates. (Department of Correction; 210 IAC 3-1-19; filed Jul
27, 1981, 10:30 am: 4 IR 1818; readopted filed Nov 15, 2001, 10:42 a.m.: 25 IR 1269; readopted filed Jul 6, 2007, 2:54 p.m.:
20070725-IR-210070277RFA)

*

Indiana Administrative Code

Page 13

IAC 6/29/11 Corrections Department[201] Ch 50, p.1
JAIL INSPECTION STANDARDS
CHAPTER 50
JAIL FACILITIES
[Prior to 10/1/83, Social Services[770] Ch 15]
[Prior to 3/20/91, Corrections Department[291]]
201—50.1(356,356A) Definitions. The following are defined terms:
“Activity area” means such area, distinct from the living unit, where prisoners may congregate
for programming. This area is to be under constant staff observation.
“Alternative jail facility” means a facility designated pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 356A, and
which is used as a halfway-house-type facility rather than a jail-type operation. These facilities
shall be subject to inspection and accreditation by the state jail inspector utilizing applicable
administrative rules for residential facilities pursuant to 201—Chapter 43 and other acceptable
operational standards.
“Average daily population” means the average number of prisoners housed daily during any
given time period.
“Barrier free” means no walls or other obstructions impeding contact by staff within their
assigned area of operation.
“Capacity” means the number of prisoner occupants which any cell, room, unit, building,
facility or combination thereof may accommodate according to the square footage and fixture
requirements of the standards.
“Cell” means prisoner occupancy bedroom space with toilet and lavatory facilities.
“Cellblock” means a group of cells with an associated dayroom.
“Classification” means a system of obtaining pertinent information concerning prisoners with
which to make a decision on assignment of appropriate housing, security level, and activities.
“Continuous visual observation” means uninterrupted visual contact unaided by closed circuit
television (CCTV).
“Dayroom” means a common space shared by prisoners residing in a cell or group of cells, to
which prisoners are admitted for activities such as dining, bathing, or passive recreation and
which are situated immediately adjacent to prisoner sleeping areas.
“Detention area” means that portion of the facility used to confine prisoners.
“Direct supervision jail” means a style of jail construction designed to facilitate direct contact
between officers and prisoners. The officer is stationed inside the housing unit. Evaluation and
classification of prisoners are ongoing and continuous functions of a direct supervision jail and
are based on close contact with prisoners.
“Disability” means a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the
major life activities of an individual; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having
such an impairment.
“DOC” means the Iowa department of corrections.
“Dormitory” means an open area for two or more prisoners with all fixtures self-contained.
There is no barrier between the sleeping area and other fixtures such as shower, table, recreation
equipment, or similar items.

IAC 6/29/11 Corrections Department[201] Ch 50, p.2
“Emergency situation” means any significant disruption of normal operations caused by riot,
strike, escape, fire, natural disaster or other serious incident.
“Evaluation” means an ongoing process whereby judgments are made concerning a prisoner
based upon the behavior of that prisoner.
“Existing facility” means any place in use as a jail or for which bids have been let for
construction prior to September 12, 2001.
“Holding cell” means a secure room or cell where prisoners may be held up to 24 hours while
awaiting the procedure of commitment or release or court appearances.
“Holdover” means a nonsecure area within a law enforcement facility, hospital, mental health
facility or other existing public building that is intended to serve as a short-term holding facility
for juveniles. A nonsecure area may be a multipurpose area which is unable to be locked.
“Housing unit” means a detention area. This area may be a single occupancy cell, multiple
occupancy cell, cellblock, or dormitory.
“Inspection unit” means the state jail inspection unit.
“Jail” means any place administered by the county sheriff and designed to hold prisoners for as
long as lawfully required but not to exceed one year pursuant to Iowa Code chapters 356 and
356A.
“Jail administrator” means the sheriff, sheriff’s designee, or the executive head of any agency
operating a jail. The jail administrator shall be responsible for the operation of the facility
according to these rules.
“Jailer” means any person who is involved in the booking or supervision of prisoners, who has
direct contact with prisoners or who has control over the movement or release of prisoners within
the jail. Jailers shall meet the requirements of rules 201—50.10(356,356A) and
50.11(356,356A), Iowa Administrative Code.
“Jail inspector” means the department of corrections employee responsible for inspections of
jails and enforcement of these rules by authority of Iowa Code section 356.43.
“Jail supervisor” means any person who is responsible for the routine operation of a jail during
assigned duty hours. While this person does not have to be on the premises at all times, the
person must be readily available for consultation.
“Juvenile” means any person under the age of 18 years.
“Living unit” means an area within a housing unit and that contains individual sleeping
compartments, dayrooms, all necessary personal hygiene fixtures, and sufficient tables and seats
to accommodate capacity.
“Lock down” means whenever prisoners are required to be in their individual cells or locked in
same.
“Mail” means anything that is sent to or by prisoners through the United States Postal Service.
“Major remodeling” means construction that changes the architectural design of an existing jail
and that increases or decreases capacity.
“Medical practitioner” means a licensed physician, licensed osteopathic physician or
physician’s assistant or medical resources such as a hospital or clinic.
“Mental illness” means a psychiatric illness or disease expressed primarily through
abnormalities of thought, feeling, and behavior producing either distress or impaired function.
“Minister” means a trained person ordained or licensed by a bona fide religion to conduct the
services of that faith.

IAC 6/29/11 Corrections Department[201] Ch 50, p.3
“Monitoring” means having a reasonable degree of knowledge or awareness of what activities a
prisoner is engaged in during incarceration.
“Multiple occupancy cell” means a cell designed for more than one prisoner and accessible to a
dayroom.
“Nonsecure hold” means a nonsecure area within a law enforcement facility and which is
intended to serve as a short-term holding facility for juveniles. A nonsecure area may be a
multipurpose area which is unable to be locked.
“Person performing jail duties” means all persons directly involved in the provision of services
to prisoners or the operation of a jail except:
1. Outside contractors performing specific housekeeping functions under the direct supervision
of a jailer.
2. Individuals such as maintenance personnel, cooks, and janitors, if they do not have direct
contact with prisoners or routine access to areas occupied by prisoners.
“Physical jeopardy” means, due to the prisoner’s physical or mental condition, the prisoner is in
peril of serious physical harm.
“Pod” means a grouping of two or more housing units, usually found in large facilities, which
will aid in the control of prisoners.
“Prisoner” means any individual confined in a jail.
“Residential facilities” means the facilities governed by 201—Chapter 43.
“Roving supervising officer” means an officer who provides direct supervision of prisoners by
continuously moving through the housing unit, cells, and activity area of the unit.
“Segregation cell” means a single occupancy cell equipped with tamper-resistant bunks, a toilet,
and a wash basin which are of the type recommended for maximum security housing.
“Unencumbered space” is floor space that is not encumbered by furnishings or fixtures.
Unencumbered space is determined by subtracting the floor area encumbered by furnishings and
fixtures from the total floor area. (All fixtures must be in operational position for these
calculations.)
“Waiver/variance” means a waiver of a specific standard granted by the Iowa department of
corrections in accordance with 201—Chapter 7.
“Weapons” means any instrument, excluding restraining devices, chemical control agents and
electronic control devices, with an intended use of self-defense, protection of another, or to gain
or maintain compliance from an individual.
[ARC 9578B, IAB 6/29/11, effective 8/3/11]
201—50.2(356,356A) General provisions.
50.2(1) Applicability. These rules apply to all facilities regulated by Iowa Code chapters 356 and
356A except temporary holding facilities which are covered by 201—Chapter 51.
50.2(2) Capacity. Established capacities as determined by these rules shall not be exceeded
except in the event of an emergency and then only for such a period of time as is necessary to
arrange for alternate housing or release of sufficient prisoners to bring the number of persons
confined into compliance with the rated capacity.
50.2(3) Right to inspect and visit. The chief jail inspector or authorized representatives shall visit
and inspect jails and may do so on an unannounced basis. Jail personnel and supervisors shall
cooperate

IAC 6/29/11 Corrections Department[201] Ch 50, p.4
in inspections and shall exhibit to the inspectors, upon request, all books, records, medical
records, data, documents and accounts pertaining to a jail or to the prisoners confined and shall
assist inspectors to perform the functions, powers and duties of their office. Provisions of the
first paragraph of Iowa Code
section 356.43 shall control to the extent of any inconsistency of the provisions of this subrule.
50.2(4) Other standards. Nothing contained in these standards shall be construed to prohibit
local officials from adopting standards and requirements governing their employees and
facilities, provided such standards and requirements exceed and do not conflict with standards
mandated in this chapter. These standards shall not be construed as authority to violate any state
fire safety standard, building standard, health and safety code, or any constitutional requirement.
No jail shall be operated without substantially meeting these rules, absent the granting of a
waiver/variance.
50.2(5) Equal opportunity. Facilities, programs, and services shall be available on an equitable
basis to both males and females even though each standard does not specify that it applies to
both males and females.
50.2(6) Nondiscriminatory treatment. Each jail administrator shall ensure that staff and prisoners
are not subject to discriminatory treatment based upon race, religion, nationality, disability, sex
or age absent compelling reason for said discriminatory treatment. Discrimination on the basis of
a disability is prohibited in the provision of services, programs, and activities.
201—50.3(356,356A) Inspection and compliance. The chief jail inspector or authorized
representatives shall visit and inspect each jail within this state at least annually to determine the
degree of compliance with these standards and within 45 days of each inspection shall report the
results to the sheriff and the governing body responsible for the facility.
If a residential facility is operated by a judicial district department of correctional services, the
regional deputy director of the department of corrections and the regional deputy director’s
personnel shall be responsible for all inspections and approvals and shall have the same powers
as the members of the jail inspection unit in carrying out these rules.
50.3(1) Notice of noncompliance with minimum standards. Whenever the determination is made
that a jail or other holding facility is not in compliance with established minimum state jail
standards, the chief administrator of the affected governmental facility will be notified by letter
posted or personal delivery of the need to bring the facility into compliance. The jail inspection
unit shall issue a notice of noncompliance to the responsible jail administrator and the governing
body of each instance in which the jail fails to comply with the minimum standards established
under these rules. The letter shall contain a listing of the statute(s) and rule(s) with which the
facility is not in compliance and a description of the deficiencies and shall specifically identify
each minimum standard with which the jail has failed to comply.
50.3(2) Enforcement of minimum standards; remedial orders. Upon receipt of a notice of
noncompliance pursuant to subrule 50.3(1), the responsible authorities shall initiate appropriate
corrective measures within the time prescribed by the jail inspection unit in its notice (which
shall not exceed 90 days) and shall complete the corrections within a reasonable time as
prescribed by the notice of noncompliance. The jail inspector may agree with the responsible
authorities to a plan of action detailing corrective steps with corresponding time frames which

6/29/11 Corrections Department [201] Ch 50, p.5
will bring the facility into compliance within a reasonable time. If the responsible officials IAC
receiving a notice of noncompliance fail to initiate corrective measures or to complete the
corrective measures within the time prescribed, the jail inspection unit may order the jail in
question or any portion thereof closed, that further confinement of prisoners or classifications of
prisoners in the noncomplying jail or any portion thereof be prohibited, or that all or any number
of prisoners then confined be transferred to and maintained in another jail or detention facility, or
any combination of remedies.
An order for closure shall contain the following:
a. Statute(s) and rule(s) violated.
b. A brief description of the deficiencies.
c. The effective date of the order.
d. An explanation of remedies required before reopening.
This order shall be the notice of noncompliance pursuant to Iowa Code section 356.43 and
201—Chapter 12 concerning contested cases. The matter shall then proceed in accordance with
201—Chapter 12. The jail inspector may agree with the responsible authorities to a plan of
action detailing corrective steps with corresponding time frames which would bring the facility
into compliance within a reasonable time. The remedial order shall be in writing and shall
specifically identify each minimum standard with which the jail has failed to comply. Such
remedial order shall become final and effective 30 days after receipt thereof. In the event
immediate closure is required, emergency action shall proceed pursuant to 201—12.24(17A).
50.3(3) Precedent. Because rules cannot adequately anticipate all potential specific factual
situations and circumstances presented for action, determination or adjudication by the jail
inspection unit, the nature of the action taken with regard to any matter or the disposition of any
matter pending before the jail inspection unit is not necessarily of meaningful precedential value,
and the department shall not be bound by the precedent of any previous action, determination, or
adjudication in the subsequent disposition of any matter pending before it. This rule is intended
to implement Iowa Code sections 17A.10, 17A.12 and 356.43.
201—50.4(356,356A) Physical plant—general.
50.4(1) Building to meet existing codes. All facilities are required to be structurally sound and to
meet existing building code and health code requirements.
50.4(2) Professional inspections.
a. The state jail inspector may require for good reason that an agency operating a jail cause it to
be examined by an architect, engineer, licensed electrician, health inspector, plumber, heating
and air conditioning specialist, food establishment inspector, state fire marshal or fire inspector
or any other person with expertise which may be of assistance to the state jail inspector in
making an informed decision relative to the jail operation or structure. Inspection by a municipal
inspector qualified in these areas may be permitted.
b. Any facility determined to be deficient following inspection may be ordered closed by the jail
inspector, or specific conditions limiting its operation may be imposed in lieu of closing.
An order of closure shall contain the following:
(1) Statute(s) and rule(s) violated.
(2) A brief description of the deficiencies.

IAC 6/29/11 Corrections Department[201] Ch 50, p.6
(3) The effective date of the order.
(4) An explanation of remedies required before reopening.
An order of closure shall adhere to subrules 50.3(1) and 50.3(2). This order shall be the notice of
noncompliance pursuant to Iowa Code section 356.43 and 201—Chapter 12 concerning
contested cases. The matter shall then proceed in accordance with 201—Chapter 12.
c. In the event that any agency fails to cooperate in an inspection, the jail inspector may arrange
for an inspection and the agency operating the facility shall be financially responsible for any
expense involved.
50.4(3) Heating and ventilation. All detention and living areas shall be reasonably heated and
ventilated, with air flow sufficient to admit fresh air and remove disagreeable odors, to ensure
healthful and comfortable living and working conditions for prisoners and staff. Fans and an
adequate supply of cold liquids will be made available and utilized when indoor temperatures
exceed 85° Fahrenheit.
50.4(4) Cells. Maximum security cells shall be equipped with tamper-resistant bunks, secured
table(s) and seat(s), plus a toilet and washbasin recommended for jail or prison use. Cells shall
have an adequate supply of both hot and cold water; mixing valves may be used. Housing areas
of less secure design need not contain tamper-resistant fixtures.
50.4(5) Lighting. Lighting shall be a minimum of 20 candlepower at the table top for the
purposes of reading and writing. Living areas shall be devoid of dark areas. Hallways, entrances
and exits shall be sufficiently lit to observe a person entering or exiting. Light controls shall be
out of the control of prisoners. Housing areas may be variably illuminated to allow sleep, but
continuous observation of prisoners must be possible. All exits shall be equipped with
independent emergency lighting sources.
50.4(6) Screens. If windows are opened for ventilation, screens shall be installed and maintained
in good repair.
50.4(7) Electrical. Drop cords shall not be used as permanent wiring. Electrical service shall
meet the requirements of the governmental body permitted by statute to adopt standards for
electrical service. Appliances shall plug directly into a fixed receptacle. Emergency generator
power shall be available. Emergency generator power shall be tested at regular intervals not less
than monthly. A record of test dates shall be maintained.
50.4(8) Storage.
a. Storage of any type in primary detention areas is not permitted except for supplies necessary
for the operation of the jail.
b. Adequate storage space for prisoners’ personal clothing and property shall be provided. Space
provided shall be secure, and the prisoner’s name or identification number shall be affixed to the
storage space. Property shall be inventoried and accounted for as provided in Iowa Code section
804.19. Previously addressed in 50.13(2)(c).
c. Janitorial supplies shall be stored in a manner to prevent unauthorized prisoner access.
Janitorial supplies and equipment shall not be stored in prisoner living areas.
d. Areas used for storage of chemicals, paints, and cleaning supplies shall not be accessible to
prisoners and such products shall be stored away from the primary detention area. Such storage
shall not be in boiler or furnace rooms.
50.4(9) Mirrors. Mirrors within detention areas shall be of tamper-resistant construction and

IAC 6/29/11 Corrections Department [201] Ch 50, p.7
securely fixed in place.
50.4(10) Firearms lockers. A place inaccessible to prisoners shall be provided where officers
entering the security area can store firearms.
50.4(11) Noise level. Prisoner noise inside the jail shall be controlled to ensure an orderly and
secure jail operation. Jail policy shall include a rule pertaining to noise level. Prisoners must be
advised of the rule.
[ARC 9578B, IAB 6/29/11, effective 8/3/11]
201—50.5(356,356A) Physical requirements for existing facilities. This rule shall apply to all
jails in existence prior to June 30, 1984. In cases where an existing jail undergoes major
remodeling after September 12, 2001, rules 50.6(356,356A) and 50.7(356,356A) shall apply to
the area being upgraded.
50.5(1) Each single occupancy cell for prisoners in normal status shall have a minimum floor
area of 40 square feet provided that the prisoner is not required to spend more than 16 hours
during any 24-hour period in the cell.
50.5(2) Each single occupancy cell must provide 50 square feet of floor space for prisoners held
more than 16 hours during any 24-hour period.
50.5(3) Multiple occupancy cells shall provide 40 square feet of floor space for the first prisoner
and an additional 20 square feet for each additional prisoner provided that no prisoner is required
to spend more than 16 hours in the cell during any 24-hour period.
50.5(4) Prisoners held in multiple occupancy cells for more than 16 hours during any 24-hour
period shall have a minimum of 50 square feet of floor space for the first prisoner and 30
additional square feet of floor space for each additional prisoner.
50.5(5) Except in emergency situations, no multiple occupancy cell shall house more prisoners
than the rated capacity.
50.5(6) Dormitory units shall have a minimum of 60 square feet of floor space per prisoner.
50.5(7) Each single occupancy cell, multiple occupancy cell and dormitory unit shall provide the
following:
a. A minimum of 7 feet from floor to ceiling height.
b. A bunk of adequate size for normal-sized adults.
c. Access to a functional toilet.
d. Access to a lavatory that furnishes both hot and cold water; mixing valves may be used.
e. Sufficient tables and seats to accommodate the rated capacity of the unit. The tables and seats
may be located in the cells or in an adjacent dayroom.
f. A functionally operating shower which furnishes both hot and cold water; mixing valves may
be used. This shower may be either in the housing unit itself or in an adjacent area.
50.5(8) Each dayroom shall have a minimum floor area of 30 square feet. There shall be an
additional 15 square feet for each prisoner beyond one.
201—50.6(356,356A) Physical requirements for new and remodeled facilities—after June
30, 1984. This rule shall apply to jails which are of new construction and to all major remodeling
after June 30, 1984. For jails which are of new construction and for all major remodeling after
September 12, 2001, rule 50.7(356,356A) shall apply. Plans for any remodeling or new

IAC 6/29/11 Corrections Department [201] Ch 50, p.8
construction shall be submitted to the jail inspection unit prior to letting any bids or commencing
any construction subject to this rule. The jail inspection unit shall, within 60 days of receiving
plans, review them for compliance with this rule and forward any comments to the submitting
authority.
50.6(1) New housing units may be single occupancy cells, multiple occupancy cells or dormitory
units. Each single occupancy cell shall have a minimum of 70 square feet of floor space. Each
multiple occupancy cell shall have a minimum of 70 square feet of floor space for the first
prisoner and an additional 50 square feet of floor space for each additional prisoner. Dormitory
units shall provide a minimum of 60 square feet per prisoner.
50.6(2) All housing units shall provide:
a. No less than 7 feet of space between the floor and ceiling.
b. A bunk of adequate size for normal-sized adults for each prisoner.
c. Sufficient desks/tables and chairs/seats to accommodate the capacity of the housing unit.
d. A dayroom which provides a minimum floor area of 30 square feet for the first prisoner and an
additional 15 square feet for each prisoner beyond one. (Dormitories excluded.)
e. A functionally operating shower which produces both hot and cold water.
f. A lavatory that furnishes both hot and cold water for each group of nine prisoners or portion
thereof.
g. A functional toilet for each group of nine prisoners or portion thereof.
50.6(3) Each maximum security cell shall have a security-type toilet/lavatory combination
fixture which provides adequate hot and cold running water. These cells may rely on common
toilet facilities located outside the detention room provided that the prisoner is never
involuntarily locked in the room and denied access to the toilet facilities.
50.6(4) Holding cells shall provide a minimum of 20 square feet per prisoner with a total
capacity per cell of eight prisoners. Holding cells need not contain any fixture other than a means
whereby prisoners may sit. Drinking water and toilet facilities shall be made available under staff
supervision. Dayrooms need not be available to prisoners held in holding cells. Holding cells are
for detaining persons for a limited period of time, not to exceed 24 hours, except in cases of
emergency, while awaiting booking, processing, transfer, court appearance or discharge.
Detainees will be supplied blankets if detained overnight in the holding cell. Emergencies are
defined as unexpected occurrences, requiring immediate attention, of singular incident and
resolution.
50.6(5) The facility shall be designed to admit natural lighting and to give access to outside
viewing by prisoners where practical.
50.6(6) The facility shall be designed and constructed so that prisoners may be segregated
according to existing laws and regulations.
50.6(7) Except in emergency situations, no housing unit shall house more prisoners than its rated
capacity.
50.6(8) All hinged doors serving as required exits shall swing with exit traffic.
201—50.7(356,356A) Physical requirements for new and remodeled facilities—after
September 12, 2001. This rule shall apply to jails which are of new construction and all major
remodeling or reconstruction after September 12, 2001. Plans for any remodeling or new

IAC 6/29/11 Corrections Department[201] Ch 50, p.9
construction shall be submitted to the jail inspection unit prior to letting any bids or commencing
any construction subject to this rule. The jail inspection unit shall, within 60 days of receiving
plans, review them for compliance with this rule and forward any comments to the submitting
authority.
50.7(1) New housing units may be single occupancy cells, multiple occupancy cells or dormitory
units. Each single occupancy cell shall have a minimum of 70 square feet of floor space. Each
multiple occupancy cell shall have a minimum of 35 square feet of unencumbered floor space for
each prisoner. Dormitory units shall provide a minimum of 60 square feet per prisoner.
50.7(2) All housing units shall provide:
a. No less than 7 feet of space between the floor and ceiling.
b. A bunk of adequate size for normal-sized adults for each prisoner.
c. Sufficient desks/tables and chairs/seats to accommodate the capacity of the housing unit.
d. A dayroom which provides a minimum floor area of 30 square feet for the first prisoner and an
additional 15 square feet for each prisoner beyond one. (Dormitories excluded.)
e. A functionally operating shower which produces both hot and cold water for each group of 12
prisoners.
f. A lavatory that furnishes both hot and cold water for each group of 9 prisoners or portion
thereof.
g. A functional toilet for each group of 9 prisoners or portion thereof.
50.7(3) Each maximum security cell shall have a security-type toilet/lavatory-combination
fixture which provides adequate hot and cold running water. These cells may rely on common
toilet facilities located outside the detention room provided that the prisoner is never
involuntarily locked in the room and denied access to the toilet facilities.
50.7(4) Holding cells shall provide a minimum of 20 square feet per prisoner with a total
capacity per cell of eight prisoners. Holding cells need not contain any fixture other than a means
whereby prisoners may sit. Drinking water and toilet facilities shall be made available under staff
supervision. Dayrooms need not be available to prisoners held in holding cells. Holding cells are
for detaining persons for a limited period of time, not to exceed 24 hours, except in cases of
emergency, while awaiting booking, processing, transfer, court appearance or discharge.
Detainees will be supplied blankets if detained overnight in the holding cell. Emergencies are
defined as unexpected occurrences, requiring immediate attention, of singular incident and
resolution.
50.7(5) Exercise areas shall be 15 square feet per prisoner for the maximum number of prisoners
expected to use the space at one time in accordance with 50.18(1)“c.”
50.7(6) The facility shall be designed to admit natural light and to give access to outside viewing
by prisoners where practical.
50.7(7) The facility shall be designed and constructed so that prisoners may be segregated
according to existing laws and regulations.
50.7(8) Except in emergency situations, no housing unit shall house more prisoners than its rated
capacity.
50.7(9) All hinged doors serving as required exits shall swing with exit traffic.

IAC 6/29/11 Corrections Department [201] Ch 50, p.10
201—50.8(356,356A) Physical requirements for new and remodeled facilities—after
December 28, 2005. This rule shall apply to all jails which are of new construction and to all
major remodeling or reconstruction after December 28, 2005.
50.8(1) Cells and dormitory units.
a. Single occupancy cells shall provide a minimum of 35 square feet of unencumbered floor
space. When confinement exceeds 10 hours per day, except during administrative segregation or
emergencies, there shall be at least 70 square feet of total floor space.
b. Multiple occupancy cells shall provide a minimum of 25 square feet of unencumbered floor
space for each prisoner. When confinement exceeds 10 hours per day, except during
administrative segregation or emergencies, there shall be at least 35 square feet of unencumbered
floor space for each occupant.
c. Dormitory units shall provide a minimum of 60 square feet of floor space for each prisoner,
exclusive of lavatories, showers, and toilets.
50.8(2) All housing units shall provide:
a. No less than 7 feet of space between the floor and ceiling.
b. A bunk of adequate size for normal-sized adults for each prisoner and at least 12 inches off the
floor.
c. Sufficient desks/tables and chairs/seats to accommodate the capacity of the housing unit.
d. A dayroom, which provides a minimum floor area of 35 square feet of space per prisoner
(exclusive of lavatories, showers and toilets) for the maximum number of prisoners who use the
dayroom at one time. No dayroom shall encompass less than 100 square feet of space, exclusive
of lavatories, showers and toilets. Dayrooms shall provide sufficient seating and writing surfaces.
(Dormitories excluded.)
e. A functionally operating shower which produces both hot and cold water for each group of 12
prisoners.
f. A lavatory that furnishes both hot and cold water for each group of 9 prisoners or portion
thereof.
g. A functional toilet/stool for each group of 9 prisoners or portion thereof. Urinals may be
substituted for up to one-third of the toilets in housing units for male prisoners.
50.8(3) Each maximum-security cell shall have a security-type toilet/lavatory-combination
fixture that provides adequate hot and cold running water.
50.8(4) Holding cells/special-needs cells.
a. Holding cells shall provide a minimum of 20 square feet per prisoner with a maximum
capacity per cell of eight prisoners. Holding cells need not contain any fixture other than a means
whereby prisoners may sit. Drinking water and toilet facilities shall be made available under staff
supervision. Dayrooms need not be available to prisoners held in holding cells. Holding cells are
for detaining persons for a limited period of time not to exceed 24 hours, except in cases of
emergency, while the persons are awaiting booking, processing, transfer, court appearance or
discharge. Prisoners will be supplied blankets if detained overnight in the holding cell.
Emergencies are defined as unexpected occurrences, requiring immediate attention, of singular
incident and resolution.
b. Special-needs cells. A jail may contain one or more single occupancy cells, designated as
special-needs cells, in which to temporarily contain violent persons. The cell shall have not less
than 40 square feet of floor space and a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet. The cell shall be

IAC 6/29/11 Corrections Department [201] Ch 50, p.11
constructed to minimize self-injury. Toilet facilities may be controlled from outside the cell and
may be in the floor. Water need not be available in the cells, but water shall be accessible from
staff upon request.
50.8(5) Exercise areas.
a. This paragraph shall apply to all jails constructed on or before July 1, 2008. Exercise areas
may be indoor or outdoor exercise areas and shall contain 15 square feet per prisoner for the
maximum number of prisoners expected to use the space at one time, but not less than 500
square feet of unencumbered space. Segregation units may have individual exercise areas
containing a minimum of 180 square feet of unencumbered space. Exercise areas shall provide
opportunity for adequate exercise in accordance with 50.18(1)“c.” Exercise areas shall not be
the same as dayrooms.
b. This paragraph shall apply to all jails which are of new construction and to all major
remodeling or reconstruction after July 1, 2008. Exercise areas may be indoor or outdoor
exercise areas and shall contain 15 square feet per prisoner for the maximum number of
prisoners expected to use the space at one time, but not less than 500 square feet of
unencumbered space. Segregation units may have individual exercise areas containing a
minimum of 180 square feet of unencumbered space. Exercise areas shall have a minimum
ceiling height of 18 feet. Exercise areas shall provide opportunity for adequate exercise
in accordance with 50.18(1)“c.” Exercise areas shall not be the same as dayrooms.
50.8(6) The facility shall be designed to admit natural light and to give access to outside viewing
by prisoners where practical.
50.8(7) The facility shall be designed and constructed so that prisoners may be segregated
according to existing laws and regulations.
50.8(8) Except in emergency situations, no housing unit shall house more prisoners than its rated
capacity.
50.8(9) All hinged doors serving as required exits shall swing with exit traffic.
201—50.9(356,356A) Fire safety and emergency evacuation.
50.9(1) Approval of building plans. All new construction or major remodeling plans shall be
approved by the state fire marshal prior to commencement of construction.
50.9(2) Compliance with fire marshal rules. No jail shall be occupied by a prisoner unless the
state fire marshal or qualified local fire prevention authority has issued a certificate of inspection
within the last 24 calendar months documenting that the jail complies with the fire safety
standards for jails included in administrative rules promulgated by the state fire marshal. Jails
may be inspected by the fire marshal, or by personnel of local fire departments deemed by the
fire marshal qualified to conduct inspections, on a schedule determined by the fire marshal. The
state jail inspection unit of the department of corrections, a jail administrator, or the chief
executive of an agency that administers a jail may request that the state fire marshal inspect a jail
for compliance with fire safety standards. If the state fire marshal finds that a jail is not in
substantial compliance with fire safety standards based on such an inspection, the state fire
marshal may require the jail administrator to submit to the fire marshal a plan of correction of
violations of these standards. The director of the Iowa department of corrections may initiate
proceedings to close the jail if the jail does not comply with the plan of correction.

IAC 6/29/11 Corrections Department [201] Ch50, p.12
50.9(3) Evacuation plan. The administrator of each jail shall prepare a written plan for
emergency evacuation of the facility in the event of fire or other disaster. This plan shall include
security arrangements and one or more alternate housing arrangements for displaced prisoners.
All personnel employed in the facility shall be thoroughly familiar with this plan and relevant
portions thereof shall be conspicuously posted. Evacuation drills shall be practiced or simulated
by all staff on at least an annual basis and a record thereof shall be maintained according to
subrule 50.22(10), Iowa Administrative Code.
50.9(4) Release of prisoners.
a. There shall be a reasonable expectation of the prompt removal of prisoners in the event of a
life-threatening situation. Keys for all locks necessary for emergency exit shall be readily
accessible and clearly identifiable with cell and door locks.
b. There shall be at least one full set of jail keys, other than those regularly used, stored in a safe
place accessible only to appropriate persons, for use in the event of an emergency.
50.9(5) Fire extinguishers. All jails shall be equipped with fire extinguishing equipment
approved and located in accordance with standards established by the state fire marshal by
administrative rule. Fire extinguishers shall be tested at least annually to ensure they remain in
operative condition. A record of such checks shall be maintained.
50.9(6) Emergency lighting. All exits shall be equipped with independent emergency lighting
sources. All corridors and passage aisles shall be illuminated by independent emergency lighting
sources. Lighting shall be arranged to ensure no area will be left in darkness.
50.9(7) Required exits. Where exits are not immediately accessible from an open floor area, safe
and continuous passage aisles or corridors leading directly to every exit shall be maintained and
shall be so arranged as to provide access for each prisoner to at least two separate and distinct
exits from each floor. Passage aisles or corridors shall be kept clear. A locked exit may be
classified as an emergency exit only if necessary keys to locked doors are readily available.
Elevators shall not be counted as required exits.
50.9(8) Fire alarms. A means of fire detection utilizing equipment of a type meeting
requirements established by the state fire marshal shall be installed and maintained. These alarms
shall be ceiling-mounted if possible and shall be located and protected from prisoner access. The
detection equipment shall be battery-operated or constructed as to continue operating during a
power failure. Battery-operated systems shall be tested monthly. Electronic systems shall be
tested at least annually. A record of test dates and results shall be maintained according to
subrule 50.22(10), Iowa Administrative Code.
50.9(9) Heating appliances. Heating appliances and water heaters shall not be located along the
path of required exits.
50.9(10) Hinged doors. All hinged doors serving as required exits from an area designed for an
occupancy in excess of 50 persons, or as part of a major remodeling project or as part of new
construction, shall swing with exit traffic.
50.9(11) Mattresses. Only fire-resistant mattresses of a type that will not sustain a flame and
certified by an independent testing laboratory and that meet the standards established by the state
fire marshal shall be used in jails. Mattresses that are ripped, excessively cracked or which
contain large holes shall be replaced. Pillows shall be replaced when torn or excessively cracked.

IAC 6/29/11 Corrections Department [201] Ch 50, p.13
50.9(12) Sprinkler heads. If installed, sprinkler heads accessible to prisoners not under direct
supervision must be of the weight-sensitive type, be protected with a sleeve that would hamper
the tying of material on the sprinkler head, or be recessed into the wall or ceiling.
201—50.10(356,356A) Minimum standards for jail personnel.
50.10(1) Requirements for employment. No person shall be recruited, selected or appointed to
serve as a jail administrator or jailer unless the person:
a. Is 18 years of age or older.
b. Is able to read and write in English.
c. Is of good moral character as determined by a thorough background investigation including a
fingerprint search conducted of local, state and national fingerprint files.
d. Is not by reason of conscience or belief opposed to the use of force, when appropriate or
necessary to fulfill the person’s duties.
e. Has the ability to perform the essential elements of the position as defined in department job
specifications.
f. Is an appropriate candidate for employment as demonstrated by qualified psychological
screening.
g. Rescinded IAB 11/23/05, effective 12/28/05.
50.10(2) Minimum standard for retention. No employee shall be retained who has demonstrated
inappropriate action beyond a reasonable degree, who is not psychologically fit for jail
employment, or who has repeatedly failed to observe these rules.
50.10(3) Conflict of interest. No person working in a jail shall transact any business with any
prisoner nor shall any person working in a jail arrange through another party any business
transaction with a prisoner. The jail shall have a written code of ethics that the jail provides to all
employees. At a minimum, the code shall:
a. Prohibit staff from using their official positions to secure privileges for themselves or others.
b. Prohibit staff from engaging in activities that constitute a conflict of interest.
201—50.11(356,356A) Training for jail personnel.
50.11(1) Initial orientation. Except in an emergency situation, all persons performing jail duties
and dispatchers subject to performing jail duties within the confines of the jail shall meet the
following requirements, and the provision of this information and training shall be documented:
a. The individual shall be fully knowledgeable of the administrative rules referring to jail
standards.
b. The individual shall be fully knowledgeable of jail rules, written policies and procedures as
adopted by the jail administrator.
c. The individual shall have been given specific orientation with respect to a prisoner’s rights
during confinement and procedures adopted to ensure those rights.
d. If the individual is to have access to a firearm at any time, the individual shall hold a valid
permit to carry weapons issued under the authority of Iowa Code chapter 724. The individual
shall be professionally trained and qualified in the use of any firearm, electric restraint control
device, and chemical control agents prior to use in connection with the individual’s duties at the
jail.

IAC 6/29/11 Corrections Department [201] Ch 50, p.14
e. The jail administrator shall record by log sheet the signature(s) of all jailers and jail
supervisors attesting that they have full knowledge of the administrative rules referring to jail
standards and the written policies and procedures governing the jail’s operation.
f. The individual shall have been instructed in the use of required firefighting equipment and the
fire and emergency evacuation plan.
g. All staff who administer medication shall be trained in accordance with the Iowa State Sheriffs
and Deputies Association medication training program or other recognized medication
administration course.
50.11(2) Training documented. All jailers and jail administrators shall meet and document the
completion of all training requirements as specified by the Iowa law enforcement academy
training standards as found in 501—9.1(80B) and 501—9.2(80B), Iowa Administrative Code.
The jail administrator shall record by log sheet the signature(s) of all persons attending the
training.
50.11(3) First aid. At least one staff member on duty at the facility shall be currently trained in
first aid (or the equivalent) and CPR. This rule is intended to implement Iowa Code section
80B.11A.
201—50.12(356,356A) Standard operating procedures manual. Pursuant to the authority of
Iowa Code sections 356.5 and 356.36, each jail shall establish and the jail administrator shall
ensure compliance with a standard operating procedures manual to include the following
administrative rules: subrules 50.2(5), 50.2(6), 50.4(11), 50.9(3), 50.9(4), 50.10(1), 50.10(2),
50.10(3), 50.11(1) and rules 50.13(356,356A) to 50.22(356,356A) as noted. The following
standards do not require written policy: 50.13(2)“c”(3), 50.15(4), 50.16(4), and 50.16(8).
201—50.13(356,356A) Admission/classification and security.
50.13(1) Admission and classification.
a. No person shall be confined or released from confinement without appropriate process or
order of court.
b. With the exception of incidental contact under staff supervision, the following classes of
prisoners shall be kept separate by architectural design barring conversational and visual contact
from each other:
(1) Juveniles and adults (pursuant to Iowa Code section 356.3).
(2) Females from males (exception—alternative jail facilities) (pursuant to Iowa Code section
356.4).
c. The following shall be kept separate whenever possible:
(1) Felons from misdemeanants.
(2) Pretrial prisoners from sentenced prisoners.
(3) Witnesses from prisoners charged with crimes.
d. The following shall be kept physically separated:
(1) Prisoners of whom violence is reasonably anticipated.
(2) Prisoners who are a health risk to others.
(3) Prisoners of whom sexually deviant behavior is reasonably anticipated.
(4) Prisoners likely to be exploited or victimized by others.
e. Detention of juveniles shall be pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.22.

IAC 6/29/11 Corrections Department [201] Ch 50, p.15
f. All staff involved in the booking process or the supervision of prisoners shall be trained in
suicide prevention. At the time of booking, an attempt shall be made (either by observation for
marks or scars or direct questioning of the prisoner) to determine if the prisoner is suicidal. The
following questions, or others of equal meaning, shall be incorporated into the booking process
with appropriate documentation to aid in suicide prevention:
(1) Does the prisoner show signs of depression?
(2) Does the prisoner appear overly anxious, afraid, or angry?
(3) Does the prisoner appear unusually embarrassed or ashamed?
(4) Is the prisoner acting or talking in a strange manner?
(5) Does the prisoner appear to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs?
(6) Does the prisoner have any scars or marks which indicate a previous suicide attempt?
In all cases, the following questions will be asked of the prisoner:
Have you ever tried to hurt yourself?
Have you ever attempted to kill yourself?
Are you thinking about hurting yourself?
g. Housing for prisoners with disabilities shall be designed for their use, or reasonable
accommodations shall be provided for the prisoners’ safety and security.
h. Jail personnel shall ask each prisoner within 24 hours of the prisoner’s incarceration if the
prisoner is a military veteran. If so, jail personnel shall advise the prisoner that the prisoner may
be entitled to a visit from a veteran service officer to determine if veteran services are required or
available and, within 72 hours, shall provide the prisoner with contact information for the county
commission of veteran affairs and provide the prisoner the opportunity to contact the county
commission of veteran affairs to schedule a visit from a veteran service officer.
50.13(2) Security and control. The jail administrator shall develop and implement written
policies and procedures for the jail which provide for the control of prisoners and for the safety
of the public and the jail staff. The policy and procedures shall include:
a. Supervision of prisoners.
(1) Twenty-four-hour supervision of all prisoners shall be provided pursuant to Iowa Code
section 356.5(6).
(2) When staff is not within the confinement area of the jail, a staff person shall be in a position
to hear prisoners in a life-threatening or emergency situation; or a calling device to summon help
will be provided. By policy and practice there shall be a means of ensuring that appropriate
personnel will be available on a 24-hour basis to respond to an emergency including, but not
limited to, fire, assaults, suicide attempts, serious illness, and to preserve order, within a
reasonable time period.
(3) At least hourly, personal observation of individual prisoners shall be made and documented.
Prisoners considered to be in physical jeopardy because of physical or mental condition,
including apparently intoxicated persons, as indicated by the medical history intake process and
by personal observation, shall be checked personally at least every 30 minutes until the condition
is alleviated. A CCTV-audio monitoring system may supplement but shall not replace personal
observations. In order to use a CCTV-audio monitoring system, the following requirements must
be met: CCTV and audio must be operational at all times. Visual and audio must be clear and
distinct. Observation of shower and restroom activities shall be at the discretion of the jail
administrator.

IAC 6/29/11 Corrections Department [201] Ch 50, p.16
(4) No employee or visitor of one sex shall enter a housing unit occupied by the other sex unless
advance notice has been provided except in case of an emergency (does not apply to alternative
jail facilities). Advance notice may be provided at the time of orientation.
(5) When females are housed in the jail, at least one female staff member shall be on duty in the
jail at all times, in accordance with Iowa Code section 356.5(6) (does not apply to alternative jail
facilities).
(6) All juveniles arrested for intoxication due to substance abuse shall be personally observed on
a continuous basis throughout the period of detention. The activities of juveniles arrested for
crimes other than the above shall be monitored at all times, and the juvenile shall be observed by
means of personal supervisory checks at no more than 30-minute intervals.
b. Weapons. Except in an emergency situation, no weapons shall be allowed in an area occupied
by prisoners.
c. Searches.
(1) All prisoners and property entering or leaving the jail shall be thoroughly searched; searches
of persons charged with a simple misdemeanor shall follow provisions of Iowa Code section
804.30. The prisoner’s name or identification number shall be affixed to the property or storage
space. Receipts shall be made for property taken from prisoners at the time of admission and
returned to prisoners at the time of release.
(2) All persons entering a jail may be searched for contraband. Persons may be denied admission
if they refuse to consent to a required search.
(3) A search notice shall be posted in a conspicuous place (no policy required).
(4) Prisoner rules shall contain a clear definition of each item permitted in the jail. All other
items shall be considered contraband.
(5) Random, unannounced, and irregular searches of areas accessible to prisoners shall be
conducted for contraband and weapons.
d. Key control. Jail keys shall be stored in a secure area when not in use. There shall be at least
one full set of jail keys, separate from those in use, stored in a safe place accessible only to
designated jail personnel for use in the event of an emergency. The jail administrator will
identify those persons who may have access to keys.
e. Facility security.
(1) All areas of the jail shall be inspected regularly and frequently and kept clear of large posters,
pictures and articles of clothing that obstruct the view of prisoners by jail staff.
(2) All jail locks, doors, bars, windows, screens, grilles and fencing shall be inspected on at
least a monthly basis. Any damaged or nonfunctioning equipment or fixtures shall be reported to
the jail administrator in writing. The jail administrator shall ensure prompt repair of any
damaged or nonfunctioning equipment or fixture.
(3) The jail administrator shall develop written policy and procedures for the movement and
transportation of prisoners outside the secure area of the jail. The policy shall require procedures
that will ensure the safety of the jail staff and the public and prevent prisoner escape. The policy
shall provide procedures for movement of prisoners for medical treatment and to and from the
courts and other facilities. The classification and security risk of the prisoner to be moved will
determine the number of staff required and the type of restraints to be used, if any.
(4) The jail administrator shall have written plans for situations that threaten facility security.

IAC 6/29/11 Corrections Department [201] Ch 50, p.17
Such situations include but are not limited to: bomb threats, riots, hunger strikes, disturbances,
hostage situations, escape attempts, medical emergencies, natural disasters and staff work
stoppage. The plans shall be made available to all applicable personnel and reviewed by jail staff
at least annually and updated as needed.
f. Restraint devices. The jail administrator shall have a written policy on restraint devices.
Restraint devices shall not be applied as punishment. Restraint devices shall be used only when a
prisoner is a threat to self or others or jeopardizes jail security. There shall be defined
circumstances under which supervisory approval is needed prior to application of restraints.
Restraint devices shall not be applied for more time than is necessary to alleviate the condition
requiring the use of the restraint device. While restrained, prisoners shall be either clothed or
covered in a manner that maximizes prisoner privacy. Four/five-point restraints shall be used
only when other types of restraints have proven ineffective. If prisoners are restrained in a
four/five-point position, the following minimum procedures shall be followed:
(1) Observation by staff shall be continuous. (A CCTV system may be used.)
(2) Personal visual (non-CCTV) observation of the prisoner and the restraint device application
shall be made at least every 15 minutes.
(3) Restraint guidelines shall include consideration of an individual’s physical and health
condition, such as body weight.
(4) All decisions and actions shall be documented.
[ARC 9578B, IAB 6/29/11, effective 8/3/11]
201—50.14(356,356A) Cleanliness and hygiene.
50.14(1) Housekeeping.
a. The jail shall be kept clean and sanitary. Toilets, wash basins, showers and other equipment
throughout the facility shall be maintained in good working order. Walls, floors and ceilings
shall be well maintained.
(1) Unless cleaning is done by staff, necessary cleaning equipment shall be provided to prisoners.
Cleaning equipment shall be removed from the cell and dayroom areas when cleaning is
completed.
(2) The jail shall be maintained in a pest-free condition. Persons spraying chemicals shall be
certified by the Iowa department of agriculture and land stewardship. Prisoners and staff shall
not be directly exposed to the chemicals being used.
b. The jail shall have a sharps disposal container for razors and needles. The facility shall
be equipped to handle disposal of contaminated or hazardous waste according to universal health
precautions.
50.14(2) Clothing, bedding, and hygiene items. Prisoners held in excess of 24 hours shall be
provided sanitary bedding and linens sufficient to ensure comfort under existing temperature
conditions. These items may be withheld by the jail administrator if deemed necessary pursuant
to subrule 50.21(5). A standard issue shall include:
a. Toilet articles necessary for daily personal hygiene.
b. Institutional clothing may be issued.
c. If, upon admission to a jail with an average daily population exceeding ten persons, it is
determined that the prisoner will be held longer than 24 hours, facility-provided clothing shall be
issued.

IAC 6/29/11 Corrections Department [201] Ch 50, p.18
d. The laundry means and schedule shall be adequate to meet the daily needs of the prisoners.
Prisoners shall receive clean linens and clothing no less than weekly.
50.14(3) Personal hygiene.
a. For sanitation and health reasons, prisoners shall be required to keep themselves clean at all
times.
b. Unless medically exempted, all prisoners to be held over 24 hours shall be required to shower
or bathe.
c. Prisoners may be required to shave or cut their hair only for sanitation.
d. Jail personnel shall establish procedures for prisoner hair care.
e. The sharing of instruments which are subject to blood contamination, such as nonelectric
razors and toothbrushes, is prohibited. Electric razors properly sterilized under medically
approved conditions may be shared.
[ARC 9578B, IAB 6/29/11, effective 8/3/11]
201—50.15(356,356A) Medical services. The jail administrator shall establish a written policy
and procedure to ensure that prisoners have the opportunity to receive necessary medical
attention for the prisoners’ objectively serious medical and dental needs which are known to the
jail staff. A serious medical need is one that has been diagnosed by a physician as requiring
treatment or is one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity
for a physician’s attention. The plan shall include a procedure for emergency care. Responsibility
for the costs of medical services and products remains that of the prisoner. However, no prisoner
will be denied necessary medical services, dental service, medicine or prostheses because of a
lack of ability to pay. Medical and dental prostheses shall be provided only for the serious
medical needs of the prisoner, as determined by a licensed health care professional. Cosmetic or
elective procedures need not be provided.
50.15(1) Medical resources. Each jail shall have a designated licensed physician, licensed
osteopathic physician or medical resource, such as a hospital or clinic staffed by licensed
physicians or licensed osteopathic physicians, designated for the medical supervision, care and
treatment of prisoners as deemed necessary and appropriate. Medical resources shall be available
on a 24-hour basis.
50.15(2) Trained staff.
a. All staff who administer medication shall be trained in accordance with the Iowa State Sheriffs
and Deputies Association medication training program or other recognized medication
administration course.
b. At least one staff member on duty at the jail shall be currently trained in first aid (or the
equivalent) and CPR.
50.15(3) Prisoner involvement. No prisoner shall be involved in any phase of delivery of medical
services.
50.15(4) First-aid kits. A first-aid kit approved by qualified medical personnel shall be available
to staff (no policy required).
50.15(5) Chemical control agents. A prisoner affected by a chemical control agent shall be
offered a medical examination and appropriate treatment as soon as reasonable.
50.15(6) Screening upon admission.

IAC 6/29/11 Corrections Department [201] Ch 50, p.19
a. Any person who is obviously injured, ill or unconscious shall be examined by qualified
medical personnel before being admitted to a jail.
b. Prisoners suspected of having a contagious or communicable disease shall be separated from
other prisoners until examined by qualified medical personnel.
c. As a part of the admission procedure, a medical history intake form shall be completed for
each person admitted to the jail. The intake procedure shall include screening for potential selfinjury or potential suicide. Jail staff with actual knowledge that there is a substantial risk that a
prisoner intends to commit suicide shall take reasonable measures to abate that risk. The jail shall
have a written suicide prevention plan. Essential elements of the plan shall include annual
training to recognize the potential for suicide, communication between staff, appropriate housing
and intervention procedures.
d. During times when there is no means of immediate access to the district court, a person
arrested on a charge constituting a simple misdemeanor and believed by the arresting
officer/agency to be mentally ill, and because of that illness is likely to physically injure the
person’s self or others, shall be admitted to the jail only after the arresting officer/agency has
demonstrated a reasonable effort to comply with the emergency hospitalization procedure, as
provided in Iowa Code section 229.22. The jail shall have a written plan to provide prisoners
access to services for the detection, diagnosis and treatment of mental illness. The plan shall
include a mental health screening process at admission
e. Prisoners shall be provided with information on how they can obtain necessary medical
attention, and the agency’s policy and procedure shall also reflect this.
50.15(7) Medication procedures.
a. Written policies and procedures pertaining to providing medication shall be established.
b. All prescription medicine shall be securely stored and inventory control practiced. Inventory
control shall include documentation of all medication coming into the jail and the amount
returned or destroyed when a prisoner is released.
c. A written procedure for recording the taking or administering of all medications shall be
established.
d. Prescription medication, as ordered by a licensed physician, licensed osteopathic physician
or licensed dentist, shall be provided in accordance with the directions of the prescribing
physician or dentist. Prisoners with medication from a personal physician, osteopathic physician
or dentist may be evaluated by a physician, osteopathic physician or dentist selected by the jail
administrator to determine if the present medication is appropriate.
50.15(8) Medical records. A separate medical record shall be maintained for each prisoner
receiving medical care. The record shall include the illness being treated, medication
administered, special diets required, medical isolations and the name of the attending health
professional or institution. The record may be kept in the prisoner’s file jacket but must be
labeled confidential.
50.15(9) Medication storage.
a. Prisoners’ medications shall be stored at the proper temperature, as defined by the following
terms:
(1) Room temperature: temperature maintained between 15 degrees centigrade (59 degrees
Fahrenheit) and 30 degrees centigrade (85 degrees Fahrenheit).
(2) Cool: temperature between 8 degrees centigrade (46 degrees Fahrenheit) and 15 degrees

IAC 6/29/11 Corrections Department [201] Ch 50, p.20
centigrade (59 degrees Fahrenheit).
(3) Refrigerate: temperature that is thermostatically maintained between 2 degrees centigrade (36
degrees Fahrenheit) and 8 degrees centigrade (46 degrees Fahrenheit).
(4) All medication required to be “cool” or “refrigerated” shall be stored in a separate
refrigerator or in a separate locked container within a refrigerator that is used for other purposes.
b. Any medications bearing an expiration date may not be administered beyond the expiration
date.
c. Expired drugs or drugs not in unit dose packaging, whose administration had been
discontinued by the attending physician, shall be destroyed by the jail administrator or designee
in the presence of a witness. A record of drug destruction shall be made in each prisoner’s
medical record. The record shall include the name, the strength and the quantity of the drug
destroyed, and the record shall be signed by the jail administrator or designee and by the witness.
d. Medications dispensed by a pharmacy in unit dose packaging may be returned to the
dispensing pharmacy pursuant to board of pharmacy examiners rule 657—23.15(124,155A).
e. Jails utilizing unit dose packaging shall have written policies and procedures providing for the
return of drugs so packed to the issuing pharmacy. Policy shall include proper record keeping of
disposal.
201—50.16(356,356A) General food service requirements.
50.16(1) Prisoner being held. If a prisoner is held over a meal period, a meal of adequate
nutrition shall be provided.
50.16(2) Daily meals. The three meals provided for each 24-hour duration shall be served at
reasonable and proper intervals; at least one meal shall be a hot meal. Food must be served at the
proper temperature; hot foods shall be reasonably hot and cold foods reasonably cold.
50.16(3) Time of serving. Meals shall be served at approximately the same time every day.
50.16(4) Documentation. The facility shall document that its food service meets or exceeds
nationally recommended minimum dietary allowances for basic nutrition for appropriate age
groups. Dietary guidelines meeting the above requirements shall be certified by a qualified
nutritionist or dietitian (no policy required).
50.16(5) Medical diets. Special diets as prescribed by a physician shall be followed and
documented. The physician who prescribes the special diet shall specify a date on which the diet
will be reviewed for renewal or discontinuation. Unless specified by the prescribing physician, a
certified dietitian shall develop the menu.
50.16(6) Religious requests. When a special diet is requested by a prisoner as part of the
prisoner’s religious beliefs, the facility shall meet that need, unless the facility can demonstrate
that its refusal does not impose a substantial burden on the exercise of the prisoner’s religion or
that its refusal furthers some compelling interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering
that interest.
50.16(7) Punishment. Deviation from normal feeding procedures shall not be used as
punishment.
50.16(8) Inspection of facilities of outside food service providers. If food service is provided by
outside sources, only a facility with a food establishment license or those required to undergo
inspection by other statutes shall be utilized to provide these services. The transfer of food shall
be done under sanitary conditions (no policy required).

IAC 6/29/11 Corrections Department [201] Ch 50, p.21
201—50.17(356,356A) In-house food services.
50.17(1) Food preparation areas shall be clean and sanitary in accordance with state health
standards regulating institutional or food establishment operations.
50.17(2) All food products shall be stored or refrigerated in compliance with state health
standards governing institutional or food establishment operations.
50.17(3) Dishes, utensils, pans and trays shall be sanitized after use in accordance with state
health standards for food establishments or institutions.
50.17(4) Staff shall serve or supervise the serving of all meals. Food handlers must be clean and
free of illness or disease.
201—50.18(356,356A) Prisoner activities.
50.18(1) Exercise. Prisoners held beyond seven days and not leaving the jail pursuant to Iowa
Code section 356.26 shall be offered exercise time.
a. A minimum of two one-hour exercise sessions shall be offered during each full calendar week.
Playing board games or cards or reading is recreation and is not considered exercise. A record of
exercise sessions shall be maintained according to subrule 50.22(15).
b. Restrictions. Exercise requirements may be restricted by disciplinary action.
c. Exercise areas. An exercise area outside the cell shall be available. Such area must provide
opportunity for adequate exercise. Corridors and hallways must remain clear of equipment or
material and must provide unimpeded access to exits.
d. Suspension of outdoor exercise. Outdoor exercise may be suspended during inclement
weather. Appropriate clothing shall be provided for exercise during winter months.
50.18(2) Religion. All prisoners shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to pursue their
religious faith. Any infringement upon the opportunity to pursue one’s faith must further some
compelling interest and must be the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. The jail
administrator or designee may plan, direct and supervise all aspects of a religious program,
including approval and training of both laypersons and clergy persons ministering faiths
represented in the prisoner population.
50.18(3) Reading material. A reasonable quantity and variety of reading material shall be made
available to prisoners.
a. Access to reading material from an outside source may be restricted to unused material sent
directly from the publishing source.
b. Material deemed to be a threat to security or safety within the jail may be denied distribution.
c. Obscene material, as described in Iowa Code section 728.1, may be prohibited.
d. When a prisoner is denied access to a publication, the jail administrator shall inform the
prisoner of that denial in writing and shall explain, in writing, the reason(s) for denial.
50.18(4) Discrimination. Prisoner activities, programs and services shall be available to prisoners
with disabilities.
201—50.19(356,356A) Communication.
50.19(1) Prisoner mail.
a. Prisoners held beyond 24 hours shall be furnished a reasonable amount of writing materials
upon request. Jail officials may prohibit a prisoner from corresponding with a person who states
in writing that the person does not want to correspond with the prisoner. This does not include a

IAC 6/29/11 Corrections Department [201] Ch 50, p.22
“prior approval” list.
b. A reasonable amount of postage shall be provided to indigent prisoners held beyond 24 hours
for communication with the courts and for at least two letters per week of a personal nature when
other means of communication are not available.
c. General correspondence may be opened and inspected; it may be read for security reasons if
the prisoner is notified of this procedure.
d. Privileged correspondence if so marked may be opened only in the presence of the prisoner
and then only to detect the presence of contraband; it may not be read except by the prisoner.
Privileged correspondence is defined as incoming and outgoing mail to or from:
(1) An attorney;
(2) A judge;
(3) The governor of Iowa;
(4) The citizen’s aide office;
(5) A member of the state or federal legislature.
e. Written policy, procedure, and practice require that, excluding weekends and holidays,
incoming and outgoing letters be held for no more than 24 hours and packages be held for no
more than 48 hours for inspection before delivery to the prisoner or post office.
50.19(2) Telephone calls upon arrest.
a. Prisoners shall be permitted telephone access to their family or an attorney, or both, without
unnecessary delay after arrest at no charge if made within the local calling area as required by
Iowa Code section 804.20.
b. Policy and procedures shall be developed to govern prisoner telephone calls. The procedure
shall provide for the handling of emergency calls.
c. Prisoners not in segregation status for discipline shall have reasonable access to telephones
beyond the requirements of Iowa Code section 804.20.
50.19(3) Attorneys and ministers. Attorneys and ministers shall be permitted to visit prisoners
upon the request of the prisoner at reasonable hours if security and daily routine are not unduly
interrupted.
50.19(4) General visitation.
a. All prisoners in normal status shall be allowed reasonable visitation.
b. Rules shall specify who is allowed to visit and when and how often visitors are allowed.
c. Jail staff shall document the date and time of visit, name and address of each person visiting,
and name of prisoner visited. Computerized logs are acceptable.
d. A visit may be denied if reasonable suspicion exists that the visit might endanger the security
of the facility. A record shall be made of such denial and the reason(s) therefor.
50.19(5) Detaining non-U.S. citizens. When non-U.S. citizens are detained, they shall be advised
of the right to have their consular officials notified or the nearest consular officials shall be
notified of the detention, whichever is required by the Vienna Convention. Consular officials
shall be given access to non-U.S. citizens in jail and shall be allowed to provide consular
assistance. When a jail administrator becomes aware of the death of a non-U.S. citizen, consular
officials shall be notified.
201—50.20(356,356A) Access to the courts. Prisoners who do not have an attorney shall have
access to the legal materials the jail decides to provide, in order to facilitate the preparation of

IAC 6/29/11 Corrections Department [201] Ch 50, p.23
legal documents that directly or collaterally attack the prisoner’s sentence or that challenge the
conditions of the prisoner’s confinement.
201—50.21(356,356A) Discipline and grievance procedures.
50.21(1) No prisoner shall be allowed to have authority or disciplinary control over another
prisoner.
50.21(2) The use of physical force by staff shall be restricted to instances of justifiable
self-protection, the protection of others or property, the prevention of escapes or the suppression
of disorder, and then only to the degree necessary to overcome resistance. Corporal punishment
is forbidden.
50.21(3) The following information shall be made available to all prisoners and explained to any
prisoner unable to read English:
a. A set of rules (including sanctions) and regulations pertaining to the conduct of persons in
custody.
b. What services are available to them.
c. A prisoner grievance procedure which includes at least one level of appeal. A jail may limit
the use of the grievance process in order to make sure that it is not abused.
50.21(4) Prisoners who have allegedly violated jail rules shall be provided information
pertaining to the handling of disciplinary hearings consistent with the due process rights of the
accused. This information shall include the following:
a. Notice of charges and hearing.
b. A description of the hearing process. The jail policy and procedures manual shall contain the
following:
(1) Written guidelines for resolving minor prisoner infractions which include a written statement
of the rule violated and a hearing and decision within seven days, excluding weekends and
holidays, by
a person not involved in the rule violation. The prisoner may waive the hearing.
(2) A procedure to refer violations of criminal law to the appropriate criminal justice agency.
(3) A policy which requires staff members to prepare a disciplinary report and forward it to a
designated staff person. Disciplinary reports shall include the following information:
1. Specific rule(s) violated;
2. A statement of the charge;
3. Any unusual prisoner behavior;
4. Any staff witnesses;
5. An explanation of the event that includes who was involved, what transpired, and the time and
location of the occurrence;
6. Any physical evidence and its disposition;
7. Any immediate action taken, including the use of force.
(4) A policy that requires an impartial investigation to begin within 24 hours of the time the
violation is reported and be completed without unreasonable delay, unless there are exceptional
circumstances for delaying the investigation.
(5) A policy and procedure that provides for prehearing detention of prisoners who are charged
with a rule violation. The facility administrator or designee shall review the prisoner’s prehearing
status within 72 hours.

IAC 6/29/11 Corrections Department [201] Ch 50, p.24
(6) A policy that prisoners charged with a rule violation receive a written statement of the
charge(s), including a description of the incident and specific rule(s) violated. The prisoner shall
be given the information at least 24 hours prior to the disciplinary hearing. The hearing may be
held in less than 24 hours with the written consent of the prisoner.
(7) A policy and procedure that allows the prisoner to be present at the hearing, unless the
prisoner waives that right in writing or is a threat to the security and safety of the facility.
Prisoners may be excluded during testimony. Any prisoner’s absence shall be documented.
(8) A policy that provides for the disciplinary hearing to be conducted no later than seven days,
excluding weekends and holidays, following the report of the alleged rule violation.
(9) A policy that provides for postponement or continuance of the disciplinary hearing for a
reasonable period and for good cause. Reasons for postponement or continuance shall be
documented.
(10) A policy and procedure that provides for an impartial person or panel of persons to conduct
the disciplinary hearing. A record of the proceedings shall be made and maintained for at least
two years.
(11) A policy and procedure that allows prisoners an opportunity to make a statement and
present documentary evidence at the hearing and to call witnesses on their behalf unless calling
witnesses creates a threat to the security or safety of the facility. The reasons for denying such a
request shall be documented.
(12) A policy and procedure that allows a staff member or agency representative to assist
prisoners at disciplinary hearings. A representative shall be appointed when it is apparent that a
prisoner is not capable of collecting and presenting evidence on the prisoner’s own behalf.
(13) A policy that disciplinary committee decisions are based solely on information obtained in
the hearing process.
(14) A policy and procedure to ensure that a written report is made of the decision and the
supporting reasons and that a copy is given to the prisoner. The hearing record and documents
shall be kept in the prisoner’s file.
(15) A policy that requires the jail administrator or designee to review all disciplinary hearings
and dispositions to ensure conformity with the jail policy and procedures.
c. An explanation of the appeal process. The jail policy and procedure manual shall contain
a policy and procedure to advise the prisoner that the prisoner may appeal the decision to the jail
administrator or designee within 24 hours. The administrator or designee shall affirm or reverse
the decision of the disciplinary committee as soon as possible but within 15 days, excluding
weekends and holidays.
50.21(5) Deprivation of clothing, bedding, or hygienic supplies shall not be used as discipline or
punishment. These items may be withheld from any prisoner who the staff reasonably believes
would destroy such items or use them as weapons, for self-injury or to aid in escape.
201—50.22(356,356A) Records. The following records shall be maintained by the jail
administrator for two years unless a different period is specified:
50.22(1) Jail calendar. This record shall contain information as required by Iowa Code section
356.6.
50.22(2) Visitor registration. This record shall contain the name and address of the person
visiting; name of prisoner visited; and the date, time and duration of the visit.

IAC 6/29/11 Corrections Department [201] Ch 50, p.25
50.22(3) Jail inspection records. Jail inspection records shall contain the following and be
maintained for a minimum period of two years:
a. Fire marshal’s certificates.
b. Written reports received from all persons doing official inspections of the jail.
50.22(4) Medical history intake form. Notation of injury upon admission shall be included.
50.22(5) Records of medical care.
50.22(6) Injury reports. Copies of all reports of investigations relating to injuries within the
facility shall be maintained by the jail administrator in a separate injury file or referenced in the
prisoner file by log for a period of five years.
50.22(7) Disciplinary records.
50.22(8) Property receipts. Property receipts as required by Iowa Code section 804.19 shall be
completed and distributed as required.
50.22(9) Menu records. This record shall include letters of documentation issued by a qualified
dietitian.
50.22(10) Fire and disaster evacuation plan and record(s) of required fire drills.
50.22(11) Records of staff training.
50.22(12) Disposition of medication. A record shall be kept of the disposition of prescribed
medication not taken by a prisoner.
50.22(13) Supervisory checks. A record shall be made to document all required supervisory
checks of prisoners.
50.22(14) Incident reports. Records shall be made to document the following:
a. Use of force;
b. Suicide/suicide attempts;
c. Threats to staff, staff assaults, escapes, fires, prisoner abnormal behavior, any verbal or
nonverbal references to suicide and self-mutilation.
d. The state jail inspection unit of the department of corrections shall be notified within 24 hours
of any death, attempted suicide, fire, escape, injury to staff or prisoners from assaults, or use of
force and prisoner self-injuries. A copy of the investigative reports and other records shall be
given to the state jail inspector upon request.
50.22(15) Exercise documentation. A record shall be kept relative to date, time and length of
exercise periods offered to specific prisoners, cell blocks, tiers, or any other type of cell grouping
or housing unit.
201—50.23(356,356A) Alternative jail facilities. County detention facilities qualifying as
alternative jail facilities developed and operated under the auspices of Iowa Code section 356A.1
and not under the charge of the sheriff of the county are subject to the rules for residential
treatment centers operated by judicial district departments of correctional services as prescribed
by 201—Chapter 43.
201—50.24(356,356A) Nonsecure holds for juveniles.
50.24(1) Standards for nonsecure hold areas. The area to be used to detain the juvenile must be
an unlocked area such as a lobby, office or other open room. Additionally, the following
minimum procedures must be followed:
a. The juvenile is not physically secured to any stationary object.

IAC 6/29/11 Corrections Department [201] Ch 50, p.26
b. The juvenile is under continuous visual supervision.
c. The juvenile has access to bathroom facilities.
d. A meal or meals shall be provided at usual meal times.
50.24(2) Supervision of juveniles in nonsecure hold. Juveniles in nonsecure hold status (see Iowa
Code sections 232.19(2) and 232.222(2)) shall have continuous visual supervision by a qualified
adult. The jail administrator may contract with an outside agency to perform supervisory
functions. Persons performing juvenile supervisory functions must:
a. Be at least 18 years of age.
b. Have received a physical prior to employment.
c. Perform at a staff-to-prisoner ratio that will ensure a safe environment for both the juvenile(s)
and the staff.
d. Report any knowledge of child abuse to mandatory child abuse reporters.
e. Have successfully completed a child abuse and criminal background check.
50.24(3) Prohibited acts. Each nonsecure site must develop a policy of posted orders which
protects juveniles against neglect; exploitation; degrading punishment such as corporal
punishment, verbal abuse, threats, or derogatory remarks about the juvenile or the juvenile’s
family; binding or tying to restrict movement; enclosing the juvenile in a confined space such as
a closet, locked room, or similar cubicle; and deprivation of meals.
50.24(4) Attendant nonsecure area operating procedures.
a. Attendant shall make certain the juvenile is aware of the policies of the nonsecure holding
area.
b. The personal effects of the juvenile shall be placed in a safe, secure place. A property receipt
shall be issued to the juvenile.
c. All items given to the juvenile are subject to being searched.
d. Attendant shall pat search juvenile.
50.24(5) Care and treatment.
a. Medical.
(1) No juvenile shall be held who is obviously injured, is obviously physically or mentally ill, or
in the judgment of the arresting officer is under the influence of drugs or intoxicated from the use
of alcohol to the point of needing medical attention without first being examined by a medical
practitioner.
(2) In an emergency situation or when the juvenile is suffering severe pain or is in danger of loss
of life or permanent injury, medical treatment may be administered without parental consent.
When none of the above situations exist, parental consent or judicial concurrence must be made
before providing medical treatment.
(3) Juveniles suspected of having a contagious or communicable disease shall be isolated from
other juveniles.
(4) There shall be at least one person on duty in the jail supervising the nonsecure hold area who
is trained in multimedia first aid and CPR.
(5) First-aid kits shall be immediately available.
(6) Any person providing medication shall be trained in the procedure of providing medication.
(7) As part of the admission procedure, a medical history intake form shall be completed. As part
of this procedure, an attempt will be made to determine if the juvenile is suicidal by observing
behavior and looking for marks or scars which would indicate previous suicide attempts.

IAC 6/29/11 Corrections Department [201] Ch 50, p.27
(8) There shall be written policies or procedures pertaining to providing medication.
(9) All medication shall be stored according to state pharmaceutical standards and written
inventory control maintained. The inventory shall include the starting number of pills, when pills
were provided and by whom, the remaining number of pills at the time the juvenile left the jail,
the disposition of the remaining pills, and a staff witness to the disposition of the pills.
(10) Special diets as prescribed by a physician shall be followed and documented.
(11) When a special diet is required for an individual due to a bona fide religious belief, the jail
shall meet that need.
b. Communications.
(1) Juveniles shall be permitted, at no charge, telephone access to their family or an attorney,
or both, without unnecessary delay after being taken into custody. Once family or attorney has
been contacted, the number of additional calls, if any, will be determined by attendant.
(2) Attorneys and ministers shall be permitted to visit upon request when such visiting will not
disrupt security or daily routines of the jail. Determination of additional visits shall be made by
attendant.
c. Safety and sanitation.
(1) Walls, floors, and ceiling shall be well maintained.
(2) Facility shall be maintained in a pest-free condition.
(3) Clean bedding, including sheets, blankets, and pillowcases, shall be issued to each juvenile
who wishes to sleep between the hours of 9 p.m. and 7 a.m.
(4) Soiled clothing which may affect the health of the juvenile shall be exchanged for clean,
jail-provided clothing.
(5) An emergency evacuation plan must be conspicuously posted.
(6) There shall not be less than one AA-ABC fire extinguisher in operable condition for each
3,000 square feet of facility on any given floor of the building.
(7) All exits shall be equipped with independent emergency lighting.
(8) Where exits are not immediately accessible from an open floor area, safe and continuous
passage aisles or corridors leading directly to every exit shall be maintained and shall be so
arranged as to provide access for each juvenile to at least two separate and distinct exits from
each floor. A locked exit may be classified as an emergency exit only if necessary keys to locked
doors are on the person of the attendant. Elevators shall not be counted as required exits.
(9) A means of fire detection utilizing equipment of a type tested and approved by Underwriters
Laboratories shall be installed and maintained in operational condition according to the factory
manual. These alarms shall be ceiling-mounted and of such construction to continue in operation
during power failure. Alarms shall be tested on at least a monthly basis. Such test shall be
documented.
(10) Only fire-resistant mattresses and pillows approved by the state fire marshal’s office shall be
used.
d. Staff training requirements.
(1) Attendants shall be knowledgeable of jail policies and procedures pertaining to juvenile
nonsecure holds, and acknowledgment of this shall be made by attendant’s dated signature.
(2) Nonsecure hold attendants shall have received instruction in the following areas prior to
supervising juveniles in a nonsecure holding area:
1. Role of nonsecure hold attendant.

IAC 6/29/11 Corrections Department [201] Ch 50, p.28
2. Confidentiality issues.
3. Intake procedures—medical and suicide screening.
4. Communication and listening skills.
5. Dealing with a depressed or suicidal juvenile.
6. Overview of state and federal law.
7. Provision of medication.
8. Gentle self-defense.
9. Child abuse identification.
e. Juvenile supervision.
(1) An attendant shall be in the presence of all juveniles held at all times. Same-sex attendant or
staff shall be present when juveniles perform bodily functions/shower.
(2) A log shall be maintained at half-hour intervals reflecting the juvenile’s activities and
behavior.
f. Records. The following records shall be maintained by the jail for a period of at least two
years:
(1) Medical history intake form.
(2) Records of medical care.
(3) Injury reports.
(4) Food served.
(5) Records of staff training.
(6) Disposition of medication.
(7) Individual log.
(8) Any use of force reports.
(9) Any suicide or suicide attempts reports.
g. Incident reports. Reports of the following incidents shall be sent to the state jail inspection
unit, department of corrections, within 24 hours of incident:
(1) Any injury to juvenile or staff that requires medical attention.
(2) Any use of force by staff.
(3) Any attempted suicide.
The state jail inspection unit, department of corrections, shall be notified within five hours of any
successful juvenile suicide that occurred in a nonsecure hold area.
50.24(6) Exemption from nonsecure hold standards. Any requests for exemption from nonsecure
hold standards shall be submitted according to the waiver and variance provisions under 201—
Chapter 7, Iowa Administrative Code.
201—50.25(356,356A) Direct supervision jails. Direct supervision jails, in addition to the
preceding rules, are subject to the following rules:
50.25(1) There may be contact of different classifications of prisoners in a common activity area
only while the prisoners are under continuous direct supervision with the exception of:
a. Persons of whom violence is reasonably anticipated. (50.13(1)“d”(1))
b. Persons who are a health risk. (50.13(1)“d”(2))
c. Persons of whom sexually deviant behavior is reasonably anticipated. (50.13(1)“d”(3))
d. Persons under the age of 18 (Iowa Code section 356.3). Persons charged in adult court with a
forcible felony are to be separated whenever possible.

IAC 6/29/11 Corrections Department [201] Ch 50, p.29
50.25(2) There shall be separate and distinct staff persons in the jail at all times to perform the
following duties:
a. Provide central control or lock doors into or out of the housing unit.
b. Provide direct supervision of prisoners in the housing unit. During hours of lockdown,
prisoner checks may be done hourly and documented. Prisoners must be physically observed
during these checks.
c. Provide emergency backup to the supervision officer as a priority of assigned duties.
50.25(3) Prisoners classified as maximum security may not be allowed into areas occupied by
other prisoners at any time. Maximum security prisoners may be required to exercise or perform
other activities in a group with other maximum security prisoners only. Facility staff must weigh
the potential for violence prior to admitting any maximum security prisoner into a group.
50.25(4) The housing unit shall not exceed its rated capacity.
50.25(5) Whenever prisoners are not locked down, there shall be sufficient lighting in all areas of
living units and activity areas to allow full observation by staff.
50.25(6) Prisoners assigned to one living unit shall not be allowed to enter a different living unit
except when permitted to share activities.
50.25(7) Any agency utilizing a direct supervision mode of prisoner management shall ensure
that, before accepting prisoners, jail staff shall receive appropriate training in the following
areas:
a. Philosophy of direct supervision.
b. Techniques of effective supervision and leadership.
c. Decision-making techniques.
d. Crisis intervention techniques.
e. Effective communication techniques.
f. Classification and evaluation techniques for direct supervision jails.
The training mandated by this chapter is required in addition to the above-listed training
requisites.
50.25(8) There shall be a classification system developed which shall include an initial
classification determination and an ongoing evaluation of the classification status. This system
shall include, but not be limited to, the following considerations:
a. Individual’s criminal history.
b. Individual’s present behavior.
c. Individual’s present charge.
d. Health.
e. Potential for violence.
f. Sexual deviation.
g. Self-harm or suicide potential.
h. Mental and physical maturity relative to personnel safety.
i. Previous behavior in other institutional settings.
j. Noticeable changes in attitude.
50.25(9) Programming (books, television, work, treatment) shall be available to reduce prisoner
idleness. Subjects referred to within the parentheses are illustrative and not inclusive.
50.25(10) Each officer assigned to a housing unit shall have a mechanical or electronic means on
the officer’s person to summon assistance in times of emergency.

IAC 6/29/11 Corrections Department [201] Ch 50, p.30
50.25(11) Supervision checks as required by paragraph 50.13(2)“a” will continue to be required
and documented. CCTV shall not be used for supervision checks. During those periods when
prisoners are out of their cells and in full view of staff, supervisory checks need not be
conducted. Supervisory checks will be made when prisoners are allowed in their individual cells.
50.25(12) All incoming prisoners must be thoroughly oriented to expectations, rules, and
routines of the jail. All such orientation must be documented.
50.25(13) Policies and procedures shall be developed by the sheriff or designee for the operation
of the jail. These policies and procedures shall reflect the rules for direct supervision jails as
delineated in this chapter. All staff shall be knowledgeable of and have access to the policy
manual and shall receive training in the implementation of said policies and procedures prior to
being assigned as a housing unit officer. The sole remedy for breach of these rules is by a
proceeding for compliance initiated by request from the department of corrections. The violation
of any rule shall not be construed to permit any civil action to recover damages against the state
of Iowa, its departments, agents or employees or any county, its agencies or employees.
These rules are intended to implement Iowa Code sections 80B.11A, 356.36, and 356.43 and
chapter 356A.
[Filed 10/23/81, Notice 3/4/81—published 11/11/81, effective 2/1/82]
[Filed 8/20/82, Notice 6/23/82—published 9/15/82, effective 10/20/82]
[Filed emergency 8/29/83—published 9/14/83, effective 10/1/83]
[Filed emergency 9/9/83—published 9/28/83, effective 10/1/83]
[Filed 11/18/83, Notice 9/28/83—published 12/7/83, effective 1/11/84]
[Filed 2/24/84, Notice 1/4/84—published 3/14/84, effective 4/18/84]
[Filed 5/4/84, Notice 2/15/84—published 5/23/84, effective 6/27/84]
[Filed 7/24/84, Notice 4/25/84—published 8/15/84, effective 9/19/84]
[Filed 4/19/85, Notice 2/13/85—published 5/8/85, effective 6/12/85]
[Filed 5/27/88, Notice 1/27/88—published 6/15/88, effective 7/20/88]
[Filed emergency 10/14/88—published 11/2/88, effective 10/14/88]
[Filed 4/14/89, Notice 12/14/88—published 5/3/89, effective 6/8/89]
[Filed 7/21/89, Notice 5/3/89—published 8/9/89, effective 9/13/89]
[Filed 1/5/90, Notice 10/4/89—published 1/24/90, effective 2/28/90]
[Filed emergency 2/20/91—published 3/20/91, effective 2/20/91]
[Filed 7/17/92, Notice 3/18/92—published 8/5/92, effective 9/9/92]
[Filed 3/7/97, Notice 1/29/97—published 3/26/97, effective 4/30/97]
[Filed 7/17/01, Notice 5/2/01—published 8/8/01, effective 9/12/01]
[Filed 11/4/05, Notice 9/14/05—published 11/23/05, effective 12/28/05]
IAC 6/29/11 Corrections Department[201] Ch 50, p.25
[Filed 5/2/08, Notice 3/12/08—published 5/21/08, effective 6/25/08]
[Filed ARC 9578B (Notice ARC 9442B, IAB 4/6/11), IAB 6/29/11, effective 8/3/11]

APPENDIX VI

IOWA

8/12/2012

How and why Jail Standards

Iowa Department of Corrections
510 E. 12th St.
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
515-725-5731
Delbert Longley, Chief Jail Inspector

*1978 Scott County $5M
Lawsuit
*DSS Inspection
*Code of Iowa
*ISSDA, ISAC, COP, IDOC
*IDOC
*Have Statutory Authority

Chapter 201-50 Jail inspection
Chapter 201-51 Holding
facilities

1

8/12/2012

a,.:::::_.._---

--1'1 _.."..._
"' ..._---... _,,...__
_-- _--_
..--- .....
......

.................
~ =::..

. . 100 . . _ _ _

_

"'111 _ _

2

8/12/2012

h)

Veterans notification .………………………………………………………………………………………………… _____

3

8/12/2012

. . .--1------..--".. _-_-------. _---------._'--"'--,..
.. -_
__...."'' 111- ' ' ' -''- . ' \ fOI _ _ _

......

....~- .......
..

_-

._.---

". '1(/1- -

,•.,
,""
•

• j T_ _ _ _ .... _

.11.11 (I. r: ..." ....
<I

oI)~"

.) ._----"'------

100,11 "' _ _ _ .. _

E_ _

·I~_ _ ....

60.1'

-.

m"......... oppot!un_

.

01" _ _ _

tJ_ .. _ .. _ _ _

4

8/12/2012

..".....-11-_--.-,.'1~''''-

-.........OJ'_'' __

.. 'I(IIT.......

JOI/Q

•.'IPJ _.........,.
.-II~I-­

..

5

8/12/2012

JAIL Colt,polt,CITY :
G......I P09\.llaUon

T.mporary Holding
TOToIt,L

511.1 e..ioll<lg FocJl;i .... IP<'ot 10 " "'1
10..1 11 """1001 _ _ .. _ " " , _ _ _ , 1 _
1O,61'! ....... _
_..
10,61)1

\l0iii_. ___ ... _____ ,......
_"'0«_,_ .

_

o-.-.c _ _

_ _ _ ,t ......

~I!OI

TOOolt,V ;
G.nerat PopUt.1lott

1O,61.11loolG _ _ ... · · _

T..... por.ry HoldIng

.....') oI_m_"' ...... _

TOTAL

1001 _ _ _ _ ....... _ : 1 ) _ _ ...

_._

_. _--.:y---,. . .

1061')

.1-.. _ . .

10.... ) _

<I
·l

_ _ .. _ _ · """'" _ _ _ _ . .

..... _ I 0 0 I _ ....... _ _

_
.. 0 . . - _
_ _ _ _ b '_

0)_ • ......,

_.

~.--

6

8/12/2012

5lJ

"' ~I*_I

""" - _ : B _ .. ,,,,,_

...

$191011111111'

Da.-,I!IlIII''''_

_._........._-_1»1_."""'
__ f_1'." __ _

OI_m
..... _ _
OJ _ _ _ _ _ ... _
·~-

.. _

....

01'_ _

'-"'-,__
.·"'1 __ __ IRI_ ....... _ _ .. _
~

m '_"'_'_

.?flII

•

s-,,1)"'oj~..,.

CI ........
__
iII
twt .. . ""
, ._
__

•01_"' __"'11_ .. ''' __ _
I t..y. _ _ "9_
o.-"lI_"''''IRI_~

'1.....__01._
.JllI l~_a

.. _

"' _~

...It'l_........ _

.. _

... _

.JfII~,*-""' I111_"'''_''._.III_

.'111 ___0_, --_."_ ••1'"'-"•
.,IIIl_......

_~

·0 ... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ... ___ .. _·_
:-"':"=.=::.::.':":""-::-.:;-:=-~=--====

S;U..iElE==:--=:--'="~
~ L

.... _ .... · ___ ,< ___ .... " .. _

...... _ _

-"""T-r=-r- . ..,-- m·.~--

---

i=-:E:::E7";-J::::::_-

i=.:-...:E:='::.:'-::=::'::'::=--=

7

8/12/2012

8

IOWA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
JAIL INSPECTION REPORT
of the

County Jail
Address:(Street)
(zip)

(City)

Date:

Sheriff:

Phone:

Jail Administrator:

Phone:

Jail Inspector: Delbert Longley

Phone: 515-725-5731

Chairperson-Supervisor:

Phone:

Use of Verification Code

Inspections are based upon information
provided by the temporary holding facility staff
and the personal observation of the jail
inspector. The below signed agrees that the
statements made to the jail inspector are true
to the best of his/her knowledge.

Numbers and Lettering
Verification numbers and letters will be used to
indicate two facts regarding the inspection
process.
The number will designate either
compliance or noncompliance.
The letter
corresponds to the way in which the numbered
response was selected.

Signature
Title
Variances issued:
Standard
Date

Code:
1. Compliance

Time Frame

a. Policy statement reviewed
b. Observed
c. Verbal assurance of practice
d. Documentation reviewed
e. Documentation verbally assured
f. Measure
g. Detainee rules
2. Non-compliance

1

Revised 06/2008

50.2 (5) Equal Opportunity ………………………………………………………………………………………………….
50.2 (6) Nondiscriminatory treatment.…………………………………………………………………………………..
50.4 (2) Physical Plant inspection(s) needed:

50.4 (3) Heating and ventilation

a) Reasonable heated and ventilated……………………………………………………………………………………….
b) Fresh air supply...…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
c) Fans/Cold liquids available over 85º...……………………………………………………………………………………

50.4 (4) Maximum-security cells
a)Tamper resistant bunks...………………………………………………………………………………………………….

b) Table/seat ………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
c) Toilet/wash basin ...………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
d) Adequate hot and cold water supply...……………………………………………………………………………………

50.4 (5) Lighting

a) Housing areas - 20 ft. candlepower ...…………………………………………………………………………………
b) Exits-Independent lighting source.……………………………………………………………………………………….

50.4 (6) Screens ………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
50.4 (7) Electrical Facilities

a) No drop cords ………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
b) Emergency power ...………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
c) Test log of emergency power ……………………………………………………………………………………………..

50.4 (8) Storage

a) Storage in detention area …………………………………………………………………………………………….……
b) Inmate storage secure identified-receipted …………………………………………………………………….….….
c) Janitor supplies storage …………………………………………………………………………………………….……..
d) Chemical storage ...………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

50.4 (9) Mirrors tamper resistant …………………………………………………………………………………………..
50.4 (10) Firearm locker …………………………………………………………………………………………….………..
50.4 (11) Noise level

Policy and Prisoners advised …………………………………………………………………………………………….….

50.9 (2) Fire Inspection-Date:
a) State

b) Local

c) Approved

……………………………………………………………….……….

50.9 (3) Emergency Evacuation

Evacuation plan ……..………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Evacuation routes posted ………………………………………………………………………………………………..…...
Annual fire drill training documented, Date:
……………….………………………………….

50.9 (4) Release of prisoners

a) Prompt release in emergency ………………………………………………………………………………………….…
b) Two full sets of jail keys ………………………………………………………………………………………….………..

50.9 (5) Fire extinguishers, Date:

.....................................................................................

50.9 (6) Emergency lighting

Corridors, passages, exits ………………………………………………………………………………………….………..

2

Revised 06/2008

50.9 (7) Required exits

Two exits each floor/exits clear/keys available .……………………………………………………………………………

50.9 (8) Fire alarms tested and documented as required

Prisoner inaccessible ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Battery type tested monthly …………………………………………………………………………………………………
Electronic type tested yearly, Date
………………………………………………………………………………

50.9 (9) No heating appliances along path of exit …………………………………………………………….
50.9 (10) Doors to swing with traffic ……………………………………………………………………………..
50.9 (11) Pillows and mattresses approved ………………………………………………….…………………
50.9 (12) Sprinkler Heads, inaccessible, suicide resistant …………………………….…………………….
50.10 (1) Requirements for employment ………………………………………….…………………………….
50.10 (2) Minimum standard for retention ………………………………………..……………………………..
50.10 (3) Conflict of interest policy ………………………………………………………………………………
Business transactions with prisoners ……………………………………………………………….……….........
50.11 (1) Training

a) Staff knowledgeable of jail standards ……………………………………………………………………………………
b) Staff knowledgeable of policy/procedures manual ……………………………………………………………………..
c) Employee orientation regarding inmate rights …………………………………………………………………………..
d) Weapons training if used in jail …………………………………………………………………………………………...
e) Administrative log of training…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...
f) Fire equipment training documented, Date:
………………….…………………….…………………..

g) Medication management …………………………………………………………………………..……………………. 1a

50.11 (2), 50.11 (3) Basic Training

1) First aid certified, Date
..………….…………………………………………………………………………...
2) CPR certified , Date .
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
3) 40 hour basic …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
4) 20 hour recertification, Date
…………………….………………………………………………………………..

50.12 Standard operating procedures manual …………………………………………………………………
50.13 (1) Admission/Classification
a)
b)
c)

d)

e)

f)
g)
h)

Appropriate order/confinement and release …………………………………………………………………………..
Inmate architectural separation
1) Juveniles (Ia. Code 356.3) …………………………………………………………………………………………
2) Males/females (Iowa Code 356.4) ……………………………………………………………………................
Separation when possible
1) Felons/misdemeanants …………………………………………………………………………………………….
2) Pretrial/sentenced …………………………………………………………………………………………………..
3) Witnesses ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Physical separation required
1) Violent prisoners ……………………………………………………………………………………………………
2) Prisoners who may be a health risk ………………………………………………………………………………
3) Sexual deviant prisoners …………………………………………………………………………………………..
4) Prisoners likely to be exploited or victimized …………………………………………………………………….
Juveniles (Iowa Code 232.22)
1) Fourteen (14) years or older ………………………………………………………………………………………
2) Committed listed crime …………………………………………………………………………………………….
3) Six (6) hours/less …………………………………………………………………………………………………...
4) Court order over six (6) hours ……………………………………………………………………………………..
Suicide prevention
Booking personnel trained …………………………………………………………………………………………
Documentation of suicidal determination ………………………………………………………………………..
Housing for prisoners with disabilities ……………………...………………………………………………………….
Veterans notification……………………………………………………………………………………………………...

3

Revised 06/2008

50.13 (2) Security and Control Procedures
a)

b)
c)

d)
e)

f)

Supervision of prisoners
1) Staff on premises at all times ……………………………………………………………………………………..
Emergency calling device …………………………………………………………………………………………
Emergency response staff available in reasonable time ………………………………………………………
2) Supervision - documented
Hourly checks ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
30 minute checks …………………………………………………………………………………………………..
CCTV/audio clear-distinct ………………………………………………………………………………………….
Observation, showers and restrooms optional …………………………………………………………………..
3) •Entering housing of opposite sex ………………………………………………………………………………..
4) Female staff on duty ………………………………………………………………………………………………
5) •Required observation of juveniles ……………………………………………………………………………….
Prohibited weapons ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Prisoner searches (IC 804.30)(Strip search) ………………………………………………………………………….
1) Prisoners/property, upon entry/leaving …………………………………………………………………………..
2) All persons entering the jail searched …………………………………………………………………………….
3) Search notice posted ……………………………………………………………………………………………….
4) Prisoner rules contain items permitted …………………………………………………………………………..
5) Cell search policy …………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Key control policy ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Facility security policy
1) All areas clear of viewing obstructions …………………………………………………………………………..
2) Security inspection of equipment/fixtures ……………………………………………………………………….
3) Policy on prisoner movement …………………………………………………………………………………….
4) Policy on incidents that threaten security ……………………………………………………………………….
Riots/Disturbances ………………………………………………………………………………………..
Hunger strikes ……………………………………………………………………………………………..
Hostage situations ………………………………………………………………………………………..
Escape attempts …………………………………………………………………………………………..
Medical emergencies ……………………………………………………………………………………..
Natural disasters …………………………………………………………………………………………..
Staff shortage ……………………………………………………………………………………………..
Bomb Threats………………………………………………………………………………………………
Policy and documentation on the use of restraints ………………………………………………………………….

50.14 (1) Housekeeping
a)

Jail clean and sanitary …………………………………………………………………………………………………..
1) Cleaning equipment provided………………………………………………………………………………..
2) Jail to be maintained pest free ……………………………………………………………………………..
Dept of Ag approved, Name
………………………………………………………….
b) Sharps/hazardous material container ………………………………………………………………………………….

50.14 (2) Clothing, bedding and hygiene items

Items provided after 24 hours: bedding-linen ………………………………………………………………………………
a) Toilet articles …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
b) Clothing issued ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
c) Clothing provided after 24 hours ………………………………………………………………………....................
d) Laundry schedule weekly …………………………………………………………………………………………….

50.14 (3) Personal hygiene
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)

Prisoners maintain personal cleanliness ………………………………………………………………………………..
Shower/bath (if held over 24 hours) ……………………………………………………………………………………..
Hair sanitation ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Hair procedures ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Sharing razor/toothbrush prohibited ……………………………………………………………………………………..

50.15 Written medical services procedures ..…………………………………………………………………..
50.15 (1) Medical resources designated ………………………………………………………………………..
50.15 (3) Prisoners not involved in medical delivery …………………………………………………………
50.15 (4) First aid kit-approved ……………………………………………………………………………………

4

Revised 06/2008

50.15 (5) Prisoners affected by chemical agents to be offered appropriate treatment………………….
50.15 (6) Prisoner Admission
a)
b)
c)

d)
e)

Injured prisoner examined before admission ……………………………………………………………………………
Suspected communicable disease inmate isolated …………………………………………………………………….
Medical history form ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
•Suicide screening at intake …………………………………………………………………………………………….
•Written suicide prevention plan ………………………………………………………………………………………..
•Annual suicide prevention training Date:
…………………………………………...………………
Mentally ill admissions policy and procedures …………………………………………………………………………..
Prisoner informed how to obtain medical attention ……………………………………………………………………..

50.15 (7) Medication procedures
a)
b)
c)
d)

Written policy/procedure on providing medication ……………………………………………………………………..
Medication inventory and storage ………………………………………………………………………………………..
Provided medication documented ……………………………………………………………………………………….
Prescription followed ………………………………………………………………………………………………………

50.15 (8) Medical records maintained ……………………………………………………………………………
50.15 (9) Medication storage
a)
b)
c)
d)

Medication stored at proper temperature ………………………………………………………………………………..
Medication not administered beyond expiration date …………………………………………………………………..
Documented drug destruction-witness included ………………………………………………………………………..
Policies and procedures direct return of drugs to pharmacy/documentation of disposal …………………………..

50.16 Food service
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)

Meal provided if detained over meal period ……………………………………………………………………………..
Three meals for each 24 hours served at reasonable intervals; at least one (1) hot meal. Hot meals hot, cold
meals cold ……………………………………………………………………………………...…………………….......
Meal served at approximately same time daily ………………………………………………………………………….
Food service documentation/Date:
…………...………………………………………………………………….
Medical diets prescribed approved ……………………………………………………………………………………….
Religious diets approved …………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Food not used as punishment …………………………………………………………………………………………….
Outside providers inspected ……………………………………………………………………………………………….
Food transferred under sanitary conditions ……………………………………………………………………………..

50.17 In-house food service

Health inspection-date:
a) Food preparation areas clean/sanitary …………………………………………………………………………………..
b) Food storage ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
c) Food service equipment sanitized after use …………………………………………………………………………….
d) Staff to serve or supervise food service ………………………………………………………………………………….

50.18 (1) Exercise
a)
b)
c)
d)

Two/one hour sessions per week/documented ………………………………………………………………………….
Exercise restriction …………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Exercise area ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Suspension of outdoor exercise/appropriate clothing ………………………………………………………………….

50.18 (2) Religious opportunities …………………………………………………………………………………
50.18 (3) Reading material available/policy …………………………………………………………………….
50.18(4) Activities available for disabled ………………………………………………………………………..
50.19 (1) Prisoner mail
a)
b)
c)
d)

Writing materials provided ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Prisoners (without funds) provided postage to communicate with court plus two letters per week for personal
communication….……………………………………………….………………………………………………………….
Opening of general correspondence ……………………………………………………………………………………..
Privileged communications not opened outside presence of prisoner ………………………………………………..

5

Revised 06/2008

1) Attorney ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
2) Judge …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
3) Governor ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
4) Citizen’s Aid Office ……………………………………………………………………………………………………
5) State/Federal Legislature …………………………………………………………………………………………….
Mail distribution policy/documentation ……………………………………………………………………………………

e)

50.19 (2) Telephone
a)
b)

Telephone calls upon arrest (804.20) …………………………………………………………………………………….
Prisoner telephone policy ………………………………………………………………………………………………….

50.19 (3) Visitation/Attorney ……………………………………………………………………………………….
Visitation/Minister ………………………………………………………………………………………..
50.19 (4) General visitation
a)
b)
c)
d)

Normal status visitation …………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Rules ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Registration ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Denial ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

50.19(5) Non-US citizen notification policy …………………………………………………………………….
50.20 Access to the courts
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)

Postage provided to indigent prisoners ……………………………………………………………………………………………
Access to law library material or be represented by counsel in civil actions ………………………………………..
Prisoner copy arrangements ……………………………………………………………………………………………..
Writing supplies available ………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Prisoner notified of facility procedures regarding access to courts …………………………………………………..

50.21 Discipline and grievance procedures

a) No prisoner authority over another prisoner ……………………………………………………………………………
b) Use of physical force ………………………………………………………………………………………………………
c) Information provided prisoners:
1) Facility rules …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
2) Available services ……………………………………………………………………………………………………
3) Grievances procedures …………………………………………………………………………………………….
d) Due process procedures:
1) Written notice charges and hearing ………………………………………………………………………………..
2) Description of hearing process ……………………………………………………………………………………..

Procedures required:

1) Resolving minor infractions ………………………………………………………………………………………………
2) Referring criminal violations ………………………………………………………………………………………………
3) Staff prepares a disciplinary report ………………………………………………………………………………………
4) Impartial investigation of the incident ……………………………………………………………………………………
5) Pre-hearing detention ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
6) Written notice to prisoner 24 hrs prior to hearing ………………………………………………………………………
7) Prisoner allowed to be present …………………………………………………………………………………………..
8) Hearing conducted within 7 days of violation …………………………………………………………………………..
9) Postponement procedure and documentation ………………………………………………………………………….
10) Impartial hearing/ record maintained for 2 years ……………………………………………………………………..
11) Prisoner allowed to make statement, present evidence ……………………………………………………………..
12) Denial is documented ……………………………………………………………………………………………………
13) Staff member assist at hearing if requested/needed …………………………………………………………………
14) Decisions based on information obtained at hearing ………………………………………………………………..
15) Written decision and reasons given to prisoner/placed in prisoners file. ………………………………..…………
16) Jail Administrator reviews dispositions ………………………………………………………………………………..
17) Explanation of appeal process with time frames……………………………………………………………………..
18) Clothing, bedding, or hygienic supplies may be with held only for prisoner self-protection ………………….....

50.22 Records

1) Jail calendar (356.6) ………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2) Visitor registration as required by 50.19(4) c …………………………………………………………………………..
3) Persons performing facility inspections
a) Fire Marshal or designee b)
c)
.….....
4) Medical intake screening as required by 50.15(6)c ……………………………………………………………………

6

Revised 06/2008

5) Medical care as required by:
50.15(7)c medication ……………………………………………………………………………………………….
50.15(8) med records ………………………………………………………………………………………………
50.16(5) med diet …………………………………………………………………………………………………..
6) Separate injury file or log(5 yrs.) …………………………………………………………………………………………
7) Disciplinary records required by 50.21 ………………………………………………………………………………….
8) Property receipt as required by 50.3(2)e ……………………………………………………………………………….
9) Menu records ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
10)Fire and disaster plans & Required fire drills …………………………………………………………………………..
11)Records of staff training …………………………………………………………………………………………………..
12)Disposition of medication required by 50.15(9)c ……………………………………………………………………….
13)Documentation of supervisory checks as required by: 50.13(2)a3 & 50.13(2)a4 …………………………………..
14) Incident reports
a) Use of force as require by 50.21(2) …………………………………………………………………………………..
b) Suicide/suicide attempts/self injury …………………………………………………………………………………..
c) Inmate/inmate or Inmate/staff assaults ………………………………………………………………………………
d) Escapes/Fires/unusual incidents ……………………………………………………………………………………..
e) Jail inspector notified within 24 hours ………………………………………………………………………………..
15)Exercise documentation …………………………………………………………………………………………………..

50.24 Non-secure holds for juveniles (Policy) …………………………………………………………………
50.25 Direct supervision jails.

2)a. Central control staff …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
2)b. Direct supervision staff ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
2)c. Backup for supervision staff ………………………………………………………………………………………………….
7) Staff training documented ………………………………………………………………………………………………………
8) Classification system procedures ……………………………………………………………………………………………..
13) Policy and procedures …………………………………………………………………………………………………………

JAIL CAPACITY:
General Population
Temporary Holding
TOTAL
TODAY:
General Population
Temporary Holding
TOTAL
Juveniles

7

Revised 06/2008

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name:

Date:

8

Revised 06/2008

50.5 Existing Facilities (prior to 07/84)
50.6(1) Forty (40) square feet for single cell used less than 16 hours …...……………………………………………
50.6(2) Single cells – fifty (50) square feet floor space for inmates held more than 16 hours …………………………..
50.6(3) Multiple Occupancy Cells - Forty (40) square feet floor space for first inmate, 20 square feet for each additional
held less than 16 hours …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
50.6(4) Multiple occupancy cells - Fifty (50) square feet for first inmate. Thirty square feet additional space per
inmate in multiple occupancy cells held over 16 hours …………………………………………………………………………
50.6(5) Designed capacity not exceeded …………………………………………………………………………..
50.6(6) Dormitory - Sixty (60) square feet for each inmate …………………………………………………………..
50.6(7) a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)

Seven (7) feet of ceiling height ……………………………………………………………………………………
Bunk of adequate size ……………………………………………………………………………………………..
Access to functional toilet ………………………………………………………………………………………….
Access to lavatory …………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Sufficient tables and seats for rated capacity ……………………………………………………………………
Functional shower …………………………………………………………………………………………………..

50.6(8) Thirty (30) square feet for dayroom facilities; fifteen (15) square feet for each additional inmate ………………

50.6

New Construction (after 07/84)

a)
b)
c)

d)

seventy (70) square feet for each single cell …………………………………………………………………….
fifty (50) square feet for each additional inmate …………………………………………………………………
designed capacity not exceeded ………………………………………………………………………………….
sixty (60) square feet for each inmate in a dormitory unit ……………………………………………………..

50.7(2) Non-Maximum
a) seven (7) feet of ceiling height …………………………………………………………………………………….
b) adequate size bunk and seats for capacity of each unit ………………………………………………………..
c) Desks/tables-chairs/seats to accommodate capacity …………………………………………………………..
d) Dayroom – thirty (30) square feet for first inmate. Fifteen (15) for each additional inmate ………………..
e) Functional shower …………………………………………………………………………………………………..
f) Lavatory for each 9 inmates ……………………………………………………………………………………….
g) Toilet for each 9 inmates …………………………………………………………………………………………..
50.7(3) Maximum Security type toilet/lavatory ………………………………………………………………………………..
50.7(4) Holding area – twenty (20) square feet per inmate not to exceed eight inmates ………………………………..
50.7(5) Natural lighting when practical ………………………………………………………………………………………….
50.7(6) Ability to segregate according to law …………………………………………………………………………………..
50.7(7) No unit is to exceed rated capacity …………………………………………………………………………………….

50.7

New Construction (after 09/01)

50.8 (1)
Single cell 70 sq. ft. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Multiple occupancy 35 unencumbered sq. ft. per inmate …………………………………………………………………
Dormitory 60 sq. ft. per inmate ………………………………………………………………………………………………
50.8 (2)
a) Seven(7) feet of ceiling height …………………………………………………………………………………….
b) Adequate size bunk for each inmate ……………………………………………………………………………..
c) Desks/tables-chairs/seats for each inmate ………………………………………………………………………
d) Dayroom of 30 square feet for first inmate, 15 sq. ft for each additional inmate …………………………….
e) Shower for each group of 12 inmates …………………………………………………………………………….
f) Lavatory for each group of 9 inmates …………………………………………………………………………….
g) Toilet for each group of (9) inmates ………………………………………………………………………………
50.8 (3) Toilet/lavatory accessible at all times ………………………………………………………………………………….
50.8 (4) Holding cells – twenty (20) square feet per inmate, not to exceed eight (8) inmates …………………………….
50.8 (5) Adequate exercise area. Minimum fifteen (15) square feet per inmate expected to use ……………………….

9

Revised 06/2008

50.8 (6) Natural lighting where practical …………………………………………………………………………………………
50.8 (7) Segregation according to law/regulations ……………………………………………………………………………..
50.8 (8) No unit to exceed rated capacity……………………………………………………………………………………….

50.8

New Construction (after 12/28/05)

Single cell 35 sq. ft. unencumbered ………………………………………………………………………………………………
Single cell more than 10 hrs. per day 70 sq. ft. …………………………………………………………………………………
Multiple occupancy. 25 sq. ft. unencumbered per occupant …………………………………………………………………..
Multiple occupancy. More than 10 hrs. per day 35 sq. ft unencumbered per occupant …………………………………….
Dormitory cell 35 sq. ft unencumbered per occupant …………………………………………………………………………..
Housing units provide:
a) seven (7) ft. of ceiling height ………………………………………………………………………………………………
b) bunk for each occupant 12 in. off floor …………………………………………………………………………………..
c) Desk/table/seats/chairs for each occupant ………………………………………………………………………………
d) Dayroom 35 sq. ft. unencumbered per occupant. No less than 100 sq. ft. exclusive of showers and toilets.
Seating and writing surfaces. (Dormitories excluded.) …………………………………………………………………….
e) Shower for each 12 occupants ……………………………………………………………………………………………
f) Lavatory for each 9 occupants …………………………………………………………………………………………….
g) Toilet for each 9 occupants.(Urinals may be substituted for 1/3 of toilets in male housing ………………………..
Maximum security-Has security type fixtures ………………………………………………………………………………….
Holding cells-20 sq. ft. of floor space. Place for setting. Maximum capacity of 8 prisoners ………………………………
Special needs cells-40 sq. ft. floor space ………………………………………………………………………………………
Exercise area-15 sq. ft. per person using the area. Not less than 500 sq. ft. ……………………………………………….
Natural Lighting ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Ability to segregate according to existing laws ……………………………………………………………………………..
Capacity is not exceeded ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
All door swing with exit traffic ………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Recreation area ceiling height 18ft. (New and renovations as of July 1, 2008 and after) …………………………………………..

Does the jail utilize direct supervision ……………………………………………………………………………..

Above requirements verified by measurement previously and there have been no significant
changes.

10

Revised 06/2008

IOWA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS - JUVENILE DETENTION MONITORING REPORT
Facility Name:

Date:

Administrator:

Phone:

A.
This facility can adequately separate juvenile prisoners from adult prisoners when both are held in custody
by placing only juveniles in cells, (identified in the statement of facts), which are separated from other cells or
areas by solid doors and walls or are of sufficient distance to prohibit all but haphazard/incidental conversational
and visual contact with adult prisoners or juveniles are under staff supervision. Pursuant to I.C. 356 and IAC 20150.13, or IAC 201-51.11 this facility is found to be in substantial compliance with the above codes and is therefore
certified to hold juveniles waived to the adult court.
B.

This facility is not in compliance with I.C. 356 and IAC 201-50.13 and therefore may not hold juveniles.

Intake

Note to what extent separation of juvenile and adult offenders exists in the areas listed below.
1
2
3
4
5
6 Y or N (Comments)

Housing
Dining
Recreation
Education
Vocation/Work
Visiting
Transportation
Medical/Dental
Designated
Non-secure
Hold Area
Use the following code in describing the extent of separation:
1. Adult prisoners and juveniles can have physical contact with each other (no separation).
2. Adult prisoners and juveniles can see or hear each other (physical separation).
3. Conversation is possible although they cannot see each other (sight separation).
4. Adult prisoners and juveniles can see each other but no conversation is possible (sound separation).
5. Adult prisoners and juveniles cannot see or talk to each other (sight and sound separation).
6. Policy and procedures ensure compliance with the above code sections. (Yes or No) (Comment)
STATEMENT OF FACTS

Delbert G. Longley, Jail Inspector

11

Revised 06/2008

INSPECTION CHECK LIST
Date

Time
OK

Jailer
N/A

Today’s Count

Comment

Search Notice
Firearms Locker
First Aid Kits
Sharps Box
Hazard Waste Container
Fire Extinguishers
Fire Smoke Alarms
Staff Schedule
Sprinklers
Emergency Exits/Posted
Emergency Lighting
Generator Log
Tables/Chairs
Bunks
Mattresses
Call Box
Heating/Cooling
Cell Size
Water Supply
Inmate Storage
Chemical Storage
Monitor/Audio Quality
Exercise Area/Log
Visitation Area/Log
Food Preparation
Menu/Dietitian
Medication Storage
Medication Log
Females – Sight/Sound
Juveniles – Sight/Sound
Intake Documents
Training
Fire Inspection
Keys
Comments:
Hourly Check Log:
Housekeeping:
Hygiene Supplies:

12

Revised 06/2008

County Jail Inspection Information
Sheriff:
Address:
Phone:
Email:
Jail Administrator:
Address:
Phone:
Email:
Jail address:
Chairperson BOS:
Phone:
Email:
County Attorney:
Address:
Phone:
Email:

Type of jail staff:
Place number of
each type of staff
on the line

Staff Schedules:
Place shift hours on the lines

Jailer/Dispatchers

Combination Civilian/Deputy
Fulltime Deputy
Fulltime Civilian
Part time Civilian
Part time Deputy
Number of staff:
Enter number of staff
working on each shift

Date facility constructed
Renovation dates:
Permanent beds or general population capacity:
Temporary holding cells:

Total capacity:

The jail charges a daily rate of: $
Room/Board fees from sentenced prisoners.
$
Work accommodated fees from sentenced prisoners. $
Other Counties.
13

Revised 06/2008

APPENDIX VII

FEDERAL AGENCY
UPDATE
U.S. MARSHAL’S OFFICE

8/12/2012

Detention Facility Training
Conditions of Confinement Program
Core Detention Standards

DOJ Core Detention Standards
06 June 2001POD Memo






USMS Core Detention Standards

They apply to all U. S. Marshals Service (USMS),
facilities that are not owned and operated by the
Department of Justice.
core standards should not be considered to supersede
what is afforded other prisoners under state law, or in
circumstances where safety and security would
otherwise dictate. Our detainees will be treated the
same as any other prisoner housed at your facility.
Based upon ACA Standards to some degree.

USMS Core Detention Standards
Facility Information is critical! Too many jails seem similar – PTS Code is key




USM-218 Attachment 1; Summary of Stds
59 Inspection points - Ranked but not graded!





Compliant
Partial Compliant
Non-Compliant
Not Applicable

(meets/exceeds standards)
(problems being fixed)
(does not meet minimums)
(limited to Juvenile / Work)
This information is coordinated through the USMS-POD Contract & Agreements
Along with OFDT E-IGA program (Replaced the USM-243/242 process).
State and Local Government refer to the e-IGA User Handbook & e-IGA Brochure
*this section A data also coincides with section C and D data to follow*

1

8/12/2012

Core Detention Standards – Section B – Confinement Conditions
Staffing & population conditions

USMS Core Detention Standards
Facility Information is critical! PTS IGA/Contract # is important!!

*Remember section A data also coincides with section *

USMS Core Detention Standards
Tracking USMS Significant Incidents through out your fiscal year!!
Some of this information will be “self reported” by facility – Your Census Takers

Prisoner Operations 9.7 DETENTION FACILITY INSPECTION PROGRAM
Facilities that undergo major changes in operations or physical structure; experience significant incidents
such as escapes, DOJ civil rights investigations and court orders restricting usage are inspected as soon
as possible after the event to ensure that the districts and POD have the most current information on the
detention facilities.

Core Detention Standards – Section G – Visual review example
The USMS walk through

Remember!! Note: 2011 POD Memo to IGA’s on dissemination of the USM218.
The USM-218 is a document shared with local governments or other federal
agencies. It is also discoverable in court for Criminal or Civil Law Suits.

*

2

8/12/2012

Core Detention Standards – Section H – Confinement Conditions

Core Detention Standards – Section B – Health Care Continued

Core Detention Standards – Section B – Health Care

Core Detention Standards – Section C – Security & Control

Remember your POD – OIMS Contacts for assistance!

3

8/12/2012

Core Detention Standards – Section C – Security & Control Cont’d

Core Detention Standards – Section E –
Staff / Detainee Communication

Core Detention Standards – Section D – Food Service

Core Detention Standards – Section F – Safety & Sanitation

4

8/12/2012

Core Detention Standards – Section G – Services & Programs

Core Detention Standards – Section G – Services & Programs contd

Core Detention Standards
Section H – Workforce Integrity
Section I – Detainee Discrimination

Core Detention Standards – Completing the USM218 Report
Section A – Notes
Section J – Monitoring Report Certification

5

8/12/2012

Detention Facility Training

Conditions of Confinement Program
Online Reports USM-218 / 218A / 210

Course Goals
During the next 45 minutes or so we will be discussing detention facility reporting
required to effectively monitor and Inspect IGA or Contract Facilities.


Understand the Policy and POD memoranda which guides your operations as a
(DMI/DFI) Detention Inspector.



Understand How to Gain Access Rights, Log Into the system, and also understand the
different User Roles utilized in the system.



Identify the components of a detention facility’s resources and how to document them
Annual review of a facility utilizing the USM-218 document. Also understand the different User Roles utilized in the
system.
Document the results of the special review of a facility in connection to Limited Use Agreements (LUA) utilizing the USM218A document.\
How to document the results of the OFDT lead Quality Assurance Review (QAR) of Private Contracts on a USM-210
document and when these occur.







How to coordinate with POD to ensure the Online Facility Inspection system is accurate
for addition of New facilities or to make changes to the status of an existing facility.



The Detention Facility Inspector (DFI)
The Detention Management Inspector (DMI)
Goal #1 Understanding the “Jail Inspection” Mission


The Detention Facility Inspection Program (DFIP) Directive POD9.7



The Prisoner Detention and Housing Directive POD9.2



Guidance/Memoranda










The Detention Facility Inspection Program (DFIP) Policy Directive POD9.7
The Prisoner Detention and Housing Policy Directive POD9.2
2011 POD Memo to IGA’s on dissemination of Detention Facility Investigative Reports
2009 POD Memo to Districts on Conditions of Confinement Inspections by fiscal year cycle
with due date NLT October 1st
2006 POD Memo to Districts on use and inspection of Intergovernmental Agreements
(IGA), Limited Use Agreements (LUA), and Cooperative Agreements (CAP)
2001 POD Memo to IGA’s on DOJ Core Detention Standards
2008 POD Memo to Districts on Limited Use Agreements (LUA)*150 total prisoner day
maximum limit*

Goal #1 Understanding the “Jail Inspection” Mission
Legal Guidelines:






Office of General Counsel

Under 18 U.S.C 4086 the USMS has a duty to provide for the safekeeping
of any person arrested, or held under its authority for any enactment of
Congress pending commitment to an institution.
Under 18 U.S.C 4002 and 4013 the USMS has the discretionary authority
to contract with state and local jail facilities to house federal Prisoners.
These agreements/contracts are further explained under 28 C.F.R 0.111(o)
where the responsibility of the day-to-day prisoner operations at the facility
is the sole preview of the contracted facility management.
Be cautious that your documentation doesn’t violate our 3rd Party
Protection. Case Law: S/FL 95-1913-CIV-GOLD




Minerva De Los Santos VS USA et al.
USA / USMS was shielded from liability by the FTCA exception
OGC stated to POD on 01/06/2012 that the USMS cannot mandate operational
standards or give specific operational direction to state and local IGA’s. The USMS
Inspection is solely monitoring and overview to allow for proper decision making.

6

8/12/2012

Online Reporting System (USM-218 / 218A / 210)

Online Reporting System (USM-218 / 218A / 210)

Goal #2: User Access

Goal #2: USMS DSS User Access Page






Follow current Online instructions as ITD executes user
access issues on behalf of POD.
The SDUSM or other authorized management official
must assign these duties to you on a USM-222 then
submit an electronic UAR169 to the ITS Help Desk by
email or via the IT Help Desk Web Request Form.
Note that the UAR form has several Lotus Notes
applications to choose from but the USM-218 form is not
listed. Please write in the memo section “Requesting
access to USM-218 Data base” and include the user
level requested. User ID Web registered before UAR.

NOTE: access problems? ITS Helpdesk or (1-202-307-5200)
• the ITS Helpdesk Manager is Felicia Price FPrice@usms.doj.gov
Examples of other WEB based USMS Online databases are Motor Pool Mileage
Report, Office of Preference (OPREF), or the USM-535 JSD Special Assignments.

Online Reporting System (USM-218 / 218A / 210)

Online Reporting System (USM-218 / 218A / 210)

Goal #2: District User Roles

Goal #2: POD-HQ User Roles



Collateral Duty – Detention Facility Inspectors (LV 1)








Users of GS-082 or GS-1811 who conduct inspections/reviews
WebPSD218DFIEAST or WebPSD218DFIWAST
Districts East or West of the Mississippi River
DFI’s who relocate or become SDUSM must request changes
on UAR-169 to be switched from the DFI role to the reviewer
role or change Districts.












and above who approve Jail Inspection Reports
User Group: WebPSD218DisRevs
Detention Management Investigators (DMI) must be either an
inspector or reviewer user role but cannot be both.







Review Inspections from District and verify IGA/Contracts/LUA
WebPSD218Readers

Office of Detention Management


District Managers - Supervisory GS-13/14/15 (LV 2)


Office of Contracts and Agreements

Coordinate Inspection and After Action Reports
Change Inspection status / Add new facilities
Can make certain limited report fixes for Quality Assurance
WebPSD218HQStaff

Office of Detention Oversight



Conditions of Confinement Administrators / WebPSD218HQAdmin
Super User role with enhanced Quality Assurance capability to
fix errors from 2010 Database transition.

7

8/12/2012

The Detention Facility Monitoring Reports
USM-218 / 218A Reports

Online (USM-218 / 218A / 210) DEMO
Goal #3

Goal #3




USM 218 series Detention Facility Inspection
Database User Manual version 2.0
Review how to:
 Entering a USM 218 Annual Report (item 2.3 – pg. 9)
 Entering a USM 218 LUA Report (item 2.4 - pg.15)
 Entering a QAR210 report (item 2.5 – pg. 18)
 Entering a Field 210 report for inactive facilities
(item 2.6 – pg. 21)
 Understand the completion / District Reviewer process
(item 3.0 – pg 29)

DMI/DFI & POD
Coordination of Facility data with POD

Thank You & Welcome to the team!

Goal #4






We must ensure the Online Facility
Inspection system is accurate for
addition of New facilities or to
make changes to the status of an
existing facility.
Office of Contracts and
Agreements coordinates addition
of New Contracts & IGA or any
LUA.
Office of Detention Management
coordinates data in the 218 system
to include additions, deactivations,
or other revisions such as LUA &
QAR inspection status

Annual Inspections USM-218

OFDT QAR Inspection
USM210

Limited Use USM-218A

8

APPENDIX VIII

SUICIDE PREVENTION

Major Findings
Jail Suicide Prevention: Current
Research, Policy & Procedures, and
Legal Trends

•

The study identified 696 jail suicides in 2005 and 2006, with 612
deaths occurring in detention facilities and 84 in holding facilities.
Data collected on 464 of these deaths.

•

In 1986, rate of suicide in county jails was approx. 107 deaths per
100,000 inmates or an approx. rate of 9 times greater than the
community (Hayes, 1988)

•

In this study, rate of suicide in county jails during 2006 dropped
dramatically and was 38 deaths per 100,000 inmates or slightly more
than 3 times greater than the community (Hayes, 2010)

presented by

Lindsay M. Hayes
National Center on Institutions and Alternatives
Copyright 2012, National Center on Institutions and Alternatives

Major Findings
•

Major Findings

43% of victims were detained on violent/personal
charges

•

The charges of Sexual Assault of Child/Murder of a
Child accounted for 7% of all suicides

•

38% of victims had a history of mental illness

1

•

34% had a history of suicidal behavior

•

23% of suicides occurred within the first 24
hours of confinement, 27% occurred between 2
and 14 days, and 20% between 1 and 4 months

•

20% were intoxicated at time of death

•

32% occurred between 3:01pm and 9:00pm

Major Findings

Major Findings
•

93% of suicides were by hanging -- 66% used their
bedding

•

35% occurred in close proximity to a court hearing, with 69% of
those occurring in less than 2 days

•

30% used bed/bunk as the anchoring device

•

22% occurred within close proximity to a telephone call or visit,
with 67% of those occurring in less than 1 day

•

31% found dead over 1 hour from last observation

•

13% of victims had agreed to “no-harm” contracts

•

Deaths evenly distributed throughout year, certain seasons
and/or holidays did not account for more suicides

•

8% on suicide watch at time of death (and
inadequately observed and/or placed in dangerous
cell)

Major Findings
•

•

Major Findings

85% of facilities maintained a written suicide
prevention policy, but few had comprehensive
suicide prevention programming. For example....
77% of facilities provided intake screening, but
only 27% verified suicide risk during prior
confinement, and only 31% verified whether
arresting/transporting officer believed victim was
suicide risk.

2

•

63% of facilities did not provide suicide prevention
training (38%) or did not provide it on an annual
basis (25%).

•

93% of facilities had a suicide watch protocol, but
less than 2% offered option for constant observation
(most utilized 15-minute observation level).

Major Findings
•

Major Findings

80% of facilities provided CPR certification to staff,
but CPR was administered in only 63% of cases.

•

32% of facilities maintained safe housing for
suicidal inmates.

•

35% of facilities maintained a mortality review
process.

See Table 43

Toward a Better Understanding
of Suicide Prevention

Major Findings
The full 68-page National Study of Jail
Suicide: 20 Years Later can be found at:

•

We do an admirable job of managing inmates identified
as suicidal and placed on precautions.

•

Very few inmates successfully commit suicide while on
suicide watch.

•

PRIMARY CHALLENGE: How do we prevent the
suicide of an inmate who is not easily identifiable as
being at risk for self harm?

http://nicic.gov/Library/024308

3

Guiding Principles for
Suicide Prevention

Toward a Better Understanding
of Suicide Prevention
“If suicidal individuals were either
willing or able to articulate the severity
of their suicidal thoughts and plans,
little risk would exist.”
Kay Redfield Jamison, a prominent psychologist and author of Night Falls Fast –
Understanding Suicide (1999)

Guiding Principles for
Suicide Prevention
3.

Prior risk of suicide is strongly related to future risk.

4.

In addition to early stages of confinement, many
suicides occur in close proximity to a court hearing.
We must begin to devise ways in which our housing
unit staff is more attentive to this risk period.

1.

The assessment of suicide risk should not be
viewed as a single event, but as an on-going
process.

2.

Intake screening should be viewed as something
similar to taking one’s temperature – it can
identify a current fever, but not a future cold.

Guiding Principles for
Suicide Prevention
5. A disproportionate numbers of suicides take
place in “special housing units.” We must create
more interaction between inmates and
correctional, medical, and mental health staff in
these units, including more frequent rounds by
staff and admission screening into these units.
6. We should not rely exclusively on the
direct statements of an inmate who deny

4

Example 1
A man was arrested for various theft charges at a local hotel. Officers
noticed several fresh self-inflicted cuts on both wrists. The man
admitted being suicidal following the recent break-up with his
girlfriend. He was transported to the hospital where an ER doctor
assessed him as anxious, depressed, and suicidal. For security reasons,
the man could not be held at the hospital and was released to
officers with instructions for suicide precautions at the county jail.

At the county jail, the man was initially placed on suicide watch but, after
a few hours, complained of being cold in his safety smock and could
not sleep with the cell lights on. He now denied being suicidal. Jail
staff, without consulting with medical/mental health personnel,
discontinued the suicide watch, returned his clothing, and placed
the inmate in a cell where the only illumination was from the
officer’s flashlight during rounds. He committed suicide a few days
later.

Example 2

Example 3
In any facility throughout the country, the inmate is on suicide
precautions for attempting suicide the previous day. He is naked
except for a suicide smock, given finger foods, and on lockdown
status. The mental health clinician approaches the cell and asks the
inmate (within hearing distance of others on the cellblock): “How are
you feeling today? Still feeling suicide? Can you contract for
safety?”

Police were called to the home of a man who accidentally shot and killed
a friend during a domestic dispute with his estranged wife. Upon
arrival, the suspect placed a handgun to his head and clicked the
trigger several times. He also encouraged the officers to shoot him.
Following five hours of negotiations, the suspect surrendered without
incident. He was transported to the county jail and denied being
suicidal during the intake screening process. The inmate was not
referred to mental health staff, nor placed on suicide watch. He
committed suicide the following day.

Will the inmate’s response be influenced by his current predicament?
How would each of us respond?

5

Guiding Principles for
Suicide Prevention
7.

Guiding Principles for
Suicide Prevention
8. Many preventable suicides result from poor
communication amongst corrections,
medical and mental health staff. Facilities
that maintain a multidisciplinary approach
to suicide prevention avoid preventable
suicides.

We must provide meaningful suicide prevention
training to our staff. Training should not be scheduled
simply to comply with an accreditation standard. A
workshop limited to an antiquated videotape, or webbased question/answer format, or recitation of the
current policy might demonstrate compliance with
accreditation, but it is not meaningful.

Guiding Principles for
Suicide Prevention

Example
If an acutely suicidal inmate requires
continuous, uninterrupted observation from
staff, they should not be monitored via
CCTV simply because that is the only
option the system chooses to offer.

9. One size does not fit all and basic
decisions regarding the management
of a suicidal inmate should be based
upon their individual needs, not simply
on the resources that are said to be
available.

6

Guiding Principles for
Suicide Prevention

Guiding Principles for
Suicide Prevention

10. By far the most important decision in the area of suicide
precaution is the determination to discharge an inmate
from suicide precautions. That determination must
always be made by a qualified mental health
professional following a comprehensive suicide risk
assessment. Decisions by non-QMHPs that result in bad
outcomes incur unnecessary liability.

11. We must avoid creating barriers that discourage
inmates from accessing mental health staff should they
feel suicidal. If an inmate believes suicide precautions
are “punitive,” i.e. automatic removal of
clothing/issuance of a safety smock, limited movement
(for showers, visiting, recreation, telephone, etc.), loss of
desired cell placement and/or job, they may be
reluctant to seek out mental health staff.

Guiding Principles for
Suicide Prevention

Guiding Principles for
Suicide Prevention

12. Few issues challenge us more than inmates who
threaten suicide for a perceived secondary gain. Yet we
should not assume that inmates who appear
manipulative are not also suicidal. The critical issue is
not how we label the behavior, but how we react to it.
The reaction must include a multidisciplinary approach.

13. Lack of inmates on suicide precautions should not be
interpreted to mean that there are no currently suicidal
inmates in your facility, nor a barometer of sound
suicide prevention practices. You can’t make the
argument that your facility is housing more mentally ill
and/or other high risk individuals and then state there
are not any suicidal inmates in your facility today.

7

Guiding Principles for
Suicide Prevention

Guiding Principles for
Suicide Prevention
14. We must avoid using the terms “WATCH
CLOSELY” or “KEEP AN EYE ON HIM!”
when describing an inmate we are
concerned about, but have not placed on
suicide precautions. If we are concerned
about them, then they should be on suicide
precautions.

Continued….
Correctional facilities contain suicidal inmates every day;
the challenge is to find them. The goal should not be
“zero” number of inmates on suicide precautions; rather
the goal should be to identify, manage and stabilize
suicidal inmates in our custody.
A lack (or small number) of inmates on suicide precautions,
can be the result of inadequate identification practices.

Guiding Principles for
Suicide Prevention

Example
1) If someone really wants to kill themselves, there’s generally
nothing you can do about it.

15. We must avoid Obstacles to
Prevention. Such obstacles are
negative attitudes implying that
inmate suicides cannot be
prevented.

2) There’s no way you can prevent suicides unless you have
someone sitting watching the prisoner all the time, and no
one can afford to be a baby sitter.
3) Suicide prevention is a medical problem…it’s a mental health
problem…it’s not our problem.

8

Guiding Principles for
Suicide Prevention
16.

Standards of Care

Create and maintain a comprehensive suicide prevention program that
includes the following essential components:
Staff Training
Intake Screening/Assessment
Communication
Housing
Levels of Observation/Management
Intervention
Reporting
Follow-up/Morbidity-Mortality Review

1.

National Commission on Correctional Health Care (contains
“Guide to Developing and Revising Suicide Prevention
Protocols”)

2.

American Correctional Association

3.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (ICE standards contain
suicide prevention provisions similar to NCCHC standards)

Training
1.

Training

Initial Training (8 hours) includes:
a)
b)
c)

d)
e)
f)

2.

Inmate suicide research
Staff attitudes about suicide (avoiding obstacles to
prevention)
Why facility environments are conducive to suicidal
behavior, potential pre-disposing factors, high-risk
periods, warning signs and symptoms
Identifying suicidal inmates despite their denial of risk
Components of the facility’s suicide prevention policy
Liability issues

9

Annual Training (2 hours) includes:
a)

Review of initial training highlights

b)

Review of suicides/serious suicide attempts
during the year

c)

Review of changes in the department policy

Intake Screening/Assessment

Intake Screening/Assessment

The Intake Screening Form is completed by a trained
correctional officer or nurse and includes inquiry
regarding:
1) Past suicidal ideation and/or attempts
2) Current suicidal ideation, threats or plans
3) Prior mental health treatment, including
hospitalization
4) Recent significant loss (job, relationship, death of a
family member/close friend, etc.)

5) Expresses a feeling there is nothing to look forward to in the
immediate future (e.g., helplessness and/or hopelessness)
6) Family or significant other history of suicidal behavior
7) Suicide risk during prior department confinement and/or
at most recent sending facility -- gathered by nursing or
classification staff
8) Transporting officer believes that inmate may be a medical,
mental health, and/or suicide risk

Communication

Housing

Level 1:

•

Housing assignments should be based on the ability
to maximize staff interaction with the inmate, not on
decisions that heighten depersonalizing aspects of
confinement.

•

Avoid isolation – a disproportionate number of
suicides occur in segregation.

Sending agency/transporting officer or others and the suicidal
inmate

Level 2:
Among correctional, medical, and mental health staff
regarding the suicidal inmate

Level 3:
All staff and the suicidal inmate

10

Housing
•

Housing
•

To every extent possible, a
suicidal inmate should be housed
in the general population, mental
health unit, or medical infirmary,
located close to staff.

All cells designated to house suicidal inmates should be
suicide-resistant, free of all obvious protrusions (e.g., door
and window bars; door handles/hinges; towel racks;
clothing hooks; and large gauge mesh screening over light
fixtures, radiators, sprinkler heads, smoke detectors and
ceiling/wall air vents, etc.) Cell door windows should
allow for clear and unobstructed visibility to all areas of
the cell interior.

Two (2) Recommended Levels
of Supervision

Two (2) Recommended Levels
of Supervision

Close Observation is reserved for the inmate who is not

Because an inmate can successfully
commit suicide in less than 10 minutes,
Close Observation status will only be
effective if checks are made on a
staggered basis and the cell is suicideresistant.

actively suicidal, but expresses suicidal ideation (e.g.,
expressing a wish to die without a specific threat or plan)
and/or has a recent prior history of self-destructive
behavior.
Staff should observe such an inmate at staggered
intervals not to exceed 10 minutes (e.g., 5, 10, 7 minutes,
etc.).

11

Two (2) Recommended Levels
of Supervision

Two (2) Recommended Levels
of Supervision

Constant Observation is reserved for

CCTV, inmate companions, etc. can
be utilized as a supplement to, but
never as a substitute for, Constant
Observation or Close Observation.

the inmate who is actively suicidal,
either threatening or engaging in
suicidal behavior.

Upgrading, Downgrading, and Discontinuing
Suicide Precautions
•

Any designated staff may place an inmate on suicide
precautions or upgrade those precautions, but only a
“qualified mental health professional” should downgrade
and/or discontinue suicide precautions;

•

If available full-time, mental health staff should assess
and interact with (not just observe) suicidal inmates on a
daily basis.

Intervention
1) All staff who come into contact with inmates
should be trained in standard first aid and
cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), as well
as participate in annual “mock drill” training
to ensure as prompt emergency response to all
suicide attempts.

12

Intervention

Intervention

2) All housing units should contain an emergency
response bag that includes a first aid kit, pocket
mask or Ambu bag, latex gloves, and emergency
rescue tool (to quickly cut through fibrous material.)
At least one Automated External Defibrillator
(AED) should be centrally located in the facility.

3) Non-medical staff should never wait for
medical personnel to arrive before
entering cell or before initiating full lifesaving measures (e.g., first aid and CPR).

Reporting

Reporting

1) In the event of a suicide attempt or suicide,
all appropriate officials should be notified
through the chain of command.

3) All staff who come into contact with the victim
prior to the incident should be required to submit a
statement that includes their full knowledge of the
inmate and incident. Their reports should be brief,
accurate, and specific to personal knowledge of the
incident – and not what they assumed or thought
happened.

2) Following the incident, the victim’s family
should be immediately notified, as well as
appropriate outside authorities.

13

Morbidity-Mortality Review

Morbidity-Mortality Review

1. The morbidity-mortality review team must
be multidisciplinary and include
correctional, mental health, and medical
personnel. Exclusion of one or more
disciplines will severely jeopardize the
integrity of the review.

The primary purpose of a MorbidityMortality review is straightforward:
What happened in the case under review
and what can be learned to reduce the
likelihood of future incidents?

Morbidity-Mortality Review
2.

Morbidity-Mortality Review

The review, separate and apart from other formal investigations
that may be required to determine the cause of death, should
include critical review of:

a) Circumstances surrounding the incident;
b) Facility procedures relevant to the incident;
c) Relevant training received by involved staff;

14

d)

Medical and mental health services/reports involving the
victim;

e)

Possible precipitating factors (i.e., circumstances which may
have caused the victim to commit suicide); and

f)

Recommendations, if any, for change in policy, training,
physical plant, medical or mental health services, and
operational procedures.

Jail & Prison Suicide Litigation:
Cases of Interest

Jail & Prison Suicide Litigation:
Cases of Interest

1. Heflin v. Stewart County, 958 F.2d 709 (6th Cir. 1992);
Tlamka v. Serrell, 244 F.3d 628 (8th Cir. 2001); and
Bradich v. City of Chicago, 413 F.3d 688 (7th Cir.
2005)

3. Jacobs v. West Feliciana Sheriff’s Dept,
228 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2000)
4. Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724 (7th
Cir. 2001)
5. Wever v. Lincoln County, 388 F.3d 601
(8th Cir. 2004)

2. Cunningham v. Tkadletz, 97 C. 1109, United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 1998;
Conn v. City of Reno, 591 F.3d 1081 (2010)

Jail & Prison Suicide Litigation:
Cases of Interest

Jail Suicide Prevention Resources
Lindsay M. Hayes

6. Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d
1232 (9th Cir. 2010)

Project Director

National Center on Institutions and Alternatives
40 Lantern Lane, Mansfield, Massachusetts 02048
(508) 337-8806-office, (508) 337-3083-fax

7. Sinkov v. Americor, Inc., 2011 WL 1395298 (2nd
Cir., April 13, 2011)

e-mail:

Lhayesta@msn.com

http://www.ncianet.org/services/suicideprevention-in-custody

15

JAIL SUICIDE PREVENTION:
Current Research, Policg and Procedures,
and Leaal Trends

Presented hy

Lind....y M Hayes
Project Dtroctor
N ational Center 0 11 lndi tutiOlU cncl A1 tOl'1laHvctI

40 Lantern Lane, Mansfield , MaSS.1chusetis 0204 8
(508) 337-8806
Lhayesta@ m ~n .com

htlp:/Iwww.nciancl.orf!!scrviccs/suicide· prcvcntion-in-ctlSlodyI

lor the

National Institute o£ Corrections, Jails Division
Chle£ Jail Inspectors' Network
Aurora, Colorado

JuI" 18, 2012

HANDOUTS

I
2

NATIONAL STUDY OF JAIL SUICIDE:
20 YEARS LATER

by

Lindsay M. Hayes
Project Director
National Center on Institutions and Alternatives

April 2010

3

Executive Summa ry

S

uicide Cl)nlinucs 10 be a leading cause ofdcalil III jails across tile country and tile rate

of suicide in county jails is estimated to be several limes greater than that of the
general population. In September. 2006, the National Center on instilul;ons and
Altcrnntivc!i (NCIA) entered into II cooper<llivo agreement with the U.S. Justice
Department's Nationollnstitutc of Corrections 10 conducl lI nalional study on jail suicides
that would detl!nninc the extent lind distribution of innltltc suicides in 1000l jails (i.e., clIY,
county, and police departmen t [,Ici lities), as well as b:8lher des!;riptive data on

de.mogro phic

Ch~r<lctl'rislics

of CHell victim, ctUlr!lClerislics of lhe incidclII, and

characteristics o r tlle jllil facility which sushlincd the suicide. The :;ludy, u follow-up to II
smillar nation:11 SUrVey conducted hy NCIA 20 yenTs enrlier in 1986, would fesull in a
report of th(~ findings to be utilized llS II rcS(lurcc 1001 for bolh jni I pcrsOIlncl in expamling
thcir km:n~ledgc base, and correctional (as well as menIal healt h and medical)
administrators in creating <lndior revising policies li nd (mining curricliia on suicide
prevention.
The study resulted in the identilication of 696 joil suicides duri ng the 2005 ::md 2U06,
with 612 deaths occurring in deten tion facilities and 84 in holding facilities .
Demogrdphic data was subsequcntly analyzed 011464 of the suicides.
Among the findings regarding C h;lracleris ti CS of the S uicide Victims:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Amollg th~
•

•
•

•
•
•
•

t

I

67% were white;
93% were male:
Average age was 35:
42% were single;
43% were held on a violent/personal charge;
47% had a history ofsubslancc abuse;
280/0 had a history of medical problems;
38% had a history or menial il!nt:.'>S;
2U% hud a history of taking psychotmpic medication; and
34% had a history of suicidal ~havior.
li lldi ng.~

regarding C ha racteris tics

ur the Suicides:

! )e;lUIS were evenly distributed throughout the year, certai n $easons
nndlo r holidays did nu t acco unt fo r mo re suicides:
J,2% occurred bct..veen 3:01pm and 9:00pm;
23% occurred within first 24 hour!;. 27% occurred between 2 lind 14
days, 20"/0 between I and 4 mon ths;
20% were intoxicated al time of death;
93% used banging as the method;
66% used bedding as the instrument;
30% used bedlbunk as the anchoring device;

•
•
•
•
•

) 1% found delld over I hour from last obscrvatl(JI1;
CPR adminiS\tiIled in 63% of incidents;
38% held in isolation;
8% on suicide walch at lime of death,

•

No-harm contracts used in 13% of eases;

•

37% assessed by qual ified menIal heahb professionals. with 47% of
those assessed within three days of death;
35% occulTed withill close proximity 10 a courl htmring, with 69% of

•

those occurring in less thun 2 days: and

• 22% occurred within close proximity 10 u (elephone call or visil. with
67% of tllose occurring in less Ihan [duy.

Among the findings regarding

C h llnlClcr i stic~

uf the .Inil Focililicjl:

•

84% lldministcrt:c by counly. 13% by municipal , 2% private, and less
than 2% by state or regional agencies;

•

77% provided intake screening to identify suicide risk, bUl only 27%
veri fi ed suicide risk of victim during prior confincmcnt lind only 31'Yo
verified whether a~ting/transporting officer hctit:ved victim was
suicide risk:
62% provided suicide prevention trlIining, but 63% either did not
provide training or did not provide it on nn ruulUal basis;
69% of training provided WIlS ror lWO hours or less, snd only 6% was 8
hours in length;
80% provided CPR certification;
93% provided suicide watch protocol, less than 2% had the option for
constllnt observation most (87%) util ized IS·minute observation level;
510/0 allowed only mental health personnel with discharge rrom suicide
wlllch responsibilities;
32% maintained safe housing for suicidal ilUnates~
35% maintaim:d" mortality review process; and
SS% maintained a written suicide prevention policy, but suicide
prevention programming was nOl comprehensive.

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Twenty ye~rs after the previous study in 1986, this national study of jail suicides found
subslilntial changes in the demographic ehamct~ris(ics of inmates committing suicide.
Somc of thcse changcs we re stark. For example, suicide victims once charactc rizcd as
being confi ned on "minor other" om::nses. wcr\: most r~cently found in thc 200S~200(j
datil to be held on violent/personal charges. Intoxication was previously viewed as a
leading precipitant to iruna\e suicide. yet recent data indicates that it is now found in only
u minorit), of caseo;. Where..% over h."lf of fill j!lil $Uit.~dc victims Wtrre previously dead
within the lirst 24 hours of confinem~nt, turn:nt data suggests that less than a quarter of
llil victims commit suicide during this time period, with an equal number of deaths
occurring bet,~eell 2 and 14 days of confinement. In addition, inmates that committed
suicide appcared to be far less likely to be housed in isolation than previously reported

5
and, for unknoWn reasons, were less likely to be found wilhin IS minutes of the last
observation by slaff. Finalty, more jail faci lities Ihal experienced inmate suicides had
both written suicide prevention policics and an intake screening process 10 identify
suicide risk than in years past, although Ole comprehensiveness of programming remains
questionable.
Finally, the suicide rate in detention facilities during 2006 was calculated to be 38 deaths
per 100,000 inmates, a ,dte approximately three times greater than thaI of the general
population. This rale, however, represents a drnmlltic decrease in the nL~ of suicide: in
dclcnlion facilit ies during the past 20 years. The almost three-fold decrease from a
previollsly reportL-d 107 suicides in 1986 is exttaordirmry, Absent in-depth scienlific
inquiry, there may be several expkm:llions for the reduced suicide rale. During the past
sc\'crol YCfiTS, prior national studies of jail suicide have gjven a face to this long-standing
and often ignored public health issue within our rltllion '5 jails. Findings from Ihe studies
have been widely distributed throughout lhe country and eventually incorporated into
suicide prevention tmining curricula. 'Inc increased awnreness to inmnte suicide is also
reflected in national correction:!.l standards Ihal now require comprehensive suicide
prevention programming, beller training of jail stafT, and more in-depth inquiry uf suicide
rj~k factors during Ihe intake process. Final ly, jail suicide litigat ion has pcrsullded (or
forced) jurisdictions and facility administrators to take corrective actions in reducing the
opportunity for future dcaths. TIlerefore. the antiquilted mindsct thilt " inmate suicides
cannot be prevented"" should forever be pullO rest.
Rc<:ommendations in the nreas of comprehensive suicide prevention prognnnrning, staff
training, and future research effol1s nre offered.
In conclusion, rmdings from this study create a foml;ullble challenge for both
correclionnl and health care officials, as well as their respective starrs. While our
know!cdge base- contiuues to incrense, which hlls seemingly corresponded to a dnuuRtic
reduction in lhe rate or inTllnte suicide in detention f<lci]i ties, much work lies ahead. The
data indicates thaL imnate suicide is no longer centralized 10 the first 24 houts of
confinement and can occur at any limt' during an inmate's confinement. As such, because
roughly the same number of deaU1S occurred wjthin the first several hours of custody as
in more than a few months of confinement, intake screening for the identification of
suicide risk upon entry into 0 facility should be viewed as time-limited. Instead, because
inmales enn he al risk for suicide I'lt :tny point during confinement, the biggest challenge
for those who work in the co(t"ections system will be to conceptualize the issue as
requiring a continuum of comprehensive suicide prevt:ntion services aimed at the
collaborati ve identification, contin ued assessment, and safe management of inmales at
risk for self-hann.

I
6
TAHI,E43
C II ANG~G fACES OF JAil. SOlem.!-: V ICTIMS

Va.riahles

1985· 1986

2005·2006

Fncility Type
Race

70% Detcmioll

S"
A'c:

94% Male
30

Marital Status

52% Single

Most Sclious Charge

29% Minor Other

88% Detention
67% White
93% Male
35
42% Sin Ie
43%

Jail Status
Intoxication at Death

89010 Detained

Time of Suicide

72% White

60%
30% between
12:QOam and

6:00am
Length of Con finement
Method
Instrument
Time Span (between last
o bservation IlJ1d finding
victim )

Isolation
Known Hisl0ry of$uicidal

Behavior
Known Hislory of MentaJ
ILlness
!ntllke S,;rccning fo r
Suici.de Risk
Wrillcn Suicide Prevention
Policy

51% within 1 24
hours

Violenl/PcrSOnaJ
91% Detained
20%
32% belween
3:0 1pm and 9:00pm
23% within I' 24

48% Bcddin

hours
93% Han in
66% Beddin t

42% found wil hin
15 minutes

21% found wi thin
15 minutes

67%

38%

16%

34%

19"10

38%

30%

77%

5!%

85%

94% Han .in

The full 68-1)'1ge Naliol/ul Stu(ly of Juil SlIicillt; 10 Years Lafer can be viewed lit:

http://static.nici c.govlLibrarv/024308.pdr

I
7

Toward d BeHer Understdnding of Suicide Prevention in Correctional
FtlcmHes
More rimes [hOI"! nOL, we do an admirahle job of safely managing inmates idcl11ified as suicidal and placed
011 prt:cnulions. A flf'" all, very few inluates Sllccessfully commi t suicide on suicide watch.

Whal we conlillue 10 struggh: wilh is the IIbilil)' to prel'cnt the suicide of an iumMe who is 1101
idcntillabJc ~s being fI! risk for scll~hHnn.

e~~ily

Kny Redfield J~rnis()n, 11 prominent psychologist and author of NiShi Fulls Frl$l - Ulldaslanding Silicide
(1999), has better ~rli"ulalcd lhe point by sluling ill her book th at:

" If ,micii/a/ illlli"iilutl/s were either willillK IIr ah/I! 1(1 IIrticlllare fhe
sl.'vl!Fily uJrfleir s/licida( 'hof/ghts /111(1 plml~', lillie ril'k ...(111111 exi.w_ "
Wilh this mind, !he roliowlng GUIDING PR(NClJ'J,li:S "' OR SOiCfOE PR €VeNTION are offered:
I) The assessment of suicide risk should.!l2! be vlcwed as 1\ sillgle evefl1, bUlliS an On-going process.
Because an inmate may become suicidal at any poiut dllriug confill<:ment, suicide pn:vcntion
should begin. lit the point of arrest Ilild contilluc until the inmntc is rclcaseu from the facility. (n
~tldition, once all inmatc has bCC fl succcssfully mllnaged on, and disehllrged from , suicide
PI"CcAiltions, they should remain on a mental hMlth ellselcad 3nd assesscd periodically unlil
released froll.l 1he fHcil ity.
2) Scrccniug for suicide durillg the initi~1 booking and intake process should be viewed as
something similar to taking onc's temperalu re - it call idelHify a currclH fever, bUl not a future
cold. TIle shelf life of behavior thai is observed IIlldJor selr-reported during intake scree nin g is
time-limited, lind we often place far too much weight upon this initial data collection sluge.
Following nil IIIlUme suicide, It is not unusual for the Illonlliity review process to rocus
exclusively UIXIIl whether the vktim threlltened suidele during the booking and Intake stage, n
time p¢riod that cOidd be £,r removed from the elate of suicide [fthe victim IlIld answered in the
negative to !:uidde fisk dlldng the booking stage, there is often ~ se nse of relief expressed by
participants of the mOliality le~iew, ~s well a~ II Ini~guided conclusion thaI the death w~s not
preventllble. Although the intake screening f0I111 n:~'nains a villuable pl't':I'ention tool, the Illore
important dU"lcnninalion of suicide ri5k is Ihe £!!.J:nlli!. behavior expressed and/or displayed by the
inmate.

3) Prior risk of suicide is strongly related to future ri sk

At II minimum, if all imnilte had been
placed on suicide precautions during a previOlls confinement in til(: facility or agency, such
infot'llllItioli sho ilid be accessible to both direct care and health care personnel whl.'n ucll;nnini'tg
Whether the inmate J)"ljght be 3.1 risk dnrillit their currellt cOHfinelllenl.

4) In addition If) the heightened risk for suieidt: during the first 24 to 48 hours ofconfit1ement, many
suicides QCC\lr ii1 cJQl't': proximity 10 a eou rt procceding. We must hegin to devise wnys ill which
our housing unil staff is lIlore auentive to this risk period. \n some juriwietiolls, a brief mental
status 0:::\3111 is given to ~ctect illlnHtcS (e.g., those o n a menial h~llllh caseload., those identified as
ha viug 3 prior history ofsllicidal behavior, etc.) ~ach time they rellim from a court pJ'O(.'Ccdillll,.
5) A disproportionate number of inmale suicidcs take place in "~ptclal housinS units" (e.g.,
disciplinuryh,dmin istrlllivc SC!ifCg~tiOl\) 01 th~ Iilcllity. One eDi:ctive prevention strategy is to

I
8
create more interaction beTween inmates and correctional, IIledicol and mental health personnel in
these hOllsing areas by: increasing rounds ofmedi clIl andlor mental hc.nllh stan; requiring regular
follow-up orall inmates released from suicide precautions, increasillg rounds ofcorrec\ional sta ff,
providing additional momal health ~creen ing to inmlll\!S ad mitted to di sciplillary/admjnistrativ~

segregat ion,

1111

avoiding lockdown due 10 slarr shortages (alld the resulting limited access of

medical ,lIld mental hClllth persulIl1eltu the units).

6) We shou ld not rely exclusjvely on Lh~ dirt'd stHtcl!)el1!s uf lm inmate who denies that lhcy nrc
suicidal and/or h3 ve II prior history o f sui cid;d behavior, p(ll1iculariy when their behavior, actions
and/or hiSTory suggest otherw ise. Often, de~p i te an it1111(lte's dt:nial of SlIicid(l 1 jd~ation , their
behavior, actions, andlor history speak louder than their WOrds. For exarllple:
In any facility, th e inmate is on suicide precautions for attcmplin£ suicide lhe
previous day. He is now naked except for II suicide smock, given finger foods,
and on lockdown StlltUS. TIle nrental health clinicinn npprOllehcs th e cell lind asks
the inmate through the food slot (within hC3ring d is18nce o f others on the:
cellblock): " How are you feding today? Still feel ing suicide'! Can you comrael
lor safety?"
Will this inmate'$

reSlX'n~c:

be innucllcoo by his curf'Cnt predicament'!

How would wc· respond?
7) We must provide meanj!1gful suicide prc\'cntion tmining to uur sttln: i.e., timely, long-lasting
information that is reflec tive of our ourrent knowlcclgc base of the probl&nl . Training should not
be scheduled to simply comply with an accreditation standard. A work5hop that i~ limited 10 au
antiljuBted videotape, or web-based q u cstjon~nnswer formllt, or recitation of the current pOlicies
and procedures, might demonstrate compliance (albeit wrongly) with an accreditation 51.andard,
but i.~ not lIleaningfu l, nor helpful, to Ihe goal of reducing irUll:lte suicides. Withoul regular
suicide prevention training, staff often lIlll.ke wrong andlor ill·informed decisions, dcrm,m stmte
inaction, or read conlrury to standard correctional practice, thereby incurring unnccc.~S!lry
lil'bility.
8) Mnny preventable su icides result frolll poor comniUnicaliofl amongst direct care, medical bnd
menta l he.1lth staff. Other problem areas for cOJllllluuication include outside law cnforccrnl;!nl
agencics and concclll C'xpres~d frum family mc-mbers. Communication problems are often
caused by lack of respect, personality connicls , nnd other boundary issues. Simply stated,
facilities that maintain a multidisciplinary approach avoid preventable suicides.
9) Que size does not fit a ll and basic decisions regnrding the management of a suicidal inmate
should be based upon their individual clinical needs, not simply on Ihe resources that are said to
be- avai lable. For example, if an aeutcly suicidal inmate requires continuous, unin terrupted
observation from staff, they should not be moniton:{! via eerv simply hecause Ihat is the only
oplion the sysh:m chooses to otTer. A clinician should nevc-r feci pressured, however subtle Ihal
pressure rnlly be, 10 downward and/or' discharge an inmate from suicide precautions because
additional staff resources (e.g., ovel1ime, post transfer, etc.) are required to mainltlin the desired
level of observation. Although they would rarely admit It, clin icians have prematurely
d()lVngrndcd, di~charged, and/or chang\:.'d the mal\agement plan for ;\ suicidal inmate ba.sed upon
pressure frarn facility officials.

9
10) By

r~r

the

1l10S1

di fficult decisitm in the

discharge an inmate from suicide

~rea

pf'(.~fttlli(.)ns.

p f suicido prt':cau!;on is the delermination \0

'111al dck'l"rni na1ion must al",·(l.Ys Oe marle by II

qua lified menIa l hcalth professional (OMHI') followi ng II comprehensive su ic ide ri sk assessment.
These docisions must bt: respected by !10n-QMl-If' SlBff. Decisions by non-QMHPs thaI resuh in
bad outcomes incu r unnece5sary liability_
II) We must IIvoid crealillg barriers that discourngc a n j' "!!Ul!: from ::r.ccessing mental hCllllh ~ervice$.
Often, ecru;n management conditiuns oru facility's pol icy on ~!licide pre.::C1ulioIlS appear punitive
10 an inmate (e.g., lIulOIll Mic clothi ng remova l/ issuance of snflll)' ga rment, lockdown, limi ted
visiling, lelephun~, and shower acceiS, elc), as wdl as excessive And unrclnh:d 10 thei r level of
suicide risk. As a result, an Inmalc who b.:eomes suicid,,1 and/or desponden t durin!: confincmem
limy be reluctant to seck oul mClllal hea lth services. and even deny Ihen' is a problem, if they
know thol loss or these. and olher basic amenities are JIl aulom~lie outcome. As sueh, Ihelle
barrie~ shonld be avoided whenever possible and decision~ regllrding the man~genle!11 of B
su icidal inmate should be hased ~Icly upon the i"dividu31' s level of risk.

12) Few issues c ha ll enge uS mort thAn thAI of inmates we perceive to be !ll3nipulutivll. It is nol
unusual for i11JIIHles to call atten tion to themselves by thrutenlllg s uicide or even reigning :In
allempt ill order to gain a housing Il'locltlion, lfansfer to the local hospital, receive prcferenli~1
staff treAlmeut, 0( seck compassion from 3 previously unsympathetic family member. Snmc
inmates simply use mantpU latKlIlllS a survival technique. Allholl!;h thl."fc are 110 l>erfCct solLltions
to the managemell! of manipulative illmlltes who threaton suicide or cngagll in self-injurious
behav ior for II perceived second:lry gain, lilt' critical ism/!. iJ nol how we label (he behavior. bUI
haw W~ reaC/IO if. The reaction lIlllst include II mu ltidisciplinary treat ment plan.
13) A lack of in11l:tles on suicide precantirlils shou ld not be in terpretcd as meaning that there are no
currently SHic idlll inlllUtl'S in the facility, nor a barometer of sound suic ide prevention practices.
We Cllnnot nlake the argument that our corrediQIla] facilities are increasingly housing more
mentally iIIandlor other high risk i nm~l(:s and then state dlel'e are not any SUicidal inmates in our
rllCility tnday. Correctional fadlitics conlilin suicidal illtnntcs evcry day; the ch~llenge is 10 rind
them. nit goal should nol bo: "zero" number of inmlltes on suicide precautions; rnlht'r the goal
.shoullJ be 10 identify, man age and stabilize suici<lal illlllates ill out clL'ltody.
14) We must ovoid using thc tcrms "WATCH CLOSEl.Y" ot' "KEEP AN EYE ON 111M" when
describing an inm~lc we fire concerned abou t, hu.! have not placed on suicide prccalltions. If we
are eoncemOO about them , then they should be on suicide precautions.
15) WI' must avoid the obslacles 10 p«'.\'{'1l1ion. Experience hu slio",n that IIl'glltive altitudes of!.::1l
impt!de meaningful suicide preV1:ntiOil efforu. These obst.lcks to prevention often embod y a
state of mind (lJefore any inquiry besins) that iumau: suicides eallnOI be pr<·vented.
comprch~nsi\lc Silicide IlrllVcntion prO!!rllln th~l includc~ Ihe
fo ][owiJ lg l's!;ential compQllelll$: sUl fr tJ'lIining. intnke .'Klrceningl3ss~smcl1 t , C("IHllunication.
housing. level~ uf ob£<."f'Vation/managemcnt. illtcrvemion, reporting, follow-up/ mo rbidity.
mortality rev iew.

16) We mllst e!'Cute ItIld lIl iliMuill 11

10

Suicide Prevention PoliCl,l
Lindsay M. Hayes
ONntiollai Cemer on lnsdnuions and Alternati ves. 2 01 2
AU corrcc.l;nnal fac'ililil!.l. n'1: ~rdlc.l ~ of size, shuuld lIa ve ~ detailed wriUen su icid e prevention puliey that
~"ch Drill" r"lI"w;"g critklOl ~(H"I'<),,~"\l;'

~ d{lr<:s.cs

I) TRAI NING: All curkctionai, Il)edical. and mcnllli hCH ilh staff s)'Quld receive eight (8) boutS of initial sUIcide prevention
training, followed by two (2) hour.! of nnl'ual training, Traill ing should include inmmc sIlicide I'\:scafch, mffanjlude~ about

su icide (avoiding obstacles to prevention), why fullility

~Iwjrollm~m~

are

~ond"clve

10 suicidal

~h"viur.

prcdisposiJlJ;

facltmi, high-risk suicide periods, warn ing ~jgn$ and ~yn ' pto,,'S, id~nl i (l'ing suiCidal inmates titSl' ile tho denial of risk,
C(lmponent$ of the faci lity's suicidc prevent ion policy, Hnd liability i~sm!S.

:2) IIl F:NTWICA T I Q r~ISC R EF: NING: Inta~c screening for suicide risk must take pl~ce immediately upOn confinement and
prior to hous in g assig" rnent , "Old mu~1 include in'1ull)' regarding: current and past suicidal behavior: prim m~lItal health
si!,:nif"icaHt lus~: suicidal behavior by family 111em!X:J/elos. friend, $ui~ide ri.$k during pI'ior
with 6gcncy: nnd alTC<;ling/lmnsport ing ufficet(~) believes inmate is currcntly at risk. ['rocess muSt
include procedures for ref~7T81 tu mental health ~ndlor medical pel'$QnneL Inmates hOtlsed in special housing units should
rece ive brief mental status screening upon entry.

treatment;

r~cent

COIl!~ctlconfinemcnt

J) COMMUN ICA TION: Procedures th~t enhance communication at thrl'Q levd5: l) bctWl.'eli the am:sting/InlnSIK)rting
officer(s) Dod jail staff; 2) berwcen and among jail sr~rr(inch,ding mediCliI and mental health pers()!mul); and J) between jRil
staffRnd the suicidal inm~r e,
4) HO US ING : Isoiat ion should be avoid~d: whenever possible, house in general population, mental health unit, or
inrinnary, in cI,,~~ pro";;",it)' to stafl Inmates should be housed in suicidN'es i~tant, prOlruslon-f\l:<, tens . Remova l of
ctothing (excluding belt:; and ~h{)l.:lac~~), as wdl as usc ofph)'s icai restraint! should be avoidoo whenever possibl~, and only
utiliz.ed ~i a I&>t resort for p<:riods ,n which the inmn!e is engaging in self·dcstnoclive behavior.
5) l.E VF.l.S OF' SUPE:RVISION/M ANACEMENT : Two levels art rccomnlcndcd for sui,hJai i1l1T)8tU: CI()u IJlm:M'{Jl/on,
reserved for the inmate who i~ not ~clively suicidal, but e"p~~ses suicidal ide.1tioB find/or has a ~cent prior history of
sllicidal behav ior, retfuires supervis ion at Staggered int~rvHl s nO! h) e..ceed ewry 10 mimttes . III addition, au Inmate wht)
denie~ sui'idal ideati<.1J1 or doe~ not tlU'eaten suicidc, but demonstrates other concerning behavior (through actions, ~urrem
ein:ulllstances. or recent history) ind icating the- potential for Klf·injury, ~hQukl be placed und<!f clost observation. Cllm/anl
Obunm/io" , reserved for the inmate who is actively suicidal (threnlcninglengnging in the a~l) requirtlS supervision on a
cOll1illuoushmimcm'pl\:d basis. eeTV, inmate com p"nions, ~tc. <:lI1l be uti lized 8S a supplement to, but ncv<:r as a ~ubstitu\e
fvt, th~e observation levels. Memal health sraff should 8.lsess the inmate dnily, provide fol1ow .uJ? (ls:;e$~ments, and
treatment plannin~.
6) INTERVENTION: A facility's policy regarding intc(Vention should bo: threefold: I) all sL1fr ~hould lie trained in stJndard
first aid and CPR; 2) allY staff who discovers an inmaTc nnempling xu icide .<ltould immediately respond, survey the ocone to
tnS\lft the em~rgenc)' is g~ nuil1 ~, alert lither staff III call for medicol personnel, and begi n lire·saving meMures; and 3) slafT
should never presumc that the inolate i3 dead; but rather initiate an\l cuntinuc 3ppropriate lir".~ aving mea~ur~s unti l relieved
by medleal person nel. All housing units should contain 8 fir~t aid kit, CPR mask nr Ambu bag, 3nd rescue tool (tll quickly
t ut through fibrous mater;~ \).
7) RI<PORT ING : In the event of a suicide Mtempt or ~u i e id e, all appropriate j~il officinls should be notilied rhrough th~
ehnin of commmld. All stolT who came into conlilc! with the victim prinr III tlt~ ine id~nt ~hould br rl:quired 10 Sl,bmil a
stmemctlt as to 'heir full \(nowl~dge of the intmtte nnd incid ~Bt,
8) I'OLLOW· UPiMORIlI01TY.1\10RTAI"ITV RI': Vm W: Every c(>!l1plel(-d suicide, and serious SIlicide nne"'pt (i.e.
requiring hospitaliution), sh[mld be eMmined by a tIIorbidity·mtlmlity review. i hc n:view, separate and apart from Qther
formal investigations required I<.> determine cause of sc:riOlls illJll1)' or d~Mh, ~hould include: 1) review circum stances
SUITOltnding incident; 2) review procellurcs relev~nl 10 inci dent: 3) review relel'&Ht ll'liln ing, rece iv ed by starr; 4) rtview
p(!T1in~nt health care ~ervice slreput1S of victim; 5) r~view pussible precipitating factors (i.e .. cireumstanC~S Which may have
ta>lSed vict im to att~mpt/commit suicide); ~nd 6) retomm~ndatiOllli, ii a'ty , for change in policy, training, phy5ie~1 plant,
hea lth cru'e services, and (}perau()"ul proct:dufCS.

II

Jail and_Prison Suicide Litigation: Case Law Review
1)

Jllil Officers' Failure to Conduct Q)R
Hem" I'. Stewa rt COUllt!', 958 F.2d 709 (6th Cir_1992)
Tlnmka v, SE..!£ll., 244 F.J d 628 (8th Cir. 200 1)

Brndich \', Cily of C/!icago , 413 FJd 688, (7111 Cir. 2005)

2)

Nurse's Failure to Make a Mcnl.t1Health Referral
Arresting Officer' s Failul"c to Alert Jail Sinffto Risk
I'. Tk(/(f!etz, 97 C. 1109, United States District Court for the Northern
Dist.rict of Illinois, 199&

Clllllliflr:hnm

CO/Ill v. Citv flrRellO, 59 l F.3d 1081 (201 0)

3)

Sheriff al1ld .Tail StaffDI.'.lihcratcly rndiffcl'cnt For Placing Suicidal
Inmate in Unsafe Cell and NotProviding Observation
Jacobs v. West Feliciflm/ Sheriffs Dept, 228 FJ rl 388 (5tl1 CiT. 2000)

4)

Correctional Officers' Failure to Conduct Cell Checks
Mental Health Staff (Psyehologist and Psychiatrist) 'F ailure to Provide
Ad(~quatc Assessment and Treatment
Som,ille

5)

I'.

/lfcCollq/Jlrr, 266 FJd 724 (71h eir. 2001 )

County/SUlcriff Failure to Implement Adequate Suicide Prevention
Poliey and Train Staff
lVe~er v. Linco/II COl/mv, 388 F.3d 601 (Sill Cir. 2004)

6)

M.ental Health Clinician Failure 10 Provide Adequate Assessment and
Treatment
C/fllltilia .'. COIllltv urGolllra CO.fta , 59 ) F.3d 1232 (9th Ci L 20 ) 0)

7)

Co unty/ShcrirrlAeallh Care Contractor Failure to Implement Adequate
S il icide I')"evention Policy Consistent With Jail Standards
Sinko)! v. AmeriCor, IIIC. , 20 )) WL 1395298 (2nd Cir., Apri l 13,2011)

-

I
12

Jail and Prison Suicide Litigation : Case Law Review
Listed be/tJw we c(lsr slIImf/aries of sigllijictJnI jail und prison .Yfliclde litigation compi/(J hy
Lindsay M Hayt's. 7111S listing il' not imended to bl! (Ill inell/sil'#!.
I) II~JU" •. Sit/w/IT" Cilllllly [95i\ F.2d 709 (6111 Cif. IQ 92)j. 1\ deputy went 10 the decedrJII'~ cell 011 Stplember 3,

19R1

~fid

saw a sheet lied II) the tell bart. Tht deputy

dispatcher \0 • .111 tht 5.tlcritT alld ambulauce

When lhe dtpury entcmd the cell, br
Th~

5crvi~~,

ob~rved

irnm~diately

went \0 the dispatcher's ulYicc, told the

picked urI the cell blocl<

key.~,

and relUnlcd 10 open the cell
~Idc oflhe show~r .>taU."
his mouth, ~nd IllS ftct wen;: t()cJchlns. the

Ihe d.:~edcnl "hanging by the neck on lhe far

deeedenrJ hands ~nd fcct werc tied tug.:lher, a r'aj; .... ~~ Sluffed In
/1OUI'. With 'he My Slill hauSillg. tile depllty checked for ~ pul5C Bnd signs of respiration, bin founll acme though
1M body wali $Iill warm He al~o o~ned the d~enrs e)'llS ru,ll round the pupils were dilated t)om ltlese
ob$er.'lItions Ih~ Ileputy oorK:ludod thatthc dC'Ccdefll was dead , While !he deputy W1IS IIi!! alonc in IIIe edl witb the
hanging body. a Jliltrusty arrived WIID a I:nif~ h~ had picked up in the kitchen. Rathcr than utilize the knire 1(1 tUI
tilt decw.:nI down, the deputy ordered the IJ'Usty out of tile a~a, The shuiffarri~ shonly lhcrenner And dlrecled
the deputy to Ulh pictu res of lhe decedent bcfilnl hI WlIS tahn do",n.

AI trial, [iiI plaintiffs introduced evidence Ih~1 1M coo"'Y IIlDlmail1cd a polky of leaving victims DS di5COvered,
despiu The ftbility 10 rcsu~iUlle victims. TI,ey ul!;rt\3lcly pre~aiJed and 3 jury Hwardc:<l damBSc~ 10 tile decedent's
family based llpon proof Iilal Ihe defendant" acted wiih de liberate indilTerc'lCt aRer di,coverin& Ih~ de.::edent
h~nging. TIle derclldMIS appealcd and argued thfttlhe decedent WIiS already dead alld their action or inaction could
nol hnve been the proxim~t.e CftUSC of his de~th. The ~ppe~ls cuurt ruled that "!here dearly was IlvidDnCQ fWln which
the jur~ could find Ih~~ Hefl in died as Ihe pruxinl3te fc~ult of the fallur<t of Sh~rilf Hicb and D~PlJty Cnltcher to:)
take steps to $&~ his M~. They left Heflin hanging for 10 minuu;s 01" mo~ ftfter discovering hi", .'v~n though the
body WM wann and hiH ~ wcre loochi"g the floor, .. l'hc I1nl~wfulncs, uf doing !luthin& 10 atlemplto saVl.) Heflin 's
life "",uld haw been Ililparent t() a rc3sonable official In Crulcher or II,ck's pOSition in 'I'!:hl ofprc",:x;SI;ng law' ... "
Th court also afTinrted Ihe award of damllSes in the amount of $1 54,000 as well as approximately $133,999.50 in
anom.ey fees.
See also n((mh I', ~n'ftll (244 F.3d 628 (81h Cir. 2(01)], in whkh Ihe CO\lrt ruled Ihnl thm: colTetI'OIIal onic:..'T'!i
eould be sued fur aUc~dly ortkrin& inmates to .stop ,lvinc CPR \0 an inm~le- who collapsed in a prison yard
roUnwing 0 heart attack. The I:OtJrt stated thai ~any rcaliOnable olliCt:r lVould have. known Ihal delaying TliImka'.
emergency mediclltre;ltmcnl for 10 m;n\llt$, with 1\1) 800d or applf(nt Cllplanlltioo for the delay, would hu\'e riscn
10 an F.ighlh Amendment violalion"
s~ ~I.w Brll(licll ". City ufChiclJglJ [~13 FJd 688 plio Clr. 2005)1, in which the court "lled llint deliber~te
inditlerel1ce could occur if j~i1 staff unnectssarily dclRyed (up to 10 minut<!S) the emergency medical response,

indudlng CPR - "!'l.·Olccting one's empIO~"'~lIt interests whik an inmale chokes 10 de.!lh wnuld
deliocmlc indiffert l1ce lO urious medical n~ds.'·

ex~mplify

2) ClInll/nchum ~. Tktllll~1t 197 C 1109, United States DtSlncl Cuw-t fOf IDe Northern District of Illinois, 1993]Natiera CunmncJwn. liI-~ars-old. 11'8:'1 arrated fOf" misdemunor otr~1UCS arisinl OIN of IlIllllleged shopliHing incident.
Sh~ ....., subsequently b"aI,~ferred to, IlI1d ineareerated in. \flo:, Gu"",e, Illinois polict: lockup. N1I1K-rn l1'li5 held Qr1 the
miWeme:lnor dialges, lloS well as on an outstilnding felony W"oImlnl frulll Wi1uk~a/l.llhnoi5, Shof1lybcfOR' midniglll the

same day she was .m:llcd, N~tiera 8l1tmplcd 10 commil Silicide in the GUfTIe(' lockup by ~ng to hatii hcr&elrwith
M anick uf I:I00h",I!., (Ju~ police, who 1Minl~fn.ed video surv~lllance ofprisUI1l"r.; in lheir I()(:kup, observed her tIfId
immediatel), intervenoo, prevl~lIing the S'Jicide. Naliero was trllnspone<i 10 a nearby hospital, bl"leny el\~l(li,,,,d, ~"d
relurned to the custody of tilt GumC<:' pOli<:(. HOllpital di~hll~e ;nslllltlioM dl=t~d IhDt N~Ik.'ffi be plooed pn a
~suicide w~tch," which 1Na~ m~inUlined b)' the Gurnee pOli~~ fur the t1ul"ll.lio" orth~ "'1:111.
WaUk~l:iUl Police Department Dete~livc Mart '1"kIIo:!ict:c. spo~c by telephone with RGum~ police commander th~ next
momin.Q:. Aller heinA IIPllri5ed ofNatil:J"a's sui cide aucmpl wme 9 hours earlier, he drove. 10 GUll1ce 10 take custody of
CUOningham for lhe purpose or inlmwJating her reo.,urdin& the. oulSlandin~ felon~ charge. Cwo Gilllit<' polil:e
~roatJodcr$ later tt.~ified at Irial IhiIt Dncctive l'kadktz WIll infonned in detail of Nariern's ettrUer ~lIe"'Pled suicide

I
11
lind was app<ised that her mother "'as wncemM that she would auempt ~uici(l~ <WIill. The commanders advised
Dele"';"" Thndlmz Ihul1hey

conside~ N~liera 10 be ~tWll1irmed

risk of attempting to COnW);1 su icide.

Detecti,-" Tkadlel;o; t()()),: custody ofNati~ta and transponed her 10 Ihe Waukegan Pol ice Depal1ment. While at the pollee
slaliOn, h~ inlerroglltcd dw young woman l'Cgard ing the p<:ndinl> felony charge for appro.~imalel y 30 minutes dur ing
which, by his own ""1")11. she became ,ncreasingly upset, and ultimately Slopped answc:ring his qu~~tilms . DtkcLi~e
ll1adtetz SUbStqllWUy took Natiera to cQurt for a « n}d hMring. He ~ver relayed IIny of the infonnation he received
concern ing Nariera 's suicide attempl or her continuing risk Of1ffi1cid" 10 court deputies. or 10 anyone els~,
Natiera was remanded r.o tbe Lake Counly hit i'l Waukegan. La~mi Dazai, a nur.;c for CorreClional Medical Servici!3
(eMS), a privau. contractor providing medica! ,uld mental health ~~rvlces at llie facility, atlmilli~terl'!d a suicide risk:
SLTeell ing fonn on Naliera. The form consisted of a ser;e'S of ql.l('~lion; and ohsel'\'ation~, The answers given were
recorded on a fonn and milled (0 provide a numerical seon"_ eMS regulalions provided that a scorc of eight or higher
required an immediate psyclli~tric referrJL Aithoul;;.h NatierJ scored an "cigbt" on Ihe f('rm. NLlrse [)aVlI faIled lu make
a Pl>,),chialric ",ferral or OIherwise nOlify the jail authorities that Ihc inmate might be suicidal. In a $ubscq"cnl affidavit.
the nurse Slated she fuiled to mnke n psychialTic refclT<Il bccau~e she did UN believe the ll'uthfulnes. of some ofNaticra'\
answers, Le" her W>N: w;t~ 'Ull a "Iegitimale eight." Ae<:omingly, Natiera was not afforded nny psychiat ric tr~almetll
urn! wa, plated in the [llmer.l.i jatl population. without benelit ()fany tyPe ohuicidl: watch, or other p"'Clluti{),,~,
During l>er confinemen t, NotiCl1\ beCDnlC inGre~~ingly ITuslnlted and ~gitmed over the i n~bilily of ht"r family to l1iise
motlllY 10 bond her Ollt ufjail. For Ihe nC.xt two dayS, she made l'ep<ated calls home, 10 1>0 IIHi], At approximately 9:0(1
am on the rru.>milll!, of .tune 6, Nm ieJ'3 was lotd she was no! scheduled 10 go to coun or 10 00 rele:.sed that day. She
became "di.II't![llive" and was placed 00 13-hour lock down by Erica SandRhl, 9 L.ake County correctional officer
wcrkllLg on the housing, tier to which Naliera W',IS as"igncd, Officer SUlldahl returned to the housiug tier tTo.u !unth a[
approximately 12:15 pm. Forme.- illlnatCli who testified at trial ,tated that Natie1'll had refu;ed 10 eat her lutlch th"1 rlay.
and hM been pleading from her cell fbr <;omOOM to speak 10. Olhcr plaintlffwlmcsses teslified that, whil ~ Nati"'" was
calling OUI for hdp, Oftficcr Sandahl remained ill the day room watching a soap Opera With Inmates who were flO( Oil
lock down, There was, however, no t(:!;tirnony offered at lrial to sUg&e.t Ihat Officer Sandahl had been told ~nything
aboul N~ticra having an.'l:mptcd suicide or expressing
desire to hann herself. At the end of the television program,
the officer went [0 Nnt iera's tell and found her hanging ITom an overhead ~rinklcr, Emergency medic31 as~ist.:lnce was
called. :';hllrtly then:afle'r, Naticru CutUlingham \ViIS prOOOllnct'd dead at a ne~rby hospilal,

lilt»

In hiS tna l lCSlimony, t..cte.:tive nadlet1. admiued he was illfonned of Natieru's earlier suicide 81\Cmpt, but II(bmanUy
he was lold ~lat there was ally cOlltiouilll: concern that the yOllOg woman rtmailled at risk of suicide . The
dt'lective further maintained ItIll! sInce Nmiern h~d b«n "treated and released" at a ho>pital, he was fully jn:;tificd in
concluding thc~ was 110 'eason to hdieve that she was al rontinued risk of committin g suici(ic, H~ lll~in\aiMed,
1111:1'0fure, (here was nO lL~ed fOl' him to have Infonned the sheriffs deputies of Naticra's ~u icide itlterllpl the l'nlvious
night. Detective Tkadtetz also stated Ihal Naliern did not "~ppear ~lIicidal" or "depr«ssed ," arul testified that IIer
demeanor WIIS similar 10 that ofothcrllfTlO"t<'«li with peudilil:'. fdlulty chaJ'ge!;,
d~ni~d

II Nlllemtfri oj (1/1 c/("""$ "gail1;'1 Cortecl!<JIwl Medical Sen>iC<l!i and N"rs" Dowl was (lrrfw!d III in nil>'lJllce vjlri(ll,
The claim (Iga[/UI OjJicer SandI/hi WiLt dismis~ed by the m'lIl jlJdgtJ at Ihe wnclusi<m (If the pi<lilllijfs cl'id~nce. 0"
Oc/vlMr 28. 1Y98. an eiglu'JX'rsoll j/lly relllrlU!d " l'er..-i,Ci in filVOr of Ih~ P/lHtllf/ft tlJ'Ii/ agM/ISI Dclccli)'t'. T/l:adlet:.
100aling S 1.3,)'0, OOQ, induding S7jO,{)(JO in F'lii/live diJJllrl$e1.
See also COIIII ~. Cily..,1 RellO [591 fJd 108 I (1010)], in which poliCt Om~(;n trao~pO!ling a woman to a count)'
jail fOf civil protective custody witncs~td h~r auelflpting to ~hQke hersclf tly wmpping 8 seat bell uround her neck,
screaming Ihat they should kllI IKlr or she would take her own life. They failed 10 eilher I"h her to a hosllital Qr
reporT (he incirlcnt 10 wunty jail personnel. Sile was rdeased, detained again 48 hours later, Hud hllug her~etf in Ihe
counly jail. Qvenurning ~u,"",ary judgmcnt for the police omec~, 11 federal appeals Court round tim! a reasonable
jury could d~cidc tit"1 the officers aCled wilh del ibel'llt~ indiJT~rencc \(> the de~~dent's serious m~dit:al n~~ds so that
they were not entitled 10 qualified immunity.
1) Jucobs ", Wesl FelJcllllliI SherifFs OepllrtllwlII [128 f.ld l3 S (5th Cir. 20(0)). Ou August 21, 1.,.\16, Sheita
Jacob~ was anesl1:-d for th" ~Ui:mrt"d, second-degree m~rdcr, by shootillg, of her uncle . Jacob$ hod become enraged
at her uncle when she learned Ihat he had alleg~dly 5bxually molested one or hllr S<JIl! years before, '11,0< am:sting

I
14
S1l1.rl: 1fOOpcr1 informed an ir>Ve5figator ror Ih6 Ww FeHci'"D S"~"';ff5 Ikpa,tmenl lh3\ Jacob$ told them sho"l)'
alte! It,'r 1rreJ\1/lB1, al\.,,- shoolins her uncic, she had Ined 10 kill herselfhy piKing I l()IId~ gun in hl'J" mQUlh and
pulling l.h~ trigger, bul the l{U" had jam,"ed. The Invesligalor conveyed Ihis i.,rormmion \0 SherHT Bill Daoie( and
Otplllies Earl Roeeh and Wayne Rabalais.
After proces:smg J~cob;;. ,he (Officers ,,' Ihe West Fellci&1'!a Parish Prison placed Jncobs in:l ·'t1uloK" ctl! Accordil\g
to Do-puty Rnbnlllis, when Jacob~ was placed ill the clem,.. cell, lilt officers had her on suicid( walth and hall pla<:ed D
nOle 10 Ihal Cn'eCI in lilt: comrol ,emer. AlthouJ;h . porIii/!1 oflile del()X cell coliid be observed from th~ j~il's conlro!
room through a window, • SObstanl;n! nmol1nl I)f lhe cell (including the bunk areo) fell imo a "blind 5pOI~ and Wi'S
nPI vbible from the conllul roon\. TI,tS ccll could be cnl1lpl~\e l y observed only if an vf/1cer vicwe\J it Ii'om the
IllIlIw~y, The cell also h~d several ''tie-off' puinls tbJI,s arid light fi)(tum from which ~ mnkcshift rope tlJ~Jd ~
sw;pendedl, <kSPltc Sherilf Dmnie l's acknowledgment tllMt a ~uicide prevemill!l eell should nOI have ~ uch lit off
pqinu and M$pitc the ftlet tbat another inm3lt (lames lIalley) h~d previously cornmiUtd suicide in the very same
cel] by Mngin!: himsel f with a sh""t from one ofthe~e tie·off PO;l1l.'1. T o ill¢ ~st of DepulY Rabalais's knowledge,
and pursuant 10 Ihe Sherl[J's di~ive, Jacobs was nol givt:n sheelS on Ihe fir:;! night ofllet detention, AutuM 21.

On the morning of August 23, an 1I110fN:y visited Jacobs at the jIll . I~e rl'qr.>eSted lhal SheriffDllnieJ tt3vt: JacOOJ in
LIlt detox ceU, and pt'rhaps provide her with a blanket and lowel, ShcrifTDan[el inSlructed one orhls cleputic:; tu give
these items to JlltOOJ. bill the record rel1eclll only lhat Jncob« rrceived a shut (which she el'('l1lU'Uy u5l!d to kill
henelf), aoo there iJ no evidence that she n:ceived eHher a tvwd ora lllailkel.
Deputies

E~T!

Reech nnd

RILbalni,~

were on duty at Ihe West Fcljciol\ll

j~iI

facility fr(lm 11:30 p,m. the night of
the defcndMI3 stili regardlld
Jawbs as ~ suicide risk during that time_ Indeed, Sherin' l)aniel testified that Jacobs WIIS 011 a "rrecautionary,"
(IIo"Sh 001 a "straight" suicide w:L(ch. Our review of the r1lCOrd reveals few dis~emjbl~ dilfell!uce5 IIctWttll th~c
two types or suicIde wntehcs. When an inmate was 011 "wiet" su iCide walch, the informal polley at the jail was to
have the inmale ehct:k td 011 every fiftt'cn minutcli. [X:puty Reech Testified thaI he and Depuly Rabalais made
periodic thede, on Jacobs: howevcr. il is unclCllr exactly how often the deputk-s checked on Jneobs wIlile shr 10'115
under the wp•ecou tio1l3ry" suicidr: watch . What is dear that as mal1y U 45 minutes elapsed fi'oln the time I dePUTy
last clleeked an Jacobs (0 the tilJlC $lIe was found IIln&ing 1'I0m Ihe ]jiltt fi~nrre in the detax celt,
AIIgu~( 23,

1I11\il 7:30 a.m, the

ne.~1 momin&. i\ugu.~t 24, 1996, TIIC I'\:cord reveals thaI

'$

Spccific.alJy, the record fe.veals that Deputy Rctth cheded un Jacol5 at 2:00 ll.m. and ObiLefved her Iymg awake m
IItr bunk. At .ppro~Hmllcly 2'44 a.m., Deputy Rabalais looked into the d~ox ccll fn)m the cOOlrol room and saw
whal ~ppt'il1l'd tQ be !»Irt of all arm hanging from the ceiling. Concemed, he ~m to find Deputy R.:«h. who was
still reading the newspflper. Wh~'fl Ihe deputieli arrived 31 the cell. tlK'Y found Jacobs hOlIlSing fTUIlI a ,h«t that had
b<:"n tied around the cagmg surrounding ~ ~eiling liahl fixture. Deputy Rabalais found H knife and enlis1Cd the
lSSistanu ofaJ)other Inm~lc in ctltting the $h~t and lowering Jacubl; O[lh, lhe noor The pammed;cs ~uh~etluclltl)'
arrived 8nd were UMbl!110 re~uscil3le Ms. Jacobs. Her death was the third s!licide al the Juil dUfiu& Sheriff Daniel's
I,,"url'there. TIlt family ofSileila J~cobs filed SU It

00 Seplember 13, 2(){){J, the Uniled Stales Court of Appeals for Ihe .5lh C,rcull ruJed thal tbe family hlKl sufficient
grounds to sue tilrll·Shc.riff Bill D.:l."'el and ~put y R.a~IJis. 'fhe coon Slaled, in pan. th~t ·'The 1W:ord bt/Qrt! 1/$
reveoll /hal Shuiff Damel ...as " ... On! Ihlll JtK:oIu Md "lui III kill hUlelfona bej,," omi Ihol slw fXJl'ed 0 serious

rld Q/lry>ng 10 doso again. We 'II'Ouldjiml it dlflClillloSOJ'lhullh13 beltl"';'" ~Y1Uld fI(1Isuppori (lJIII)'fihuing lhal
SherijfDunieU Oded .... llh lk/ilH:rUle IndiJJer~"c". u/fd Iik.''Il'ile _find il.....,n InQr' difficuillo sq ''''''Ih,s =nducl
waJ objecllvely recuon(/bI~. (lI!!IiII)' Rr«h IVas lhe ~e"i« depllty (IfI dury "I'1u:n Jacobs kill,d /wrscif, W:I! Sh~rlff
D4nie/ ond Depury RuIH-,la;". "., had aClual knowledge 111(11 Jac/J/M \l'UI Q lu,cid~ risk 01 <11/ IlmD during Il~
dClemlf)n, ~ ,GIVI!n DcpW(I' Reech 's level Q/ kIlQ",'~d¥, a/",ul 111.1: slgnijicunl risf. Ih<d Jurw/:J..f ...,,~Id ollempr,o harm
he,..·elf <lml hIS disr~gpl djer p·lIn",li",.,/", kn~ ... shuuld lH l<Iten, ,,"! conclude Ihat l"IiN is enOligh 6vidcnce I" Ihl.I'ftcordjrom ",hldl 0 re,uofpQb/~jury clJldrJjind n,bjecliL'c Iklibfll'f'lt ,,,,(if/erence... ,.
4) S<IIlL'il/l' ". McCalll/llt,y {266 F.3d 724 (7th Cir.l001)). Mntt Sanville, a rnelll1LlIy 111 illlnnlc: in~urce"JI~d althe
W&up~n Correelion~l In $t ilution (WCI) In Wisconsin, commill~d luic.id" when he w~, lell un!lupervbed for
appmxlmately ~ houfl', lie had a history of slUcid" ~I\empli, hO$p;!olizatiatll. and drug lrealmetll!l direcled towarrls
nlan~ging his multiple lDentlll disollk-rs. Matt al~ived ~I the WCI on February 26, 1998, A wook dler his IkIm,"io",
he WIIS s«n for a p~hialric follow.up by Dr. Yogcsh Parrtk. B~'nll5e Matt was having problems with n~u,u and

IS
~omi!lflg.

Dr. !'areck advised him to go off h;~ p'ychOll'Opic mediurion until Ihe problems subsided Ai il [umed

Dill, Man had an ;nn:utlw appef1di)l, which required an ~l1lerS<'lK)' appendectomy 011 March 6, 1998. On March 10,
his moth"," cOIItacrcd lhe hospital to express contero thaI Man had ,,""(ilkcn offhi$ medic..o.lion. After tile prison
was oonl3C1ed, LIK- ~Ian·physici.m assured her thaI Man's anti·psycbolic mooicoliofl had u..'CfI roordcl'OIl.

On March 26, 1998, about 8 week after his return 10 wei from dlf- hospital, Man saw Dr. Parcel.: fur the second
lime. Dr. Parcek noted that Mall had a "history of l\Syeholic diJOrdcr, but hl' [was] refusinG to l:lke mooiCilliol1~ and
IMt Mart denied "clior hearing vokes or liver seeinG Ihil1l:S [or) ever being paranoid." nle d~lor decid~d 10
di~corllilJuc psycllQlropic m~diculion ua1the pat ient's 1'C<!llcst" and agr.~d to see him n8<,ill in cight weeb.
Wloi~ ullmedltnted, Man'l behavior became i"crea~lngl)' biz.~rrc, In A~il, he d~ficd an order 10 ~tUni 10 Ills cell,
for which he was sent 10 501il~ry ~<lnfinell1cut. In early May, he $Cl1Iwkd vennlllOU'i, nnnsen~ical thre.1ls on his bed
shectl {"kill tile "'pes! (sIC] und ~nitches" and "go to hell"), O!llu,,~ 9, he flushed his ~k, and underwt:l1l down the
loikt, Vcr he liso displayed some evidence of competence (pelhaps consistcnt w;lh ~i~ diagnosis Ihal he ellhibitcd
''vt!ty pll"ltlloid behavior wilh SC'I"," ..,rrealily"). "~day prior to the sock flushing iocidenl he requesled to be pl~ced
in an anger mana£emelll claSl., lie abo tiled a lawsuiT based upon the railure ur one correctional offl«'l' ll1 respond to
his requests fo.- medlcalanent;on during the appo..'l1dicitis Inc Idem ,

In late lune, Man uketJ to ~ Dr, Ptreek, but then rtponed no men(.lll health concerns and persisted in lIiN deCISion
to rtm8in off hi! medi(:lItion. Dr Pareek provided n~ilhCT Ireatment rlOr medication 10 Mall. Al this puinl, Mall had
lost 17 p()]lOds since I,is WCI admi~ion, 0" July II, 1998, Mall ilS5lIulted allOlloer imnale and wal placed In
seg.regltlon, He then drafi~d a las! will alid testllmenl (collected by cOlTcction~1 stolT ~ t lUI IIlldCICrmilied time) thnl
wn addre~$ed 10 his mother and co ntemplated hi' imminCIIl deuth , W~il ~ in segregat ion, MJU 'i biullc beh~vior
conlinucd, After ~eivin!: conduct reports fo,. refusing 10 relurn his meal tray and b~g lundl, MMt ",u se Pied
unuln_loaf. His weiShl 10Sli ~olltinued and a subsequent aUlopsy confirmed thaI he 10$1 nOO,,1 4S pounds during his
five mOlltb~ at WCI (nearly 25 of wbich occu!1'ed in the final month of his life whilt in se~sation). Matt
col[lplnined to hi, molhCT aboUT Ihe nutri-!oaf; sir e cnlll"d llIodic~1 pelionnd at WCI and relayed ~er COlICtm thaI
Man was parJnoid, $u i..:rdttl, and in serious trouble.

On July 24, 19911, Dr. Stephcn Flcck.(a psYl'hologl~) ~,silcd Mati in his cell iii resPOTlSC 10 Mn, Sanville', telephone
call. Dr. Fleck was, llil\O'evcr, salisfied with Malt 's Ill$istencc that h(: had !lO plaM 10 h.arrn himself. Malt again
refused diniclll.nd p$)"elli81tiC 5el'VlceS. Dr, fleck's report did nut make any rererence [0 Man', 1<>'(;lIhl.
Mall rllpeat~dJy asked I:o=ctionals[affto bring him a rt&ullU" IIIt'IIl bill his TeqllC!;lS we .... Ig,IlOl"Cd He m~iled a letter
to his moth~r UI\ luly 27, 1993 (which prison offidals relld) which alleged thm h~ was bein" rel"liattd againsl
because of Ih.., law! u;t thRI he had filed, askell fOT hel[l ill fi1lding lin attorney, requested clinical scrv ic~s, and ngain
!DId her Ire was not ea ling ttle nUlri-Juar. That some day Matt rtquestcd to see menu,1 he(,lth staff, IIrld i)r, Fleck
visited him .1 his ce ll. Dr, Fleck'~ I'CPO" indicated Ihal Mall said hi~ mood was I\ot ):ood bUI thai ',[IIJe denied any
thoughts ~r,d pl"1I1 10 hsrm Il imscl[" Laler Ihe same day, Mati again requt:s!~d 10 S~ someone !rom clinical
~ervic~s, Dr, flletk rteeived this req~t OIl July 28, and scheduled an appointment for luly 30, 1995. M~II rold
com:clions sOIll<'lime during these two dAys lir31 he was going 10 kill himself, bUI no action WllS taken ,
01, Jilly 29, 1998, tlle day of Man's suicide, Officer Ivy Snburdille made ber moming rounds to pass Qui breakrast.
Mati had covered the openillp in his cell (vents, call box, wid window) wilh paper Althouj;h a violatIOn of pri~
policy, Officer Scaburdlllc did not ~ Mall bre::rkfUI, inslead she 5~ip[lCd his cell atld ConlinUed on lIer 1"I)U1lCU.
WIlen $he IRICI made the rOllnd$ 10 $eIVC lunch, Matt 's window WIll still eovered .nd she again dId nO! serve him a
nutri-ioafmelll, AU orlhe officers obser.... ed Man 's CQVl:rcd cell window 81 some poim durin; Ihe d~y, bUI !lOIle look
any action, AI a[lproximatel y 2:48 p.m., Officer Eric SchrOC!der IVIlS making his rounds, When he passed M61t'l eel!
he noticed that "inm~w Sanville Will; silting on his noor in hili ~tlJ up Mgainst Ihe !ell w.11 of /lis ceil with Inc left
side or his body IlV'inst the wall .. he had hi, window [lartinlly covered with lOilet paper makmg il sOllle\~lIat
difficult 10 see into his cell." Officer Schroeder, who WIIS 110t regularly assigned 10 lire s~grr::ga liml IIIlit, decided not
to rake any 1l~1I0n \>cCIIIISC he had been instJ'\lct6d to aSliumc Ih~1 il1mate~ wbo j~nortd him were simply reflCiing
supplies, Oflicer Schrcotdcr rtlllme<! to the .:til at 2:S7 p.lIl. wilh 8nother omc~r wloo offered Mutt his nutri-Illaf
dinM:r, but the inm~te did nut respolld. Officer Schmcdtl" wrote III hili rtport thaI "! then w~'J>1 lu Ihe willdow lind
observed th~1 he hadn't moved sillee supplies were offered, n,m: minites hie] a~o:· The officer thcn ~ncmpled 10
call 1M ~grcgalion block u rgcant, bill WU Tlnable 10 because the battery in his radio W'dS dead,

16
Atapproxirnllle iy 3:00 p.nl_, Officer Scllrot'dc'T left to find Sergeant Ann lngolia. Sht lollowed Ih~ offie<:r bae).: to
pc~)ed inside, l\Jld noli~~d lhHI Man had a sheet ~round his neck. Sergeant lngolia !/lId omell!'.! to
~ontinu~ reedi,,!; the other ill"'31es while she called the caplain to alert him to a (l<.Issiblc suicide. Sergcam Ingolia
then returned \0 the c'ell and waited for Ihe r;rst responders. Upon arrival, they auempled unot>ccessflrl1y to revive
Mall. Al 3: 10 p.m .. resclie efforts ~eaS<."<;1 ~"d MJn wllS pronol.nced dead. He hftd 1lIS1 been !~'en IIlive al 10:00 a.l1I,

the- cdl door,

0" Scplemhr 21, 21JQI, Ihi! UII/led Slale,r Coun of Ap{J.wls jor Ih« 711t Circuit ruled Ilial ~",,~rul c(}rreclimlill
<>j}icer$ {ui/tid 10 ",Ae "rl:m3rmnble slep.T III p,-even, 11i~ inm(llc (Mall/j~", A SOt",il/c) from commilling suicid~ . ..
tl.erd)J' rC1.'/~r$ing U lower corm "I';n;(}n Ihul hud pnNi{Jus/y d£~lIIi~sc" Ihe eme in /uvpr 0/ both hU<llth cure lind
concelflll"'/ p~rY()lmd

10 part. the upre:Jl ~ court smted that dt)!.;tol'!; who ~sses.'ied UJrd treatt:d Matt Sanville w~re nm deliberately indilTnent
to his medical need s, but might have ~n negligent

weI

I..... Ill<: c¥ idc",," dOCl! nut "'pIl"11 n fo"diot IhM Ihe me<l;",,] prnf~ssi"n:1ls nl
w"r~ detiberately inoimn",' l(}
Mall's ~ri,,~s nltdical tle-ds . II~ was seen by modi""r profe:;sionals elevCl\ limes o~er Ihe live monl~! lhal he wns
incarter:lled nnd mO$1 Mlhese visas look plac~ £IlOnly an"r thoy wer~ r<Que$led .. ,,111~ ul(imal. prvblellllt~i\\$ to t>e

Ihat tlol>C Oflhc dooctOr:! ever Ilo(ed lhal M'I! mi!:hl be a suidd~ risk. ~n \lbSCI',"!irnl tlml would "nlb.ve seemed wo
ob~",· ""nside'ing his ""'''1lI1 illness ond 1I i51.(1)' ofsllioiw, allMlpls. YOI Ihe docto,~' failure 10 cum:.., ly di"Cl'o".
~nd (re~t M'l( i$ 1I0t, in lhi< inSlnnte. c. id<lI<:C of an)'lhing mOfe thnn medical mIIlpl'IICliee. Though we find Ih:ll
plaintilT'S cI~itn~ aeainSl (he d(ll;\()r·defendums w.rt prOp<lrly dis,"isscd by !he diWlet CQll n . "''' nol. Ih.! plninlifr i.
ccn~fnly f,ee 10 PU""," her stille luw mctli~all1\~lp'1ICIice cl~ims I" SlOl" toun:'

In regard 10 the con-eC'lionlil officers. tire court ruled thaI'
"th~re seems to be no evidence th~t l/I ~ defendanllr took reasonable SI~pS to prevent th e inmate fmm
commlning s uiei de as i ~ required by Ollr case law, Man was last .~een ~hv~ by the defelldallts at 10:00
a,m, In Ihe f,ve hours durilll! which Malt's cell winduw was cOvered ..... ilh toi!':1 paper, lhere was no
itppa"'"t aU~mpt 10 di~tTIl whet[,,"r he wa~ stable ... The evidence here clearly 5upporn an inference lhm
at leasl some of the officers, if nut all or them, were aware of Man's scriou~ medi~al need and
dcmtmmntcd del i!}eratc indifference to that nced" ., Con(rury to dcfendQll1s' allegations, the fact that we
hav~ alr~Jdy round that the doctors ClInoot be beld lia ble does nol e~CI a Itgal har that prevenls anyone
ebc ," (ilt prison from being held liable .... "

fn s/ill IJllOIhl!T Sirallg.! furn u/f1II!1I13. ill October 2(}()2. ufodt.,."fjury /ound Ihm both DUo rar~«k and FI~ck liable
Ih~ suicid~ u/ M<1Ilhew Sntwi/l~, and ordered Ihm they pay Sf .825 milfion in cump~IlS"'OIY "nd p~lJi'iv~
damages. 71rejury/ollnd Ihal/he officers ...ere IJ()/ lilibfe.

fQr

5) WI'I'l'r ,'. Lim'o/I! Co/IIII)' [38 ~ F.3 d 601 (8th Cir. 2004)J. On Decelllber~, 2001, Dennis Wever commilTed
suicide in ~le Linroh, COllnty Jai) in North Plart~ . Nebraska. de~pi! c rhe fact he had lhre~lened s~icide 10 ooth

arresting officers and jail pllrsmll1cl, His family subsequently filC\l a fedual lawsuit ~gainst Lincoln County, its
sh~riff, the NOlth Plaue Police Departmenl, its chief of p(llice. ~I\d ~everal officers alleging that their dclibcnl1 e
imlifTercllce was the pro;,:im~t e caLl~" Of Mr. Wever's deAth. The complaint also allege d that Ihe shcrifT failed to
tnke ~oy correctiv~ action in Ihe !lfeas [If Il1Iini,,!: und supervision of personnel foll(lwing IWo other prior inmate
SUicides in tlrcja il. On Nuvernl!er 4. 2004, the U.S. Coun of App"~ls for the Eighth Circui1 ruled lhnl lhe sheriff was
not entitled 10 qualified immunity.
Will i resardlO potential liability for prior suicides within Ihe facility. the complaint alleged Sheriff James Canoen
"'as aware of tW(l prillr su icides in the Lincoln COUllt)' Jail. one occurring in 1999 while lie was sherif!; and one
occurring in 1996, prior 10 his tCJ\lIre. The sheriff arglled thaI, as a maHer of law, one I)r IWO suicides were
in~uffici~nllo p~t him Oil notice mat Ilis trainillg and ~upervis iorl was constihltionally inadeqlUllc. The appeals tourt
disagreed and Slated thaI "Under hi~ proposed rule. II sheriff may 5it idly by umil at least " th ird inmate lalown w be
,uieidal takes a blallk,!t from all officcr and hangs himself, only then ordering his officers nOl w place a suicidal
person in an isolatinn !:ell and hand him a bbnkcl."
The sh~rifT 1I1s(:l ~rgoe·d that .llhe jail had a good·Iaith polley in place f(:lr dcalillg With tho>c: prisoners nnd pretrial
delllin«s presenling suicidal risks. Furth. rmor~, after the September 1999 incident. Ih~ policy Was implemented for

17
appro:o:;malely two (2.1 years b;:JQre the incident at Issue occurred." AccQrdnog to Ihe apP"aJs cowt. the IJnphc~llon
of this Sialement was Ihal eller Ihe 1999 suicide, (he sheriff implemented a con st itutionally adequ~te su icide 1")licy
lhm was in err~C! at Ihe time arMr Wever's suicide. However, "tbe quoted assertion is ""tirely without ~upJXln in
tht record. the 'poli,;)" Carmen ej\~s is a sin,;:lc p~g~ offered by Wtv~r. and wtlolly Wilboul coniext. One cannot
tell wh en, how. or eVI'" whelh~r it wa~ a~<Jpled. why Carm~n believ~t1 it would ad~'lu~lely respond 10 Ihe problem
of inmale Sil icide, Or how officers were trained to implement it. His assertion Ihat the 'policy' was implemented after
Ihr 1999 suicide is also unsubstantiated . One c~nno\ discern when the 'policy' w~s adopted, and C~mlen neglected
to make any mention of it in his affida~il in suppon of his mOl ion for sum mary judgment. As Ihe district eoun
5tated, ' SherifT Carme'n did not present any evii.!ence shuwing what lnI;nlllg pmcedures, if uny, were in pluce rt)r
handling potentially suicidal detaineel; or inmates. ",

G) elml/hier I'. CII",,~,'IIICvlllra Cos/u (.591 F.Jd 1232 (9th Cif. 2010)]. On the evening of July 26 , 2005, aile! an
argument with his father, Rol>e-11 Cloutllicr wcame violent, d.estroyed a china cabinet, and jumped through a plate
glftl;s window, resulting in lacerations and sevcre bleeding. Hi.! family cnlled the police Bnd the sheri ff' s offiee
responded. After hi8 father signed n dti7.en'~ ~rrest for baUery, Mr. CI(Ju(hier wa~ taken into custody and initially
tn~en by IOmbulance 10 U,e IIMpltal f(){" m~d;cnl attentiOn. H~ WhS extremely IIp';(:l MId hit hiS helld agaiustlile side {of
lh. nmbulance ~evem! times. Once at the hospital, he refused to have his wounds stitched _ The next lOomin g (July
2 7), Mr. C louthier W<!l; boohd int" the Contrll Cnstu County Jai l - Martin~z Oet~ntlon Facility (MDF) . Atthc MO~"
he was asscs5ed by a menl<l! health clinician (Shnrlene Hanaway), self-reported suicida l ideatiol~ Hnd Sl~t~d he
wanted to be "unconscious for the reSI of his life." Ms. Hanaway de~cribe<:! Mr. Clouthicr 8i " despondent, hopeless,
suicidal" and "one of tit;: most suicidal inmates she had ever seen." ' Her note~ also ~tnt,:d Mr. Clouthier had made
nu ruCrOUS paSt s~icide nncmpls, inchtdi!\~ one ineidenr TWO months earher thaI required hospit~li~...!Ition aner h~ cut
his wrists_ lIe hatl bet:1l ofT his p~~chotrop;c meditation for ~everd l year.!_
M5. Ilanaway placed Mr. Clouthier in a "safety cell" in the intakt are~ of the MI)f'. lie was issued a safety and
fC£jUired to be observed nt I ~-min ute intervals. She also approached another menial hcalth clinician (MargaTet
Blus k) and deputies in the intake area, advising them that Mr. Clouthier was "truly ~uic;dar' Htld "the felll deal." Ms.
Hanaway spoke with Mr. Clouthier periodically throughuutthe rnom;llg ofJ uly 27, "talkins to Ilim and making sure
he w~s okay and faski;rlgJ what his state of mind was." By that afternoon, Ms. CIOLIthicr informed the clinician tnat
he was not feeling suicidal anymore. Ms. Hmmw~y did not mIst him, however, noling "he had multip le suicide
art empll; ~rorc, ani.! g;iven his history and his despondency, his hopelessness, you just don'l ["COVer Iha( 'luick!y."
She tried to convinc~ Mr_ Clouthier to consider medication, and called for an emergency consultation with Ille
psychiatrist who latcr prescribed psycholTopic medication for depression. The psychiatJ"ist also re<:ummended that
Mr. Clouthier be placed ill M-Modu\c, a housing sectiull ror un,;table initiates , and Ihat he ~ubseqll~ntly be reeva luated 10 determin~ whether :;hon.teml ho~pitoli7;1lion would be necessary. M~_ Ila/l3w:.y left Ille MDP around
6'30pm on July 27.
Approximately]O minutes Inle,· at 7:00pm, Maf~aret f)lu ~h went up to M_Module and ~poke with Mr Clourhier lor
" less than fiv~ minutl3li." She informed an officer thut the inmmB cO!lld bo removed from suicide precautions and
given I"gulur prison clOlhes alii.! ~ blHnket, bUL not any utclisiis or )Xr:son~ l hygiene items. M5. BJu,h I~stifi~d that
~he took Mr. Clouthier off ~uicide precautions because i,l her view, the ri~k of suicide had decrea~ed, although she
"was uncertain whether il had di1;appeared" M~_ Illush e.plained th~t h~r "c1inical judgmem wa~ that Rob~rt wns
improving. would bendil from hying nomlal jail clothes and bedding and {Quid \it: furthe1' eva luated b~ mental
heJlth ~toffth~ following day." However, she felt that Mr. Clouthier was not "out of the woods" y~t. Mr. Clouthier
remained in the Ob...er~·at;on RooUl from July 29 through July J I, but nOI on ~"i~i(le prc~au!;ons.
Mr. Clouthier wns relo'~ated to general population on Au!;u,1 I At appTO~ i malely 7:42pm that e~ening, a deputy and
nurse di~covered Mr. Clouthier hanging by the neck from the knotted shect in his cell. Life-saving.measm·es were
inili~te d, but. Rt>b~rt CIO!l1hier was suhsequently pronounced dead al a lQ<;ul huspitul.
nle parent~ of Mr. Clouthier filed 511\1 against Conu"P. CoSTa County and various indiv(i.!ual defendants, lnclud\ng the
.hcriff. several d~puti"s, and Marturet I:I I ~sh. the mental heulth clinician. The district court grn m~d ~ummary
judglncnt in favor of all the d~fendant3 and the family appealed 10 the Un ited Stale; Co~rt of Apf'l'aL5 for th e 91h
Circuit. The appeals ('OUTI affirmed the dimict court's grant of summary judgment to all defendants ~~cepl Ms.
HI\I~h. According (0 th~ ~<)un. "a rational jury could ccmeiui.!e tll"t Blush was 'on notice' of Clouthier' s suicidal
CMdi!iOO and that she actunlly 'inferred from thiS information that (Clouthier] w~s at serious riSk ofh~rm ifhedid

I

IS
not rccd~c' proper crue. ... Bill.lh also agre~d th~l Clou lhicf was 1101 'out of the woods' yet and that his condilion
could 'go either wuy.· She testified sl1~ wa5 'uncel1ain' whcllier hiS s"icit!al it )l had dis~ppc~,,,d. Yel, I3hlSh removed
Clouthier livm the Observation Log, told the deplilics he could be given ~gul8r clOlhes nnd r~gular bedding, failed
\0 in~IT\JC! t~ deputyJ to keep Clouthier in tht Observation Roonl , and neglected to delclTll!ne if additional care was
need~d, From this circumSlal!lial evidence. a jury rouJd r~il$una\Jly i"fel' thm [liusil knew ofClolithier's depreuive.
suicidal condilion ~nd need for menia l health treatment, and 'al~!) knew of the risk of harm that he faced if denied
mcdi(~l .,"enl;on' ".,Therefore, there c:dsu a genuine is\'ll~ of nwterial faci as 10 whether Blush was deli~fl.Ilely
jndifTe"'nt to 3 s\lre;tantial risk (J f h~rm I(J Cluuthier."
7) Sint(1l' ". Aml!riclJ·r, / IIC., 1011 WL 1395298 (2nd Cir., April 13, :;!OI1). Sl'enc~r Sinkov, 21 -years-old, WJS
arrested by Ih~ Putnam County ShNilTs Dtpartmenl in New York on May 20, 2006. Chnrged with crimiMl

possession IUlil crimi nal ~a)e of a controlled substance, he was booked illlo tile PU1rmm Coumy Correclional facililY
shortlY Mlcr midnigln. He h~d ~o prior record and suITered from heroin 'Iddiclion ami wa, in wilhdraw~1 alth~ lime
of admission . Pllrsua~1 tu regulation~ promulgated by (h~ N~w York StHt" Com",;ss;on of Correctil>n, j~i! stM!"
adminislert'd It.(, S,licide Prevention Scr~ning Guiddines funn to Mr Sinkov. He sco",d "10" on the form,
indication of" hi!;ll risk for suicide thm required c<.lI1shl1lt observatioTl. Contl1lry to state regUlations mandating
ton~tant observation (If suicida l in,"at"5, the sukide prevention policy of both the county and its hellllll c~re
provider (AmedCor Inc.) was adaple<tlo refJlIire observation al on ly I S-minl ile inter','a ls for nil suicidal inmat~s. Mr.
Sinkov was sllbseqllcn tly placed ;11 an on~afe cell with his clothes and on an observation levd ... qulri ng 15-minllte
checks. It w~s al~ not monitored by medical steff for hemin withdrawal .
According to jail recOl-ds, Mr. Sinko~ met wilb his parents in thc visiting arca Iuter thUI morning. As a re~lll! of the
visit, his father eXpre'osed concern to 3n (Jffiler that Spen= was going through withdrawal and needed medical
ancntion . Th~ inmJte was tllen returned to his eel! and fouod hallg'''l: fro", II,e cell bars by a sweatshi,1 a lew hours
I~ter. Spencer Si!1kov was later pronollnccd dead nt a local hospital.
ML Sinkov·s parcnl.l.ut~r fiI~d ~ uit in federal coun alleging both dclibcnol<: indifT~rCn(;t and negli gcl1ce_ III Ow.b<';r
2009, a jurf (Mnd that Amerieor \\Ill. dcliberately illdiffe~nt to Mr. Sinkov nnd a""drdCd the plainl iffS750,OOO io
d~mage~, and the C0ll11 also awarded the plaintiffs $234,320 ill attomey fen. The jury found that AmeriCor was
]5% at fanh For Ihe deaU" ,,·hile ;lsstf.5ing: 65% of the liability 10 I'\ltnam Coullty and its employees (which had
previously settled I!,e case out of COUl1). AmeriCor appealed me JUT)' verdict and, in Apri l 2011, Ule federal appeals
coun upheld the wrdici al1d ruled ihat: ~T~c jury heard ~vldenc.. tMl An1~riCor knew of New York's minimum
standards for dctainees who pn.:sellt signs th~t Ihey Me nt ri~k or suicide; that Sinkov nnswered "Yes'· 10 10 questions
on the su icide ""Teenirl!!. form M intake, more than the number reqoired w triggcr oon.t"nl mOnitoring; arId tillit olle
or AmeriGor'. nurses ,~i!:"d1the firnt page of the pack et thm conl~ined Sink(IV'S ~u;c ; de scruning form, In a box
that signified t!tal the ),urse hJd r~ceived the imake pMc~et and rere~d Mi l of It. Thal Wll~ evidence of what AmeriCor
{leI/lOlly A,,~w ~bout Sillkov·s risk of s ui ci~, tlnd not, as AmeriCor cb im" merely fvidenee of what th e r.omrany
should·have known. T!lken lO',;elhor, Iha! ~vi<ie'\ce wa.> ~'lmci~"t 'to sl1ppon a oonciu.ion by a rea.nllahle juror' Ih:I!
AmeriCor ·WRS actually l1\\"Jle' of Si"ko,· 's ri,;k of suicide ~nd was dchbentely indinhcl1! to (/Tal t;sk_"

I

JAIL SUICIDE/MENTAL HEALTH UPDATE
(A joint project of the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives and the National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice)

Spring 2005

Volume 13 • Number 4

A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE TO DEVELOPING AND
MAINTAINING A SOUND SUICIDE PREVENTION POLICY

D

espite increased general awareness of the problem, research that has identified precipitating and situational risk factors,
emerging correctional standards that advocate increased attention to suicidal inmates and demonstration of effective strategies,
suicide prevention remains piecemeal and inmate suicides continue to pose a serious public health problem within correctional
facilities throughout the county. In fact, although national suicide rates in both jails and prisons have been seemingly reduced
during the past decade, hundreds of inmates continue to commit suicide in correctional facilities each year. Many of these deaths
are preventable and we can do more to reduce these numbers.
Since its inception, the Jail Suicide /Mental Health Update has been devoted to providing timely information in the area of suicide
prevention within correctional facilities, including pertinent research, training, standards, litigation, model programs, and case vignettes
of preventable and/or other tragic deaths. We have previously highlighted the fact that few state jail standards mandate comprehensive
suicide prevention programming, and many correctional systems have either ignored or not fully implemented critically important
suicide prevention components (as offered by national standards) into their policies. Within juvenile facilities, a recent national
study found that few facilities experiencing a youth suicide maintained comprehensive suicide prevention programs.
In an effort to more adequately address piecemeal prevention efforts, this special issue is entirely devoted to developing and maintaining
a sound suicide prevention policy, and includes the guiding principles to suicide prevention, critical components to a suicide prevention
policy, and a sample suicide prevention policy (with attachments). Our hope is that the information contained in this special 24-page
issue, as well as future issues highlighting model suicide prevention programs, will help jumpstart more comprehensive suicide prevention
programming throughout the country.

A

ccording to available records, 49-year-old Michael Singer was
originally arrested by the Evans County Sheriff’s Office on
October 4, 2002 and charged with “defrauding a secured creditor and
concealment or removal of secured property.”1 The arrest was based
upon a warrant from a neighboring state. Mr. Singer was booked into
the Evans County Jail and responded “no” to two questions regarding
prior and current risk for suicide. Due to his employment as a sergeant
at the Pinehurst State Prison, Mr. Singer was placed in a single cell in
the jail. No bail was permitted.

Log at 3:00pm on October 4 that read “Pass down from 270 (Sheriff
Pyle), 271 (Under Sheriff Salisbury), and 286 (Officer Smith). Received
word to watch Singer,” no other action was apparently taken in
response to Mr. Singer’s risk or suicide.
Throughout his week of confinement at the Evans County Jail, Mr.
Singer displayed disturbing behavior to jail staff. According to various
staff, he was observed as being “very stressed,” “quiet,” “distraught,”
“crying,” “pacing the cell,” “acting very peculiar,” etc. Mr. Singer was
particularly concerned about his impending extradition to another

During the afternoon of October 4, Mr. Singer’s wife (Susan) and
brother-in-law (Bruce Tyler) visited with him in the jail. According to
his wife and brother-in-law, Mr. Singer appeared distraught, confused
and, as a correctional officer, feared for his safety. Most importantly,
he also threatened suicide, stating to his wife and brother-in-law that
he would be found “hanging in his cell.” Mrs. Singer and Mr. Tyler
immediately informed Evans County Jail staff, specifically Officer Keith
Smith, of the suicide threat. According to the subsequent deposition
testimony of Susan Singer, Officer Smith informed them that “Don’t
worry. I’ll take care of it and I promise we won’t let anything happen
to Mike.” Officer Smith subsequently informed Sheriff David Pile of
the threat and then went to talk with Mr. Smith who denied making a
suicide threat. Apart from a brief notification in the Jail Officer’s Daily
1

In order to ensure complete confidentiality, certain identifying information
regarding the victim, facility, and staff have been changed. No other
modifications have been made.
—1—

INSIDE. . .


Guiding Principles to Suicide Prevention



Critical Components to a Sound Suicide
Prevention Policy



We’re Still Looking for a Few Good Programs



A Model Suicide Prevention Policy



Jail Mental Health Services Initiative from the
National Institute of Corrections (Jails Division)



Seeking Solutions to Self-Destruction

state in a transportation vehicle containing other inmates who might
recognize him as a correctional officer from Pinehurst State Prison.
During the evening of October 7, 2002, Dispatcher Ralph Tanner, who
had previously worked with Mr. Singer at the state prison, went back
into the cell block area and briefly conversed with his friend. According
to Mr. Tanner’s subsequent deposition testimony, Mr. Singer “was
pacing a lot in the cell, you know. And he just looked like very stressed,
you know. He was going through a hard time.” According to his
incident report, Dispatcher Tanner wrote, in part, that during their
October 7 conversation “I also told Mike I hope you are not going to
do anything stupid, like suicide, Mike replied, ‘no I am not’….Then I
told Mike I needed to get back to dispatch, if he needed anything let
someone know, I also informed him I was watching him in the camera.”
During the evening of October 10, 2002, both jail and family members
observed Mr. Singer (during a visit) to be very distraught and crying
regarding his impending extradition, thought to be scheduled for the
following day. According to the incident report written by Sheriff
Pyle, Officer Jack Terry informed him at approximately 8:00pm on
October 10 that Mr. Singer was “quiet and distraught” following the
visit with his wife and “Mike looked like he had been crying and acted
like he wanted to cry as he was walking but was trying to keep from
showing emotions.”
Both Officer Paula Hacket and Dispatcher Tanner worked the overnight
shift (11:00pm to 7:00am) of October 10-11, 2002. Both individuals
noticed that Mr. Singer appeared agitated during the shift. According
to Officer Hacket’s subsequent deposition testimony, Mr. Singer
appeared distraught and was crying. According to Dispatcher Tanner,
Mr. Singer “was constantly watching the window in his cell door,”
pacing the cell, and “acting very peculiar.” Both Officer Hacket and
Dispatcher Tanner agreed to “just keep an eye on him.” through
making regular rounds of the cellblock area and observing Mr. Singer’s
cell via closed circuit television monitoring (CCTV).
During the shift change in the early morning of October 11, both
Officer Hacket and Dispatcher Tanner informed in-coming Officer
Keith Smith of their observations and concerns regarding Mr. Singer
during their shift. According to the subsequent deposition testimony
of Dispatcher Tanner, “When Keith Smith came to work Paula and I
informed him the way he’d been behaving and they needed to keep
an eye on him ‘cause he wasn’t acting right at all…I don’t recall the
exact words, but I said, Mike’s not acting right, something’s wrong,
you know, something may be wrong with him, you know, he may do
something, stupid, I don’t know, and that he needed to be watched
and Paula addressed her concern to him also.” According to the
dispatcher, when they informed Officer Smith of their concerns
regarding Mr. Singer, Officer Smith “just basically shrugged his
shoulders and said, oh, well, you know, it’s like it’s another day.”
Dispatcher Tanner also informed the in-coming dispatcher, Ryan
Houser, of their concerns. Mr. Houser apparently did not give any
verbal reply, however, both Officer Hacket and Dispatcher Tanner
subsequently testified that Dispatcher Houser had previously stated
it was not his responsibility to monitor inmates via the CCTV
equipment.

a blanket tied around the door of Mr. Singer’s cell, and the inmate
could not be observed. Officer Weiner ran up to the control office to
get assistance from Officer Smith. While returning to the cellblock
area, Officer Weiner told Dispatcher Houser to turn on the CCTV
monitor for Mr. Singer’s cell and try to locate the inmate. Officers
Weiner and Smith, as well as Sheriff Pyle, arrived at Mr. Singer’s cell
and initially had difficulty gaining entry because the blanket was tied
around the door and soap had been jammed into the key hole. Upon
entering the cell, Mr. Singer was discovered hanging from the shower
knob by a bed sheet. His body was cut down and laid on the cell floor.
Emergency medical services (EMS) personnel arrived, examined the
victim, and decided not to initiate cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
According to EMS personnel, Mr. Singer’s body “had mottling on his
back and buttocks area,” an apparent indication that the victim had
been dead for a considerable period of time. Michael Singer was later
pronounced dead.
Following the death, county attorney George Dawson told a local
newspaper reporter that “Mr. Singer had been in jail a couple of days
and otherwise was an unremarkable inmate. He didn’t appear
despondent or unduly agitated. Our jail staff feels bad about it, but
the suicide really wasn’t preventable.”
The family of Michael Singer disagreed and subsequently filed a
federal lawsuit against Evans County, its sheriff and jail personnel.
Among several allegations in the lawsuit was that the county failed
to maintain a written suicide prevention policy. In fact, the practice of
Evans County Jail personnel was simply to inform Sheriff Pyle if an
inmate became suicidal during confinement. No mental health referral,
no suicide precautions, no policy! The lawsuit is still pending.
In a similar case, readers of the Update will recall the recent federal
appeals court ruling in Wever v. Lincoln County (No. 03-3633, 2004
U.S. App. Lexis 22974, 8th Cir. 2004). In November 2004, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that Lincoln County Sheriff Jim
Carmen was not entitled to qualified immunity for the jail suicide of
Dennis Wever. The lawsuit had alleged that the sheriff failed to take
any corrective action in the areas of training and supervision of
personnel following two other prior inmate suicides in the jail, as well
as maintaining a grossly inadequate suicide prevention policy. The
appeals court agreed and scolded the sheriff as follows:

According to Officer Mike Weiner, he conducted a round of the
cellblock area at approximately 9:00am on October 11, 2002 and
observed Mr. Singer to be sitting on his bed. Approximately one hour
later at 9:55am, Officer Weiner conducted another round and observed
—2—

“Carmen asserts that ‘the jail had a good-faith policy in
place for dealing with those prisoners and pretrial detainees
presenting suicidal risks. Furthermore, after the September
1999 incident, the policy was implemented for approximately
two (2) years before the incident at issue occurred.’…. The
implication of this statement is that after the 1999 suicide,
Carmen implemented a constitutionally adequate suicide
policy that was in effect at the time of Wever’s suicide.
However….we note that the quoted assertion is entirely
without support in the record. The ‘policy’ Carmen cites is a
single page….and wholly without context. One cannot tell
when, how, or even whether it was adopted, why Carmen
believed it would adequately respond to the problem of
inmate suicide, or how officers were trained to implement
it….One cannot discern when the ‘policy’ was adopted,
and Carmen neglected to make any mention of it in his
affidavit in support of his motion for summary judgment. As
the district court stated, ‘Sheriff Carmen did not present any

evidence showing what training procedures, if any, were in
place for handling potentially suicidal detainees or inmates.’

4)

In June 2005, the case was settled for an undisclosed amount. It
remains unclear as to whether Lincoln County developed a sound
jail suicide prevention policy.

We should not rely exclusively on the direct statements of an
inmate who denies that they are suicidal and/or have a prior
history of suicidal behavior, particularly when their behavior,
actions and/or history suggest otherwise. Often, despite an
inmate’s denial of suicidal ideation, their behavior, actions, and/
or history speak louder then their words. For example:

Guiding Principles to Suicide Prevention

M

ore times than not, we do an admirable job of safely
managing inmates identified as suicidal and placed on
suicide precautions. After all, few inmates successfully commit
suicide on suicide watch. When they do, you can surely expect to
incur some liability. What we continue to struggle with is the ability
to prevent the suicide of an inmate who is not easily identifiable as
being at risk for self-harm. Kay Redfield Jamison, a prominent
psychologist and author, has best articulated the point by stating
that if “suicidal patients were able or willing to articulate the severity
of their suicidal thoughts and plans, little risk would exist.”2 With
this in mind, the following guiding principles to suicide prevention
are offered.
1)

2)

3)

2

The assessment of suicide risk should not be viewed as a single
event, but as an on-going process. Because an inmate may
become suicidal at any point during confinement, suicide
prevention should begin at the point of arrest and continue until
the inmate is released from the facility. In addition, once an inmate
has been successfully managed on, and discharged from, suicide
precautions, they should remain on a mental health caseload
and assessed periodically until released from the facility.
Screening for suicide during the initial booking and intake process
should be viewed as something similar to taking one’s
temperature – it can identify a current fever, but not a future cold.
The shelf life of behavior that is observed and/or self-reported
during intake screening is time-limited, and we often place far too
much weight upon this initial data collection stage. Following an
inmate suicide, it is not unusual for the mortality review process
to focus exclusively upon whether the victim threatened suicide
during the booking and intake stage, a time period that could be
far removed from the date of suicide. If the victim had answered
in the negative to suicide risk during the booking stage, there is
often a sense of relief expressed by participants of the mortality
review, as well as a misguided conclusion that the death was not
preventable. Although the intake screening form remains a
valuable prevention tool, the more important determination of
suicide risk is the current behavior expressed and/or displayed
by the inmate.
Prior risk of suicide is strongly related to future risk. At a minimum,
if an inmate had been placed on suicide precautions during a
previous confinement in the facility or agency, such information
should be accessible to both correctional and health care
personnel when determining whether the inmate might be at risk
during their current confinement.

Jamison, Kay R. (1999). Night Fails Fost — Understanding Suicide.
New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf:150.
—3—

WE’RE STILL LOOKING FOR A FEW
GOOD PROGRAMS

F

uture issues of the Jail Suicide/Mental Health
Update will be devoted to exemplary suicide
prevention programs operating within correctional
facilities throughout the country. Does your facility’s
suicide prevention policy contain, and do your practices
reflect, the following critical elements?
♦

Intake screening to detect both current and
prior suicidal behavior, as well as further
and periodic assessment of suicide risk by
mental health staff;

♦

Suicide prevention training for correctional,
medical, and mental health staff;

♦

Levels of communication between outside
agencies, among facility staff, and with the
suicidal inmate;

♦

Suicide-resistant, protrusion-free housing
of suicidal inmates;

♦

Levels of supervision for suicidal inmates;

♦

Timely emergency intervention by
correctional and medical personnel
following a suicide attempt;

♦

Provision of critical incident stress
debriefing to affected staff and inmates, as
well as completion of a multidisciplinary
mortality review following an inmate
suicide and/or serious suicide attempt; and

♦

A low rate of inmate suicides for an
extended period of time.

If you believe your correctional facility operates an
exemplary suicide prevention program, and would like it
to be considered as a possible case study in an upcoming
issue of the Update, please send copies of your suicide
prevention policy, screening/assessment forms utilized
to identify suicidal inmates, and total number of suicides
and your facility’s average daily population for each year
from 1995 thru 2004 to:
Lindsay M. Hayes, Project Director
Jail Suicide/Mental Health Update
40 Lantern Lane
Mansfield, MA 02048
(508) 337-8806
Lhayesta@msn.com

In Washington State, an inmate was booked into a
county jail and informed the intake officer that she had
a history of mental illness, had attempted suicide two
weeks earlier, but “will not hurt herself in jail.” Jail records
indicated that the inmate threatened suicide during a
recent prior confinement in the facility. The inmate
attended a court hearing two days later and the escort
officer noticed that she appeared despondent, was
crying, and appeared worried about her children. She
was not referred to mental health staff, nor placed on
suicide precautions. The inmate committed suicide the
following day.

little training, identifying suicidal behavior of inmates unwilling
and/or unable to articulate their feelings, or who deny any
ideation, requires both pre-service and annual training. Simply
stated, correctional staff, as well as medical and mental health
personnel, cannot detect, make an assessment, nor prevent a
suicide for which they have little, if any, useful training.
All suicide prevention training must be meaningful, i.e.,
timely, long-lasting information that is reflective of our current
knowledge base of the problem. Training should not be
scheduled to simply comply with an accreditation standard.
A workshop that is limited to an antiquated videotape, or
recitation of the current policies and procedures, might
demonstrate compliance (albeit wrongly) with an accreditation
standard, but is not meaningful, nor helpful, to the goal of
reducing inmate suicides. Without regular suicide prevention
training, staff often make wrong and/or ill-informed decisions,
demonstrate inaction, or react contrary to standard correctional
practice, thereby incurring unnecessary liability.

In Michigan, police were called to the home of a man
who accidentally shot and killed a friend during a
domestic dispute with his estranged wife. Upon arrival
of the police, the suspect placed a handgun to his head
and clicked the trigger several times. He also encouraged
the officers to shoot him. Following five hours of
negotiations, the suspect surrendered without incident.
He was transported to the county jail and denied being
suicidal during the intake screening process. The inmate
was not referred to mental health staff, nor placed on
suicide precautions. He committed suicide the following
day.

6)

It is not all that surprising that these preventable deaths often escape
our detection. Take, for example, the booking area of a jail facility. It is
traditionally both chaotic and noisy; an environment where staff feel
pressure to process a high number of arrestees in a short period of
time. Two key ingredients for identifying suicidal behavior – time
and privacy – are at a minimum. The ability to carefully assess
the potential for suicide by asking the inmate a series of questions,
interpreting their responses (including gauging the truthfulness
of their denial of suicide risk), and observing their behavior is
greatly compromised by an impersonal environment that lends
itself to something quite the opposite. As a result, the clearly
suicidal behavior of many arrestees, as well as circumstances
that may lend themselves to potential self-injury, are lost.
In yet another example, a suicidal inmate may appear to be stable
in front of a mental health clinician, even deny suicide risk, only
to be discharged from suicide precautions and returned to the
correctional facility from a hospital where they again revert to
the same self-injurious behavior that prompted the initial referral.
Given such a scenario, correctional staff should not assume that
the clinician was cognizant or even appreciative of this cyclical
behavior. On the contrary, regardless of what the clinician might
have observed and/or recommended, as well as the inmate’s
denial of risk, whenever correctional staff hear an inmate verbalize
a desire or intent to commit suicide, observe an inmate engaging
in suicidal behavior or otherwise believe an inmate is at risk for
suicide, they should take immediate steps to ensure that the
inmate’s safety.
5)

3

As previously offered, many preventable suicides result from
poor communication amongst correctional, medical and mental
health staff. Communication problems are often caused by lack
of respect, personality conflicts, and other boundary issues.
Simply stated, facilities that maintain a multidisciplinary approach
avoid preventable suicides. As aptly stated by one clinician:
The key to an effective team approach in suicide
prevention and crisis intervention is found in
throwing off the cloaks of territoriality and embracing
a mutual respect for the detention officer’s and mental
health clinician’s professional abilities,
responsibilities and limitations. All of us, regardless
of professional affiliation, need to make a dedicated
commitment to come forward and acknowledge that
suicide prevention and related mental health services
are only effective when delivered by professionals
acting in unison with each other. Just as the security
officer alone can not ensure the safety and security
of the jail facility, neither can the mental health
clinician alone ensure the safety and emotional wellbeing of the individual inmate.3

7)

Facility officials must provide useful pre-service and annual
suicide prevention training to all staff. While implementing suicide
precautions for an inmate that verbally threatens suicide requires

Severson, Margaret (1993). Jail Suicide Update, 5(3):3.
—4—

On size does not fit all and basic decisions regarding the
management of a suicidal inmate should be based upon their
individual clinical needs, not simply on the resources that are
said to be available. For example, if an acutely suicidal inmate
requires continuous, uninterrupted observation from staff, they
should not be monitored via CCTV simply because that is the
only option the system chooses to offer. Further, a clinician should
never feel pressured, however subtle that pressure may be, to
downward and/or discharge an inmate from suicide precautions
simply because additional staff resources (e.g., overtime, post
transfer, etc.) are required to maintain the desired level of
observation. Although they would never admit it, clinicians have
prematurely downgraded, discharged, and/or changed the
management plan for a suicidal inmate based upon pressure from
correctional officials.

8)

9)

We must avoid creating barriers that discourage an inmate
from accessing mental health services. Often, certain
management conditions of a facility’s policy on suicide
precautions appear punitive to an inmate (e.g., automatic
clothing removal/issuance of safety smock, lockdown, limited
visiting, telephone, and shower access, etc), as well as
excessive and unrelated to their level of suicide risk. As a
result, an inmate who becomes suicidal and/or despondent
during confinement may be reluctant to seek out mental health
services, and even deny there is a problem, if they know that
loss of these and other basic amenities are an automatic
outcome. As such, these barriers should be avoided whenever
possible and decisions regarding the management of a suicidal
inmate should be based solely upon the individual’s level of
risk.
Few issues challenge us more than that of inmates we perceive
to be manipulative. It is not unusual for inmates to call attention
to themselves by threatening suicide or even feigning an
attempt in order to avoid a court appearance, or bolster an
insanity defense; gain cell relocation, transfer to the local
hospital or simply receive preferential staff treatment; or seek
compassion from a previously unsympathetic spouse or other
family member. Some inmates simply use manipulation as a
survival technique.
Although the prevailing theory is that any inmate who would go
to the extreme of threatening suicide or even engaging in selfinjurious behavior is suffering from at least an emotional
imbalance that requires special attention; too often we conclude
that the inmate is simply attempting to manipulative their
environment and, therefore, such behavior should be ignored
and not reinforced through intervention. Too often, however, a
feigned suicide attempt goes further than anticipated and results
in death. Recent research has warned us that we should not
assume that inmates who appear manipulative are not also
suicidal, i.e., they are not necessarily members of mutually
exclusive groups.
Although there are no perfect solutions to the management of
manipulative inmate who threaten suicide or engage in selfinjurious behavior for a perceived secondary gain, the critical
issue is not how we label the behavior, but how we react to it.
The reaction must include a multidisciplinary treatment/
management plan.

10) As previously noted, few suicides take place when inmates are
managed on suicide precautions. Rather, most deaths suicides
take place in “special housing units” (intake/booking,
classification, disciplinary/administrative segregation, mental
health, etc.) of the facility. One effective prevention strategy is to
create more interaction between inmates and correctional, medical
and mental health personnel in these housing areas by: increasing
rounds of medical and/or mental health staff, requiring regular
follow-up of all inmates released from suicide precautions,
increasing rounds of correctional staff, providing additional mental
health screening to inmates admitted to disciplinary/

4

administrative segregation, and avoiding lockdown due to staff
shortages (and the resulting limited access of medical and mental
health personnel to the units).
11) A lack of inmates on suicide precautions should not be interpreted
to mean that there are no currently suicidal inmates in the facility,
nor a barometer of sound suicide prevention practices. We cannot
make the argument that our correctional systems are increasingly
housing more mentally ill and/or other high risk individuals and
then state there are not any suicidal inmates in our facility today.
Correctional facilities contain suicidal inmates every day; the
challenge is to find them. The goal should not be “zero” number
of inmates on suicide precautions; rather the goal should be to
identify, manage and stabilize suicidal inmates in our custody.
12) We must avoid the obstacles to prevention. Experience has shown
that negative attitudes often impede meaningful suicide
prevention efforts. These obstacles to prevention often embody
a state of mind (before any inquiry begins) that inmate suicides
cannot be prevented (e.g., “If someone really wants to kill
themselves there’s generally nothing you can do about it” and/
or “We did everything we could to prevent this death, but he
showed no signs of suicidal behavior,” etc.) There are numerous
ways to overcome these obstacles, the most powerful of which
is to demonstrate prevention programs that have effectively
reduced the incidence of suicide and suicidal behavior within
correctional facilities. As one administrator has offered: “When
you begin to use excuses to justify a bad outcome, whether it
be low staffing levels, inadequate funding, physical plant
concerns, etc., issues we struggle with each day, you lack the
philosophy that even one death is not acceptable. If you are
going to tolerate a few deaths in your jail system, then you’ve
already lost the battle.”4
13) We must create and maintain a comprehensive suicide
prevention programs that include the following essential
components: staff training, intake screening/assessment,
communication, housing, levels of observation, intervention,
reporting, follow-up/mortality review.
Critical Components to a Sound Suicide Prevention Policy

C

omprehensive suicide prevention programming has been
advocated nationally by such organizations as the American
Correctional Association (ACA), American Psychiatric Association
(APA), and National Commission on Correctional Health Care
(NCCHC). As offered in our last issue (see Jail Suicide/Mental Health
Update, Volume 13, Number 3, Winter 2004), these groups have
promulgated national correctional standards that are adaptable to
individual jail, prison and juvenile facilities. The APA and NCCHC
standards provide the more instructive standards/guidelines that offer
recommended ingredients for a suicide prevention program:
identification, training, assessment, monitoring, housing, referral,
communication, intervention, notification, reporting, review, and
critical incident debriefing. Consistent with these national correctional
standards, the following eight (8) components encompass a sound
suicide prevention policy.

Hayes, Lindsay M. (1998). Jail Suicide/Mental Health Update, 8(1):6.
—5—

Staff Training
The essential component to any suicide prevention program is
properly trained correctional staff, who form the backbone of any
correctional facility. Very few suicides are directly prevented by mental
health, medical or other professional staff because suicides are usually
attempted in inmate housing units, and often during late evening
hours or on weekends when program staff are not present. Suicides,
therefore, must be prevented by correctional staff who have been
trained in suicide prevention and have developed an intuitive sense
about the inmates under their care. Correctional officers are often the
only staff available 24 hours a day and form the primary line of defense
in preventing suicides.
Although not specified in national correctional standards, it is strongly
recommended that all correctional staff, as well as medical and mental
health personnel, receive at least eight (8) hours of initial suicide
prevention training, followed by two (2) hours of refresher training
each year. Training should include why correctional environments
are conducive to suicidal behavior, staff attitudes about suicide,
potential predisposing factors to suicide, high-risk suicide periods,
warning signs and symptoms, identification of suicide risk despite
the denial of risk, liability issues, critical incident stress debriefing,
recent suicides and/or serious suicides attempts within the facility/
agency, and details of the facility/agency’s suicide prevention
policy. In addition, all staff who have routine contact with inmates
should receive standard first aid and cardiopulmonary
resuscitation (CPR) training. All staff should also be trained in the
use of various emergency equipment located in each housing unit.
In an effort to ensure an efficient emergency response to suicide
attempts, “mock drills” should be incorporated into both initial
and refresher training.
Intake Screening/Assessment

process, if staff hear an inmate verbalize a desire or intent to commit
suicide, observe an inmate engaging in any self-harm, or otherwise
believe an inmate is at risk for self-harm or suicide, referral
procedures should be implemented. Such procedures direct staff
to take immediate steps ensuring that the inmate is continuously
observed until appropriate medical, mental health, and supervisory
assistance is obtained.
In addition, given the strong association between inmate suicide
and special management (i.e., disciplinary and/or administrative
segregation) housing unit placement, any inmate assigned to such
a special housing unit should receive a written assessment for
suicide risk by mental health (or medical) staff upon admission. In
addition, the inmate’s health care records should be thoroughly
reviewed to ensure that the placement is not contraindicated or
requires special treatment.
Finally, the screening and assessment process is only one of several
tools that increases the opportunity to identify suicide risk in
inmates. This process, coupled with staff training, will only be
successful if an effective method of communication is in place
within the correctional facility.
Communication
Certain behavioral signs exhibited by the inmate may be
indicative of suicidal behavior and, if detected and
communicated to others, may prevent a suicide. There are
essentially three levels of communication in preventing inmate
suicides: 1) communication between the arresting or
transporting officer and correctional staff; 2) communication
between and among facility staff, including medical and mental
health personnel; and 3) communication between facility staff
and the suicidal inmate.

Screening and assessment of inmates when they enter a facility is
critical to a correctional facility’s suicide prevention efforts.
Although there is no single set of risk factors that mental health
and medical communities agree can be used to predict suicide,
there is little disagreement about the value of screening and
assessment in preventing suicide. Intake screening for all inmates
and ongoing assessment of inmates at risk is critical because
research consistently reports that two thirds or more of all suicide
victims communicate their intent some time before death and that
any individual with a history of one or more self-harm episodes is
at a much greater risk for suicide than those without such episodes.
Although it is preferred that the intake screening process be
performed by medical staff, correctional personnel who have
received specific training can also perform the task.

In many ways, suicide prevention begins at the point of arrest.
What an individual says and how they behave during arrest,
transportation to the jail, and at booking are crucial in detecting
suicidal behavior. The scene of arrest is often the most volatile
and emotional time. Arresting officers should pay close attention
to the arrestee during this time; thoughts of suicide or suicidal
behavior may be occasioned by the anxiety or hopelessness of
the situation, and previous behavior can be confirmed by
onlookers such as family and friends. Any pertinent information
regarding the arrestee’s well-being must be communicated by the
arresting or transporting officer to correctional staff. It is also
critically important for correctional staff to maintain open lines of
communication with family members who often have pertinent
information regarding the mental health status of inmates.

Screening for suicide risk may be contained within the medical
screening form or as a separate form, and should include inquiry
regarding the following: past suicidal ideation or attempts; current
ideation, threat, plan; prior mental health treatment-hospitalization;
recent significant loss (job, relationship, death of family member/
close other, etc.); history of suicidal behavior by family member/
close other; suicide risk during prior confinement; and arrestingtransporting officer(s) belief that inmate is currently at risk. The
process should also include referral procedures to mental health
and/or medical personnel for assessment. Following the intake

Effective management of suicidal inmates in the facility is based
on communication among correctional officers and other
professional staff. Because inmates can become suicidal at any
point during incarceration, correctional officers must maintain
awareness, share information and make appropriate referrals to
mental health and medical staff. At a minimum, the facility’s shift
supervisor should ensure that appropriate correctional staff are
properly informed of the status of each inmate placed on suicide
precautions. The shift supervisor should also be responsible for
briefing the incoming shift supervisor regarding the status of

—6—

all inmates on suicide precautions. Multi-disciplinary team
meetings (to include correctional, medical and mental health
personnel) should occur on a regular basis to discuss the status
of inmates on suicide precautions. Finally, the authorization
for suicide precautions, any changes in suicide precautions,
and observation of inmates placed on precautions should be
documented on designated forms and distributed to appropriate
staff.
Facility staff must use various communication skills with the
suicidal inmate, including active listening, physically staying
with the inmate if they suspect immediate danger, and
maintaining contact through conversation, eye contact, and
body language. Correctional staff should trust their own
judgment and observation of risk behavior, and avoid being
misled by others (including mental health staff) into ignoring
signs of suicidal behavior.
The communication breakdown between correctional, medical,
and mental health personnel is a common factor found in the
reviews of many inmate suicides. Communication problems are
often caused by lack of respect, personality conflicts, and other
boundary issues. Simply stated, facilities that maintain a
multidisciplinary approach generally avoid preventable suicides.
Housing
In determining the most appropriate housing location for a suicidal
inmate, correctional officials (with concurrence from medical or mental
health staff) often tend to physically isolate and sometimes restrain
the individual. These responses might be more convenient for all
staff, but they are detrimental to the inmate because the use of isolation
escalates the inmate’s sense of alienation and further removes the
individual from proper staff supervision. To every extent possible,
suicidal inmates should be housed in the general population, mental
health unit, or medical infirmary, located close to staff. Further, removal
of an inmate’s clothing (excluding belts and shoelaces) and the use of
physical restraints (e.g., restraint chairs or boards, leather straps,
straitjackets, etc.) should be avoided whenever possible, and used
only as a last resort when the inmate is physically engaging in selfdestructive behavior. Handcuffs should not be used to restrain a
suicidal inmate. Housing assignments should be based on the ability
to maximize staff interaction with the inmate, avoiding assignments
that heighten the depersonalizing aspects of incarceration.
All cells designated to house suicidal inmates should be suicideresistant, free of all obvious protrusions, and provide full visibility.
These cells should contain tamper-proof light fixtures and ceiling air
vents that are protrusion-free. Each cell door should contain a heavy
gauge Lexan (or equivalent grade) glass panel that is large enough to
allow staff a full and unobstructed view of the cell interior. Cells
housing suicidal inmates should not contain any electrical switches
or outlets, bunks with holes and ladders, towel racks on desks and
sinks, radiator vents, corded telephones of any length, clothing hooks
(of any kind), or any other object that provides an easy anchoring
device for hanging. Finally, each housing unit in the facility should
contain various emergency equipment, including a first aid kit, pocket
mask or face shield, Ambu-bag, and rescue tool (to quickly cut through
fibrous material). Correctional staff should ensure that such equipment
is in working order on a daily basis.

Levels of Supervision
The promptness of response to suicide attempts in correctional
facilities is often driven by the level of supervision afforded the inmate.
Brain damage from strangulation caused by a suicide attempt can
occur within four minutes, and death often within five to six minutes.
Standard correctional practice (and ACA standards) requires that
“special management inmates,” including those housed in
administrative segregation, disciplinary detention and protective
custody, be observed at intervals not exceeding every 30 minutes,
with mentally ill inmates observed more frequently. According to
NCCHC standards, inmates held in medical restraints and “therapeutic
seclusion” should be observed at intervals that do not exceed every
15 minutes. In addition, health care personnel should conduct rounds
of special managements units and observe each inmate (not simply
those receiving medication and/or on a mental health caseload) at
least three times per week.
Consistent with national correctional standards and practices, two
levels of supervision are generally recommended for suicidal inmates:
close observation and constant observation. Close Observation is
reserved for the inmate who is not actively suicidal, but expresses
suicidal ideation (e.g., expressing a wish to die without a specific
threat or plan) or has a recent prior history of self-destructive behavior.
In addition, an inmate who denies suicidal ideation or does not threaten
suicide, but demonstrates other concerning behavior (through actions,
current circumstances, or recent history) indicating the potential for
self-injury, should be placed under close observation. Staff should
observe such an inmate at staggered intervals not to exceed every 15
minutes (e.g., 5, 10, 7 minutes, etc.). Constant observation is reserved
for the inmate who is actively suicidal, either threatening or engaging
in suicidal behavior. Staff should observe such an inmate on a
continuous, uninterrupted basis.
Other aids (e.g., closed-circuit television monitoring, inmate
companions or watchers, etc.) can be used as a supplement to, but
never as a substitute for, these observation levels. In addition, suicidal
inmates should never be placed on a protocol level requiring
observation at 30-minute intervals. Finally, mental health staff should
assess and interact with (not just observe) suicidal inmates on a daily
basis.
Intervention
The degree and promptness of staff intervention often determines
whether the victim will survive a suicide attempt. A correctional
facility’s policy regarding intervention should contain three primary
components. First, all staff who come into contact with inmates should
be trained in standard first aid procedures and cardiopulmonary
resuscitation (CPR). Second, any staff member who discovers an
inmate engaging in self-harm should immediately survey the scene to
assess the severity of the emergency, alert other staff to call for medical
personnel if necessary, and begin standard first aid and/or CPR as
necessary. If facility policy prohibits an officer from entering a cell
without backup support, the first responding officer should, at a
minimum, make the proper notification for backup support and medical
personnel, secure the area outside the cell, and retrieve the housing
unit’s emergency response bag (that should include a first aid kit,
pocket mask or face shield, Ambu-bag, and rescue tool). Third, staff
should never presume that the inmate is dead, but rather should

—7—

initiate and continue appropriate life-saving measures until relieved
by arriving medical personnel. In addition, medical personnel should
ensure that all emergency response equipment is in working order on
a daily basis.
Reporting
In the event of a suicide attempt or suicide, all appropriate correctional
officials should be notified through the chain of command. Following
the incident, the victim’s family should be immediately notified, as
well as appropriate outside authorities. All staff who came into contact
with the victim prior to the incident should be required to submit a
statement including their full knowledge of the inmate and incident.
Follow-Up/Mortality Review
An inmate suicide is extremely stressful for staff, who may feel
angry, guilty, and even ostracized by fellow personnel and
administration officials. Following a suicide, reasonable guilt is
sometimes displayed by the officer who wonders: “What if I had
made my cell check earlier?” When suicide or suicidal crises occur,
staff affected by such a traumatic event should receive appropriate
assistance. One form of assistance is critical incident stress
debriefing (CISD). A CISD team, made up of professionals trained
in crisis intervention and traumatic stress awareness (e.g., police
officers, paramedics, fire fighters, clergy, and mental health
personnel), provides affected staff an opportunity to process their
feelings about the incident, develop an understanding of critical
stress symptoms, and develop ways of dealing with those

symptoms. For maximum effectiveness, the CISD process or other
appropriate support services should occur within 24 to 72 hours of
the critical incident.
Experience has demonstrated that many correctional systems have
reduced the likelihood of future suicides by critically reviewing the
circumstances surrounding instances as they occur. While all deaths
are investigated either internally or by outside agencies to ensure
impartiality, these investigations are normally limited to determining
the cause of death and whether there was any criminal wrongdoing.
The primary focus of a mortality review should be two-fold: What
happened in the case under review and what can be learned to help
prevent future incidents? To be successful, the mortality review team
must be multidisciplinary and include representatives of both line
and management level staff from the corrections, medical and
mental health divisions.
Therefore, every completed suicide, as well as each suicide attempt
of high lethality (e.g., requiring hospitalization), should be examined
through a mortality review process. (If resources permit, clinical
review through a psychological autopsy is also recommended.)
The mortality review should include: (a) critical review of the
circumstances surrounding the incident; (b) critical review of jail
procedures relevant to the incident; (c) synopsis of all relevant
training received by involved staff; (d) pertinent medical and mental
health services/reports involving the victim; (e) possible
precipitating factors leading to the suicide; and (f)
recommendations, if any, for change in policy, training, physical
plant, medical or mental health services, and operational procedures.

A MODEL SUICIDE PREVENTION POLICY
GENERAL ORDER

DATE OF ISSUE

EFFECTIVE DATE

REFERENCE

DIRECTIVE NO.

RESCINDS

INDEX AS: SUICIDE PREVENTION PROCEDURES
SUICIDE PREVENTION PROCEDURES
I.

PURPOSE:

To outline specific measures taken to identify and respond to the needs of suicidal inmates.

II. PROCEDURE:

The following measures comprise the eight (8) step suicide prevention program: staff training, identification/
referral/assessment, communication, housing, levels of observation, intervention, reporting, follow-up/
mortality review.

A) Staff Training

A2. The initial training should include inmate suicide research,
why the environments of correctional facilities are conducive to
suicidal behavior, staff attitudes about suicide, potential predisposing
factors to suicide, high-risk suicide periods, warning signs and
symptoms, identifying suicidal inmates despite their denial of risk,
components of the facility’s suicide prevention policy, critical incident
stress debriefing, and liability issues associated with inmate suicide.

A1. All staff (including correctional, medical, and mental health
personnel) who have regular contact with inmates shall be initially
trained in the identification and management of suicidal inmates,
as well as in the eight components of the agency’s suicide
prevention program. Initial training shall encompass eight (8) hours
of instruction. New employees shall receive such instruction
through the training academy. Current staff shall receive such
instruction through scheduled training workshops.

A3. All staff who have regular contact with inmates shall receive
two (2) hours of annual suicide prevention training. The two-hour

—8—

training workshop shall include a review of predisposing risk
factors, warning signs and symptoms, identifying suicidal inmates
despite their denial of risk, and review of any changes to the
agency’s suicide prevention program. The annual training shall
also include general discussion of any recent suicides and/or
suicide attempts in the agency.
A4. All staff who have regular contact with inmates shall receive
standard first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training.
All staff shall also be trained in the use of various emergency
equipment located in each housing unit. In an effort to ensure an
efficient emergency response to suicide attempts, “mock drills”
shall be incorporated into both initial and refresher training for all
staff (see also Section F).
B) Identification/Referral/Assessment
B1. All inmates (apart from those exceptions listed in No. 10 below)
shall be administered the Intake Screening Form prior to placement
in any housing unit. The Intake Screening Form (Attachment A)
shall be administered during the admission and booking process
by the Booking Officer or other designated staff (e.g., medical
staff).
B2. The Intake Screening Form shall include inquiry regarding:
past suicidal ideation and/or attempts; current ideation, threat,
plan; prior mental health treatment/hospitalization; recent significant
loss (job, relationship, death of family member/close friend, etc.); history
of suicidal behavior by family member/close friend; suicide risk during
prior confinement; and arresting/transporting officer(s) belief that
the detainee is currently at risk.
B3. The Booking Officer or Designee shall question the arresting
and/or transporting officer(s) regarding their assessment of the inmate’s
medical, mental health or suicide risk. The Arresting and/or
Transporting Officer Questionnaire (Attachment B) shall include
observed behavior and information from family members and/or others.
Such information shall also be documented on the Intake Screening
Form.
B4. If the inmate is being received from another facility (e.g., county
jail, intra-system, etc.), the sending agency shall be required to
complete a Sending Agency Transfer Form (Attachment C) which
documents any medical, mental health, and suicide risk needs of the
inmate.
B5. The Booking Officer or Designee shall determine (either through
the inmate management system or manual check) whether the inmate
was a medical, mental health or suicide risk during any prior contact
and/or confinement within the agency. Such information shall be
documented on the Intake Screening Form.
B6. The Booking Officer or Designee shall make all appropriate
observations, and ask all questions, as contained on the Intake
Screening Form. All information received shall be entered in the
appropriate spaces of the Intake Screening Form.
B7. Although an inmate’s verbal responses during the intake screening
process are critically important to assessing the risk of suicide, staff
should not exclusively rely on an inmate’s denial that they are suicidal

and/or have a history of mental illness and suicidal behavior,
particularly when their behavior and/or actions or even previous
confinement in the facility suggest otherwise.
B8. Following completion of the Intake Screening Form, the Booking
Officer or Designee shall confer with the Shift Supervisor. The Shift
Supervisor will review the form for accuracy and completeness, and
then confer with medical and/or mental health personnel in determining
the appropriate disposition (i.e., general population, suicide
precautions, hospital, mental health referral, release, etc.). The Intake
Screening Form shall be signed by both the Booking Officer or
Designee and Shift Supervisor.
B9. If identified as a risk for suicide, the inmate shall be immediately
placed on “Suicide Precautions” (see Section E) and the Shift
Supervisor shall immediately contact medical and/or mental health
personnel for further assessment.
B10. The assessment of suicide risk by medical and/or mental health
staff shall include, but not be limited to, the following: description of
the antecedent events and precipitating factors; suicidal indicators;
mental status examination; previous psychiatric and suicide risk
history, level of lethality; current medication and diagnosis; and
recommendations/treatment plan. Findings from the assessment shall
be documented on both the Suicide Risk Assessment (Attachment
D) and health care record.
B11. Although any facility staff may place an inmate on Suicide
Precautions and/or upgrade those precautions, only designated mental
health (or medical) staff may downgrade and discontinue Suicide
Precautions. Medical staff must confer with mental health staff prior
to downgrading or discontinuing suicide precautions.
B12. A completed Intake Screening Form shall be performed on all
inmates prior to assignment to a housing unit, except under the
following circumstances: a) Inmate refuses to comply with process;
b) Inmate is severely intoxicated or otherwise incapacitated; c) Inmate
is violent or otherwise belligerent; or d) Inmate is undergoing a “courtordered” booking and will be immediately released.
B13. For inmates listed in 8:a-c above, the Booking Officer or Designee
shall still complete all non-questionnaire sections of the inmate’s Intake
Screening Form and make a notation on the form regarding why the
inmate was unable to answer the questionnaire section. The Shift
Supervisor shall then make the appropriate Disposition. A continuing,
but reasonable effort shall be made to complete the entire Intake
Screening Form on inmates listed on 8:a-c above at least every two (2)
hours.
B14. Any inmate placed in a housing unit without having been
administered a completed Intake Screening Form shall be placed on
Suicide Precautions until such time as the Form is completed or until
the inmate is released from the facility.
B15. A nursing supervisor staff shall review each completed Intake
Screening Form for accuracy and completeness within 24 hours.
B16. All inmates shall be asked to sign a release of information form
authorizing the disclosure of health records from outside providers.
Medical staff shall make a reasonable effort to obtain records of

—9—

previous medical and mental health treatment, including both in-patient
and out-patient treatment services.
B17. Within 14 days of admission into the facility, all inmates shall
receive post-admission mental health screening by mental health and/
or trained medical staff. The screening shall include inquiry into history
of psychiatric treatment, violent and suicidal behavior, victimization,
learning disabilities, cerebral trauma or seizures, and sex offenses;
and current mental status, psychotropic medication, suicidal ideation,
drug and alcohol use, and orientation to person, place, and time; and
emotional response to incarceration. Inmates with a positive screening
for mental health issues shall be referred to mental health staff for a
full mental health evaluation.

C3. All staff shall use various communication skills with the suicidal
inmate, including active listening, staying with the inmate if they
suspect immediate danger, and maintaining contact through
conversation, eye contact, and body language.
C4. All incidents of suicidal behavior shall be documented on the
Suicide Precautions Observation Sheet, which shall also be utilized
to document all physical cell checks of suicidal inmates (see Section
E).
C5. The Shift Supervisor shall keep a separate daily roster of all inmates
on Suicide Precautions. The roster shall be distributed to appropriate
correctional, medical, and mental health personnel.

B18. Given the strong association between inmate suicide and special
management (e.g., disciplinary and/or administrative segregation)
housing unit placement, any inmate assigned to such a special
housing unit shall receive a written assessment for suicide risk by
mental health and/or medical staff upon admission to the special unit.

C6. The Shift Supervisor shall ensure that appropriate staff are properly
informed of the status of each inmate placed on Suicide Precautions.
The Shift Supervisor shall also be responsible for briefing the incoming
Shift Supervisor regarding the status of all inmates on Suicide
Precautions.

C) Communication

C7. Should an inmate be returned to the facility following temporary
transfer to the hospital or other facility for suicide risk assessment
and/or treatment, the Shift Supervisor shall inquire of medical and/
or mental health officials what further prevention measures, if any,
are recommended for the housing and supervising the returning
inmate.

C1. What an inmate says and how they behave during arrest, transport
to the facility, and at intake are crucial in detecting suicidal behavior.
The scene of arrest is often the most volatile and emotional time for
the individual. Arresting and/or transporting officers shall pay close
attention to the inmate during this time; suicidal behavior may be
manifested by the anxiety or hopelessness of the situation, and
previous behavior can be confirmed by onlookers such as family
members and friends. Any pertinent information regarding the inmate’s
well-being must be communicated by the arresting or transporting
officer to Booking Officer or Designee.
C2. All staff shall maintain awareness, share information and make
appropriate referrals to mental health and medical staff.

UPDATE
ON THE INTERNET
Recent issues of the Jail Suicide/Mental Health Update are
now available on the Internet at:

C8. Authorization for Suicide Precautions, reassessment and any
changes in Suicide Precautions shall be documented on the
Authorization for Suicide Precautions/Reassessment or Change in
Observation Level Form (Attachment E) and distributed to appropriate
staff (including housing unit where inmate is placed, medical and
mental health personnel, shift supervisor, and classification).
C9. Multidisciplinary case management team meetings (to include
facility officials and medical and mental health personnel) shall occur
on a weekly basis to discuss the status of inmates on Suicide
Precautions.
C10. Whenever an inmate is placed on Suicide Precautions, the Shift
Supervisor shall notify classification staff and pertinent information
will be entered into the facility’s inmate management system.

www.ncianet.org/cjjsl.cfm

D) Housing

Check us out on the Web!
www.ncianet.org/cjjsl.cfm

Other jail/juvenile suicide prevention and jail mental health
resources, including several recent articles by Lindsay M.
Hayes, can be found at the following web sites:
www.hhpub.com/journals/crisis/1997
www.nicic.org/jails/defrault.aspx
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/managingoffenders/mentalhealth.htm
www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/jjjnl_2000_4/sui.html
www.pbstandards.org/resources.aspx
www.gainsctr.com

D1. Any inmate placed on Suicide Precautions shall be housed in a
cell that has the most visibility to staff. All cells designated to house
suicidal inmates shall be as suicide-resistant as is reasonably possible,
free of all obvious protrusions, and provide full visibility.
D2. Removal of an inmate’s clothing (excluding belts and shoelaces)
and the use of any physical restraints (e.g., restraint chairs or boards,
leather straps, etc.) shall be avoided whenever possible, and used
only as a last resort when the inmate is physically engaging in selfdestructive behavior. Metal handcuffs shall never be utilized for
restraint.
D3. If the decision is made to remove clothing from a suicidal inmate,
they shall be issued a safety smock or other protective clothing that
is suicide-resistant.
—10—

D4. The Shift Supervisor shall immediately notify medical and/or
mental health personnel when a decision has been made to remove
an inmate’s clothing or to apply any physical restraints.

a)

D5. Regardless of whether restraints are initiated by custody or health
care personnel, the use of any restraints shall include adherence to
the following minimal guidelines:
a) Restraints shall not be used for punitive purposes;
b)Restraints require an order by a qualified health care professional
(physician, nurse practitioner, or physician’s assistant) order;
c) Inmates shall never be restrained in an unnatural position;
d)Restraint equipment must be medically appropriate;
e) Inmates placed in restraints shall be under the constant
observation of correctional staff;
f) Vital signs of inmates placed in restraints shall be assessed every
30 minutes by medical staff;
g)Each restrained limb shall be untied for at least 10 minutes every
two hours to allow for proper circulation;
h)Restrained inmates shall be allowed bathroom privileges as soon
as practical;
i) Restraint orders shall be reviewed by the qualified health care
professional every 2 hours, and must be reduced as quickly
as possible to the level of least restriction necessary to protect
the inmate and others as determined by the qualified health
care professional; and
j) Restraint orders shall be automatically terminated after 12
hours and, if the inmate remains in a highly agitated state
after 12 hours that they cannot be released because of physical
danger to self or others, they shall be transferred to the
hospital.
D6. Unless contraindicated by medical and/or mental health staff,
each inmate on Suicide Precautions shall continue to receive regular
privileges (e.g., showers, telephone, visiting, recreation, etc.)
commensurate with their security level.
D7. Given the strong association between inmate suicide and special
management (e.g., disciplinary and/or administrative segregation)
housing unit placement, medical staff shall make rounds of the
special housing unit at least three (3) times per week and mental
health staff shall make rounds at least once (1) per week. At a
minimum, medical and mental health staff shall visually observe
each inmate confined in the unit (not simply those receiving
medication, requesting services, and/or on a caseload).
Documentation of the rounds shall be made in the housing unit
log, with any significant findings documented in the inmate’s health
care record.
D8. Each housing unit in the facility should contain various
emergency equipment, including a first aid kit; pocket mask, face
shield, or Ambu-bag; and emergency rescue tool (to quickly cut
through fibrous material). The Shift Supervisor staff should ensure
that such equipment is in working order on a daily basis.
E) Levels of Observation
E1. “Suicide Precautions” is defined as an observational status placed
on suicidal inmates requiring increased surveillance and management
by staff. Suicide Precautions shall include two levels of observation:

Close Observation: Reserved for the inmate who is
not actively suicidal, but expresses suicidal ideation
(e.g., expressing a wish to die without a specific threat
or plan) and/or has a recent prior history of selfdestructive behavior. In addition, an inmate who
denies suicidal ideation or does not threaten suicide,
but demonstrates other concerning behavior
(through actions, current circumstances, or recent
history) indicating the potential for self-injury, shall
be placed under close observation. Staff shall
observe the inmate at staggered intervals not to
exceed every 15 minutes (e.g., 5, 10, 7 minutes).

b) Constant Observation: Reserved for the inmate who is
actively suicidal, either threatening or engaging in selfinjurious behavior. Staff shall observe such an inmate
on a continuous, uninterrupted basis and have a clear
non-obstructed view of the inmate at all times.
E2. Other supervision aids, including closed-circuit television
monitoring, use of other inmates, etc., can be used as a supplement
to, but shall never be a substitute for, the physical observation
checks provided by staff.
E3. For each inmate placed on Suicide Precautions, staff shall
document the close observation check as it occurs (but no more
than staggered 15-minute intervals), and the constant observation
check every 15 minutes, on a Suicide Precautions Observation
Sheet (Attachment F).
E4. The Shift Supervisor shall make periodic visits to the housing
units containing inmates on Suicide Precautions to ensure that
Suicide Precautions Observation Sheets are complete and accurate.
E5. Suicidal inmates shall remain on Suicide Precautions until such
time as they are transferred and/or released from the facility, or
removed from the status by medical and/or mental health
personnel.
E6. Medical and/or mental health staff shall assess and interact
with (not just observe) inmates on Suicide Precautions on a daily
basis.
E7. An inmate shall not be downgraded or discharged from Suicide
Precautions until the responsible medical and/or mental health
staff has assessed the inmate, thoroughly reviewed the inmate’s
health care record, as well as conferred with correctional personnel
regarding the inmate’s stability.
E8. An inmate placed on constant observation shall always be
downgraded to close observation for a reasonable period of time
prior to being discharged from Suicide Precautions.
E9. In order to ensure the continuity of care for suicidal inmates,
all inmates discharged from Suicide Precautions shall remain on
the mental health caseload and receive regularly scheduled followup assessment by mental health staff until their release from the
facility. Unless their individual treatment plan directs otherwise,
the reassessment schedule shall be as follows: daily for 5 days,
once a week for 2 weeks, and then once every month until release.

—11—

F) Intervention
F1. All staff who come into contact with inmates shall be trained in
standard first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).
F2. All staff who come into contact with inmates shall participate in
annual “mock drill” training to ensure a prompt emergency response
to all suicide attempts.
F3. All housing units shall contain an emergency response bag that
includes a first aid kit; pocket mask, face shield, or Ambu-bag; latex
gloves; and emergency rescue tool. All staff who come into regular
contact with inmates shall know the location of this emergency
response bag and be trained in its use.
F4. Any staff member who discovers an inmate attempting suicide
shall immediately respond, survey the scene to ensure the emergency
is genuine, alert other staff to call for the facility’s medical personnel,
and bring the emergency response bag to the cell. If the suicide
attempt is life-threatening, Central Control personnel shall be
instructed to immediately notify outside (“911”) Emergency Medical
Services (EMS). The exact nature (e.g., “hanging attempt”) and location
of the emergency shall be communicated to both facility medical staff
and EMS personnel.
F5. Following appropriate notification of the emergency, the First
Responding Officer shall use their professional discretion in regard
to entering the cell without waiting for backup staff to arrive. With no
exceptions, if cell entry is not immediate, it shall occur no later than
four (4) minutes from initial notification of the emergency.
F6. Should the emergency take place within the Special Housing Unit
and require use of the Cell Entry Team, the Team shall be assembled,
equipped and enter the cell as soon as possible, and no later than four
minutes (4) from initial notification of the emergency. Correctional
staff shall never wait for medical personnel to arrive before entering a
cell or before initiating appropriate life-saving measures (e.g., first aid
and CPR).
F7. Upon entering the cell, correctional staff shall never presume that
the victim is dead, rather life-saving measures shall be initiated
immediately. In hanging attempts, the victim shall first be released
from the ligature (using the emergency rescue tool if necessary). Staff
shall assume a neck/spinal cord injury and carefully place the victim
on the floor. Should the victim lack vital signs, CPR shall be initiated
immediately. All life-saving measures shall be continued by
correctional staff until relieved by medical personnel.
F8. The Shift Supervisor shall ensure that both arriving facility medical
staff and EMS personnel have unimpeded access to the scene in
order to provide prompt medical services to, and evacuation of, the
victim.
F9. Although the scene of the emergency shall be preserved as much
as possible, the first priority shall always be to provide immediate lifesaving measures to the victim. Scene preservation shall receive
secondary priority.
F10. An Automated External Defibrillator (AED) shall be located in
the Medical Unit and/or Special Housing Unit. All medical staff, as

well as designated correctional personnel, shall be trained (both initial
and annual instruction) in its use. The Medical Director or Designee
shall will provide direct oversight of AED use and maintenance.
F11. The Medical Director or Designee shall ensure that all equipment
utilized in the response to medical emergencies (e.g., crash cart, oxygen
tank, AED, etc.) is inspected and in proper working order on a daily basis.
F12. All staff and inmates involved in the incident will be offered
critical incident stress debriefing (see Section H).
F13. Although not all suicide attempts require emergency medical
intervention, all suicide attempts shall result in the inmate receiving
immediate intervention and assessment by mental health staff.
G) Reporting/Notification
G1. In the event of a suicide, all appropriate officials shall be notified
through the chain of command.
G2. Following the incident, the victim’s family shall be immediately
notified, as well as appropriate outside authorities.
G3. All staff who came into contact with the victim before the incident
shall be required to submit a statement including their full knowledge
of the inmate and incident.
H) Follow-Up/Mortality Review
H1. Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD) provides affected staff
and inmates an opportunity to process their feelings about the
incident, develop an understanding of critical stress symptoms, and
seek ways of dealing with those symptoms. In the event of a serious
suicide attempt (i.e., requiring medical treatment and/or hospitalization)
or suicide, all affected staff and inmates shall be offered CISD. For
maximum effectiveness, the CISD process and other appropriate
support services shall occur within 24 to 72 hours of the critical incident
(see CISD policy).
H2. Every completed suicide, as well as serious suicide attempt (e.g.,
requiring hospitalization), shall be examined by a multidisciplinary
Mortality Review Team that includes representatives of both line and
management level staff from the corrections, medical and mental health
divisions.
H3. The Mortality Review process shall comprise a critical inquiry of:
a) circumstances surrounding the incident; b) facility procedures
relevant to the incident; c) all relevant training received by involved
staff; d) pertinent medical and mental health services/reports involving
the victim; e) possible precipitating factors leading to the suicide;
and f) recommendations, if any, for changes in policy, training, physical
plant, medical or mental health services, and operational procedures.
The inquiry shall follow the outline described in the Mortality Review
Checklist (Attachment G).
H4. When appropriate, the Mortality Review Team shall develop a
written plan (and timetable) to address areas that require corrective
action. The plan, as well as all written documentation pertaining to
the Mortality Review process, shall be maintained by the Quality
Assurance Coordinator in a locked file cabinet.
‰

—12—

Developed by the NATIONAL CENTER ON INSTITUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
Attachment A

INTAKE SCREENING FORM
Inmate’s Name:

Date of Birth:

Sex:

Date:

Most Serious Charge:

I.D. Number:

Screening Officer:

Time:

Was inmate a medical, mental health or suicide risk during any prior contact and/or confinement within the facility?
Yes___ No___ If Yes, explain:
Does the arresting and/or transporting officer have any information (e.g., from observed behavior, documentation from sending
agency/facility, family member/guardian, etc.) that indicates inmate is a medical, mental health or suicide risk now? Yes___ No___
If Yes, explain:
STAFF OBSERVATION
Yes
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___

No
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___

Yes
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___

Assaultive/Violent Behavior
Loud/Obnoxious Behavior
Any Noticeable Marks/Scars
Bizarre Behavior
Alcohol/Drug Withdrawal
Unusual Suspiciousness
Hearing Voices/Seeing Visions
Observable Pain/Injuries
Other Observable Signs of Depression
Explain:

No
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___

Crying/Tearful
Confused
Uncooperative
Passive
Intoxicated
Scared
Incoherent
Embarrassed
Cooperative

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

MEDICAL HISTORY
Yes
___
___

No
___
___

Are you injured? If Yes, explain:
Are you currently under a physician’s care? If Yes, explain:

___
___

___
___

If female, are you pregnant?
Are you currently taking any medication? If Yes, list type(s), dose(s), and frequency:

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

DO YOU SUFFER FROM ANY OF THE FOLLOWING
Yes
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___

No
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___

Yes
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___

Hepatitis
Shortness of Breath
Abdominal Pain(s)
High Blood Pressure
Tuberculosis
Alcohol Addiction
Epilepsy/Blackouts/Seizures
Other Medical Problems and/or Diseases
Explain:

—13—

No
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___

Heart Disease
Chest Pain(s)
Asthma
Venereal Disease
Diabetes
Drug Addiction
Ulcers
HIV/AIDS (Optional)

SUICIDE RISK ASSESSMENT
Yes
___

No
___

Have you ever attempted suicide? If Yes, When?

Why?
How?

___

___

Have you ever considered suicide? If Yes, When?

Why?

___

___

Are you now or have you ever been treated for mental health or emotional problems? If Yes,
When?
Inpatient:
Outpatient:
Both:

___

___

Have you recently experienced a significant loss (relationship, death of family member/close friend, job, etc.)?
If Yes, explain:

___

___

Has a family member/close friend ever attempted or committed suicide? If Yes, explain:

___

___

Do you feel there is nothing to look forward to in the immediate future (inmate expressing helplessness and/or
hopelessness)? If Yes, explain:

___

___

Are you thinking of hurting and/or killing yourself? If Yes, explain:

Additional Remarks:
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

DISPOSITION
___

General Population

___

Suicide Precautions
1) Supervision Levels:
CLOSE (5-15 Minutes)_____
CONSTANT_____
2) Housing Assignment: Infirmary_________
Mental Health Unit________
3) Other Precautions Taken (restraints, safety smock, bedding, etc., if appropriate)

___

Local Hospital. If inmate is later returned to facility, list any special observation recommendations:

___

Other Disposition/Referral/Transfer:

OTHER_____
Room #__________

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

FAILURE TO ANSWER/REFUSALOFTREATMENT
Inmate refused to answer (circle) or unable to answer (circle and state why) verbal response sections of this form.
I, _______________________________ (print name) refuse any type of medical treatment.
SIGNATURES:

Inmate:

Screening Officer:

Supervisor:
—14—

Developed by the NATIONAL CENTER ON INSTITUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
Attachment B

ARRESTING/TRANSPORTING OFFICER QUESTIONNAIRE
Yes

No

___

___

Does the detainee appear to be under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs?

___

___

Has the detainee made any comments (e.g., “I’m going to kill myself,” “I want to die,” “I have nothing to live for,”
“Everyone would be better off without me around”) or engaged in any behavior that would be cause for concern?
If Yes, explain:

___

___

Has another individual with knowledge of detainee informed you and/or made comments that suggest that detainee
is potentially suicidal and/or has a history of suicidal behavior, has a history of mental illness, has medical problems,
or is under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs? If Yes, explain:

___

___

Does the detainee appear to be overly ashamed, embarrassed, scared, depressed, or exhibiting bizarre behavior? If
Yes, explain:

___

___

Are there any facts or circumstances surrounding the arrest and/or alleged crime that may suggest the detainee is
potentially suicidal? If Yes, explain:

___

___

Do you have any other information that would be helpful to us while the detainee is confined in this facility?
If Yes, explain:

COMPLETED BY:
(Print and Sign)

Agency:

Date:
—15—

Developed by the NATIONAL CENTER ON INSTITUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
Attachment C

SENDING AGENCY TRANSFER FORM
Sending Agency Section
Inmate’s Name:

Date of Birth:

Sex:

Date:

Time:

Was inmate a medical, mental health or suicide risk during any prior contact and/or confinement within your facility?
Yes___ No___ If Yes, explain:

Is the inmate currently taking any medication?
If Yes, list type(s), dose(s), and frequency:

Yes ___

Is the inmate currently receiving mental health services?
If Yes, explain:

No ___

Yes ___

No ___

Is the inmate currently on suicide precautions and/or had a history of suicidal behavior in your facility?
If Yes, explain:

Yes ___

No ___

Additional Information:

SIGNATURE/TITLE (Sending Agency):

DATE:

TIME:

Transporting Officer Section
Do you have any information (e.g., from observed behavior, documentation from sending agency/facility, family member/guardian,
etc.) that indicates inmate is a medical, mental health or suicide risk now?
Yes ___
No ___
If Yes, explain:

SIGNATURE/TITLE (Transporting Officer):

DATE:

TIME:

Receiving Agency Section
Received Medical File, Mental Health File, Court-Order Evaluation, Other (__________________). Circle all that apply.
SIGNATURE/TITLE (Receiving Agency):

DATE:
—16—

TIME:

Developed by the NATIONAL CENTER ON INSTITUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
Attachment D

SUICIDE RISK ASSESSMENT
Inmate’s Name:

I.D. Number:
(Last)

DOB:

Age:

(First)

Sex:

(M.I.)

Initial Assessment:

Suicide Precautions During Prior Confinement:

Reassessment:

Date:

Yes ___ (Most Recent Date;___________) No ___

Reason for Referral/Precipitating Factors:

Suicidal Indicators (Check all that apply):
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰

Suicide Attempt
Depressed
Hostile/Aggressive
Lethargy
Giving Away Possessions
Afraid/Fearful

‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰

Suicide Ideation/Gesture
Agitated
Sleep Problems
Excessive Weight Gain/Loss
Intoxicated
Bizarre Behavior (explain above)

Type of Threat/Attempt: ‰Hanging ‰Cutting
Previous Psychiatric/Suicide History:

‰Jumping

‰Ingestion

‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰

Self-Mutilation
Mood Change
Recent Loss
Withdrawal
Hopeless/Helpless
Other (explain above)

‰Overdose

‰Other

Current Medications:
Assessment of Lethality: Low (1)_______________
Diagnosis:
‰ Schizophrenia
‰ Borderline Personality
‰ Substance Abuse Disorder

Medium (2)_______________

‰ Major Depression
‰ Panic Disorder
‰ Other

High (3)_______________

‰ Generalized Anxiety Disorder
‰ Bi-Polar Disorder

Findings/Recommendations/Treatment Plan:

Actions:

Suicide Precautions Authorized: ‰Yes
‰No
Level:
‰Close (Physical checks at staggered intervals not to exceed every 15 minutes)
‰Constant (Continuous, uninterrupted observation)
‰Other (Specify)
Restraints:
‰Yes
‰No
Safety Smock:
‰Yes
‰No
Items Allowed (Check):
‰Clothing ‰Undergarments ‰Blankets ‰Mattress ‰Pillow
‰Reading Materials ‰Toiletries ‰Other
Housing Assignment:
Transfer Recommendations:
Other Referrals/Recommendations:

Signature/Title:

Time:
(Qualified Mental Health Professional)

—17—

Developed by the NATIONAL CENTER ON INSTITUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
Attachment E

AUTHORIZATION FOR SUICIDE PRECAUTIONS/REASSESSMENT
OR CHANGE IN OBSERVATION LEVEL
Inmate’s Name:

I.D. Number:
(Last)

(First)

(M.I.)

‰

Placed on Close Observation (physical checks at staggered intervals not to exceed every 15 minutes)

‰

Placed on Constant Observation (continuous, uninterrupted)

‰

Transferred from Constant Observation to Close Observation *

‰

Transferred from Close Observation to Constant Observation

‰

Continued on Close Observation

‰

Released from Close Observation*
*May only be authorized following face-to-face consultation with a qualified mental health professional.

Housing Assignment:
Items Allowed (Check):

Restraints:

‰Yes

‰Clothing ‰Undergarments ‰Blankets
‰Reading Materials ‰Toiletries ‰Other

‰No
‰Mattress

Safety Smock:
‰Pillow

Transfer Recommendations:
Other Referrals/Recommendations:

Reason for Observation (Provide Details):

Follow-Up Recommendations:

SIGNATURE/TITLE:

DATE:

TIME:

DATE:

TIME:

(Shift Supervisor)

APPROVED BY (SIGNATURE):
(Qualified Mental Health Professional)
—18—

‰Yes

‰No

Developed by the NATIONAL CENTER ON INSTITUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
Attachment F

SUICIDE PRECAUTIONS OBSERVATION SHEET

Inmate’s Name:

I.D. Number:
(Last)

(First)

Start Date:

(M.I.)

Start Time:

Cell Location:

Suicide Precaution Level:
‰
CLOSE (Physical checks at staggered intervals not to exceed every 15 minutes, e.g., 5, 12, 10 minutes)
‰
CONSTANT (Continuous, uninterrupted observation)
‰
OTHER (Specify)
Restraints:

‰Yes

‰No

Safety Smock:

‰Yes

‰No

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

CODE FOR INMATE BEHAVIOR AND STAFF INTERVENTIONS
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

Self-Injurious Behavior
Assaultive Behavior
Destructive Behavior
Hyperactive
Active

Time

Codes

F.
G.
H.
I.
J.

Quite/Seclusive
Self-Contained Activity
Social Activity/Program
Medication
Toilet/Shower

Staff Name

Time

K.
L.
M.
N.
O.

Codes

SHIFT SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE:

Sleeping
Medical
Mental Health
Eating
Crying
Staff Name

P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
Time

DATE:
—19—

Yelling/Screaming
Telephone Call
Visit
Incoherent
Other_______________
Codes

Staff Name

TIME:

Developed by the NATIONAL CENTER ON INSTITUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
Attachment G

MORTALITY REVIEW CHECKLIST
1)

TRAINING
Š
Had all correctional, medical, and mental health staff involved in the incident received both basic and annual training in the area of suicide
prevention prior to the suicide?
Š
Had all staff who responded to the incident received training (and were currently certified) in standard first aid and cardiopulmonary
resuscitation (CPR) prior to the suicide?

2)

IDENTIFICATION/REFERRAL/ASSESSMENT
Š
Upon this inmate’s initial entry into the facility, were the arresting/transporting officer(s), as well as sending agency (if applicable) asked
whether they believed the inmate was at risk for suicide? If so, what was the response?
Š
Had the inmate been screened for potentially suicidal behavior upon entry into the facility?
Š
Did the screening include inquiry regarding: past suicidal ideation and/or attempts; current ideation, threat, plan; prior mental health treatment/
hospitalization; recent significant loss (job, relationship, death of family member/close friend, etc.); and history of suicidal behavior by family
member/close friend?
Š
If the screening process indicated a potential risk for suicide, was the inmate properly referred to mental health and/or medical personnel?
Š
Did the inmate receive a post-admission mental health screening within 14 days of his/her confinement?
Š
Had the inmate previously been confined in the facility/system? If so, had the inmate been on suicide precautions during a prior confinement
in the facility/system? Was such information available to staff responsible for the current intake and post-admission screenings?

3)

COMMUNICATION
Š
Was there information regarding the inmate’s prior and/or current suicide risk from outside agencies that was not communicated to the
correctional facility?
Š
Was there information regarding the inmate’s prior and/or current suicide risk from correctional, mental health and/or medical personnel that
was not communicated throughout the facility to appropriate personnel?
Š
Did the inmate engage in any type of behavior that might have been indicative of a potential risk of suicide? If so, was this observed behavior
communicated throughout the facility to appropriate personnel?

4)

HOUSING
Š
Where was the inmate housed and why was he/she assigned to this housing unit?
Š
If placed in a “special management” (e.g., disciplinary and/or administrative segregation) housing unit at the time of death, had the inmate
received a written assessment for suicide risk by mental health and/or medical staff upon admission to the special unit?
Š
Was there anything regarding the physical design of the inmate’s cell and/or housing unit that contributed to the suicide (e.g., poor visibility,
protrusions in cell conducive to hanging attempts, etc.)?

5)

LEVELS OF SUPERVISION
Š
What level and frequency of supervision was the inmate under immediate prior to the incident?
Š
Given the inmate’s observed behavior prior to the incident, was the level of supervision adequate?
Š
When was the inmate last physically observed by correctional staff prior to the incident?
Š
Was there any reason to question the accuracy of the last reported observation by correctional staff?
Š
If the inmate was not physically observed within the required time interval prior to the incident, what reason(s) was determined to cause the
delay in supervision?
Š
Was the inmate on a mental health and/or medical caseload? If so, what was the frequency of contact between the inmate and mental health
and/or medical personnel?
Š
When was the inmate last seen by mental health and/or medical personnel?
Š
Was there any reason to question the accuracy of the last reported observation by mental health and/or medical personnel?
Š
If the inmate was not on a mental health and/or medical caseload, should he/she have been?
Š
If the inmate was not on suicide precautions at the time of the incident, should he/she have been?

6)

INTERVENTION
Š
Did the staff member(s) who discovered the inmate follow proper intervention procedures, i.e., surveyed the scene to ensure the emergency was
genuine, called for backup support, ensured that medical personnel were immediately notified, and initiated standard first aid and/or CPR?
Š
Did the inmate’s housing unit contain proper emergency equipment for correctional staff to effectively respond to a suicide attempt, i.e., first
aid kit, gloves, pocket mask, mouth shield, or Ambu bag; and emergency rescue tool?
Š
Were there any delays in either correctional or medical personnel immediately responding to the incident? Were medical personnel properly
notified as to the nature of the emergency and did they respond with appropriate equipment? Was all the medical equipment working properly?

7)

REPORTING
Š
Were all appropriate officials and personnel notified of the incident in a timely manner?
Š
Were other notifications, including the inmate’s family and appropriate outside authorities, made in a timely manner?
Š
Did all staff who came into contact with the inmate prior to the incident submit a report and/or statement as to their full knowledge of the
inmate and incident? Was there any reason to question the accuracy and/or completeness of any report and/or statement?

8)

FOLLOW-UP/MORTALITY REVIEW
Š
Were all affected staff and inmates offered critical incident stress debriefing following the incident?
Š
Were there any other investigations conducted (or that should be authorized) into the incident that may be helpful to the mortality review?
Š
As a result of this mortality review, were there any possible precipitating factors (i.e., circumstances which may have caused the victim to
commit suicide) offered and discussed?
Š
Were there any findings and/or recommendations from previous mortality reviews of inmate suicides that are relevant to this mortality review?
Š
As a result of this mortality review, what recommendations (if any) are necessary for revisions in policy, training, physical plant, medical or
mental health services, and operational procedures to reduce the likelihood of future incidents?

—20—

methamphetamine charges, was also found dead of an apparent
suicide.

SEEKING SOLUTIONS TO
SELF-DESTRUCTION
by
Dana Green

W

hen he heard about the third suicide, Sheriff Dan Walsh felt
a sinking feeling in his stomach. It was December 4, 2004 in
Champaign County, Illinois, a racially mixed community of 186,000
people. 25-year-old Terrell Layfield, in jail for giving officers a
false name during a drug arrest, had hung himself in his cell using
his bed sheet. Walsh, elected county sheriff in 2002, oversees two
jails in Urbana, a growing town 90 miles from Springfield. As many
as 350 prisoners are housed in the separate facilities, with up to 30
prisoners entering its walls each day.
Two inmates had killed themselves earlier in the year — the first in
June, the second in July. One inmate, Joseph Beavers, had managed
to commit suicide only six hours after his intake interview, using a
telephone cord to strangle himself in his booking cell. In six months,
three young men were dead — with little explanation of why.
Only a mile from the Champaign County Jail, on Vine Street in
Urbana, Sandra Ahten read about Layfield’s suicide in the
newspaper with a growing sense of outrage. Ahten, a local artist
and diet counselor, had first-hand experience with incarceration at
the county jail: the year before, her 22-year-old son had been
arrested. Ahten thought about how isolated and scared her son
had been as an inmate, cut off from family and friends. Ahten
began to do research on how many suicides had occurred in Illinois
county jails over the past year. The numbers surprised her.
Throughout the county jail system, there had been eight suicides
in the state of Illinois — and three had been in Champaign County.
“I didn’t know if this was normal,” Ahten said. “There was no
press release...it was just reported as another death. It didn’t look
like there was going to be an investigation.”
Ahten acknowledges that, for her, the deaths were a very personal
matter. “Having had my son in the jail, it is a very real place — it is
part of our community,” Ahten said. “For most people, they just
drive by. Inmates are a forgotten population.”
Closer to home, Ravalli County (Montana) Sheriff Chris Hoffman
is now grimly familiar with the Champaign County sheriff’s
predicament. On February 20, 2004, Mark Daniel Wilson was found
hanging in his cell at the Ravalli County Detention Center in
Hamilton. In September, detention officers found another inmate
strangling himself with his bed sheets, but managed to lower him
to the ground and transport him to the hospital.
Then in March, a sudden string of suicides, one after another,
caught the attention of the community. On March 21, Bradley
Palin, 42, a father of four, hanged himself only a week after being
arrested under suspicion of starting two fires in a rural
neighborhood south of Hamilton. In April, detention officers found
Ryan Heath, a 27-year-old Hamilton High School graduate, dead
in his cell. One month later, Scott Lewis, incarcerated on

At a press conference on May 23, Hoffman expressed frustration
at the string of deaths within his facility. He also pointed out that
Ravalli County was not the only detention center facing a sudden
rash of inmate suicide attempts. Hoffman cited Sheriff Walsh in
Champaign County — he too had to explain to his community
why a handful of young men had died under his watch. Hoffman
promised that the National Institute of Corrections would send an
expert consultant to assess the Ravalli County Detention Center
for weaknesses in their suicide prevention policies.
But Hoffman told the grieving families gathered at the courthouse
press conference that sometimes suicides were in the hands of
only one person — the inmate. “They made choices that ended
them in (jail),” Hoffman said. “We are reactive. They get the chance
to do what they do first.”
For Lindsay Hayes, jail suicides are a difficult problem — but they
are also a preventable one. Literally and figuratively, Hayes has
written the book on jail and prison suicides. A project director for
the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives in Mansfield,
Massachusetts, Hayes has conducted hundreds of jail suicide
assessments across the country for the National Institute of
Corrections. In 1980, he wrote the only national study on suicide
in correctional facilities for the U.S. Department of Justice. Hayes
now serves as editor for the NIC publication — Jail Suicide/
Mental Health Update, a quarterly newsletter.
Inmate suicides are a problem every detention facility — large and
small — must face, according to Hayes. According to the latest
figures from the Justice Department’s Census of Jails, suicide
is the second leading cause of death in the nation’s jails —
second only to illnesses and other natural causes, and far
exceeding death rates from AIDS, drug overdoses and injuries.
However, if natural causes were broken down into separate
illnesses, suicide would be the leading cause of death, Hayes
said. “Every jail is susceptible to suicide — they are
incarcerating people,” said Hayes. But when jails experience a
string of suicides over a short period of time, in Hayes’
experience, there is usually a serious problem. The census
figures agree: Only five percent of jails that reported suicides
had more than one death occur in a one-year period.
When Hayes heard that four suicides have occurred at the 78bed Ravalli County Detention Center, three since March, shock
crept into his voice. “That’s one of the largest ratios of suicides
to number of beds that I’ve seen in 25 years of research (and
consulting),” he said. “There’s something very wrong at that
jail.”
But what is wrong can be fixed, in Hayes’ opinion. After studying
more than 1,500 cases of jail suicide nationwide in his career,
Hayes has outlined eight factors that go into an effective
detention suicide prevention program. Those eight factors
include thorough officer training; careful intake screening;
effective communication between law enforcement and mental
health counselors; a safe environment to put suicidal prisoners;
and rigorous observation techniques; as well as medical

—21—

intervention, reporting and assessment when a suicide attempt
occurs.
These elements should be in place in every correctional institution:
large or small, well-funded or not, according to Hayes. “It doesn’t
have much to do with the size of the jail or the resources available,”
Hayes said. Law enforcement officers can be trained to identify
suicidal signs in prisoners. Inmates can be screened more closely
during the intake process. Communication between officers and
mental health staff can be improved, so that if an arresting officer
sees telltale signs, that information is passed along effectively
down the line to counselors.
It is easy for communication to break down between the numerous
staff members that deal with each inmate, according to Hayes.
“An arresting officer might have heard something on the scene at
the arrest and didn’t pass it along to mental health staff,” Hayes
said. Officers also must learn to recognize the type of inmate most
at risk, Hayes said.
The typical suicide within the jail system is a young, white,
single male, incarcerated for a nonviolent offense. Often, a
suicide will occur within the first 48 hours after a prisoner is
booked. Inmates who successfully commit suicide are often
intoxicated or under the influence of drugs at the time they are
arrested, Hayes said. “The level of intoxication plays a huge
role,” he said. Overwhelmingly — 92 percent, according to
census figures suicide victims die by asphyxiation, using bed
sheets or clothing.
After multiple suicides, local officials at smaller detention facilities
often blame a lack of funding, or say that there’s little they can do
about suicide, according to Hayes. But that’s simply not true, he
said. “If they didn’t have this problem two years ago, they need to
evaluate their program,” he said.
Whether a jail holds 78 beds or 5,000, officials need to make sure
that all eight of those factors are in place — in practice, not just in
an unopened policy manual, according to Hayes. “It’s one thing to
have a policy that looks good on paper, but then it (might) not be
happening in practice,” he said. Most of the program elements cost
little to put into place — changing an intake screening form or training,
for example, can be done with minimal cost, according to Hayes.
In the end, it becomes a matter of priorities. Top elected officials,
from county commissioners to the sheriff, must have zero tolerance
for suicides in their jail if the program is to be successful, says
Hayes. “You don’t have to accept inmate suicides in your jail
system,” Hayes said. “A lot of it has to do with attitude. You can’t
be 100 percent successful. But there are a lot of things a sheriff
can do to prevent a completed suicide in their facility.”
At Orange County Jail, suicide prevention has become a mantra
from elected officials to rookie deputies. The vast jail system,
five facilities known as the Orange County Complex, books an
average of 60,000 prisoners a year. It is the 4th largest jail system
in the state of California and the 13th largest in the nation, holding
about 5,000 inmates each day. Despite its vast size, the jail
system’s low suicide rate reflects a commitment to prevention
at every level.

As of this year, there have been only five successful suicides
in the last decade, according to Kevin Smith, Administrative
Manager for Correctional Mental Health for the Orange County
jails. Smith credits the low suicide rates to a sense of teamwork
between deputies, health care professionals and counselors.
“It’s truly a collaborative team,” Smith said. “I feel that is one
of the key ingredients. There has got to be leadership from the
top down.”
Mental health staff is on-site — if they determine the inmate to
be at risk, preventative steps are implemented. The inmate is
placed in a mental health center, guaranteeing more effective
observation. The jail system has also designed a special smock
so that at-risk prisoners cannot use clothing to strangle
themselves. In addition, each deputy holds a laminated card in
his or her uniform pocket, listing symptoms to look for, Smith
said. The card represents each officer’s commitment to prevent
another suicide on his or her watch, according to Smith. “They
touch that card every time they change their uniform,” Smith
said. “It’s sort of a symbol that pulls the group together.”
In Champaign County, Sandra Ahten had decided that three
suicides were three too many. Ahten began to show up at
county commission meetings. She argued that the jail’s
restrictive visitation and phone call policies were contributing
to the escalating number of suicides. After an initial phone call,
inmates had to pay collect to call outside — often as high as $6
for a 15-minute call, according to Ahten. Visits were also heavily
restricted — the sheriff’s department only allowed 50 visitors
per day, and family members often had to wait hours trying to
get in, according to Ahten. These restrictive policies left family
members unable to detect warning signs of depression,
according to Ahten.
In early March, Sheriff Walsh loosened visitation and phone
call rules, allowing inmates more access to their families. Ahten
and other members of Champaign-Urbana Citizens for Peace
and Justice, a grassroots citizens group, also pushed for a
National Institute of Corrections assessment to be conducted.
The report, released in March, indicated that training for officers
needed to be expanded, and that all inmates should go through
a screening process, conducted by mental health professionals,
within two weeks after intake. The report also recommended
that prisoners at a high level of risk for a suicide attempt be
monitored more closely.
In the wake of community activism, Sheriff Walsh turned to the
Champaign County Board of Commissioners to help fulfill the
report’s goals. The county commissioners were committed to
ending the cycle, according to Walsh.
Since the report came out, the detention center has tripled its
clinical staff, and brought in a part-time in-house psychiatrist.
Officers now do not have to take the security risk, as they did
previously, of bringing prisoners off-site for mental health
evaluations. “The county Board has been very supportive,”
Walsh said. “I said, ‘I know money is tight, but we need to do
this.’” Within his department, the attitude regarding inmate
suicide has also changed significantly, according to Walsh.
“The officers are much more vigilant,” he said. “They’re trying

—22—

to pay attention to even the small details about how an inmate
is acting.”
According to Sheriff Walsh, the changes have relieved a weight
on the shoulders of his team, which includes about 185 full and
part-time officers and support staff. After the third suicide,
depression and anxiety had begun to affect the ranks of his
department, according to Walsh. “From the officers to me, you
know these people,” Walsh said. “(These) are members of the
community – they’re just in a secure environment.” Preventing
suicides in the jail was important to the community — but also
to the morale of detention staff, Walsh found. “We are hoping
that by doing this, it will improve things for inmates — but
also my employees,” Walsh said. “They were under (enormous)
stress.”
When multiple suicides occur, bringing in the NIC to do a jail
assessment is the right first step, according to Hayes. The
National Institute of Corrections, under the auspices of the
Justice Department, offers technical assistance, resources, and
information to state and local correction agencies across the
country. The NIC helps local detention facilities plan for
expansion, provides information on mental health issues among
inmate populations, and conducts operational assessments and
inmate management reviews, said Jim Barbee, a correctional
programs specialist with the NIC’s jails division.
An NIC assessment is scheduled at the Ravalli County Detention
Center this week, and that could help target policy problems, Barbee
said. “Sometimes a set of fresh eyes helps,” Barbee said.
“Sometimes (officials) are so close to the forest they can’t see the
trees.”
But for the Ravalli County Detention Center, a professional
assessment is only the beginning, in Hayes’ view. The NIC
assessment is strictly non-regulatory — a consultant will be sent
in only when requested by local law enforcement officials, and
they have power only to make recommendations, not to enforce
any changes. “This is not an investigation,” Barbee said. “Our
sole purpose is to provide technical assistance and problem
solving.”
Once the assessment is conducted, the community needs to remain
vigilant to be sure elected officials are committed to making
necessary changes, Hayes said. Sheriff’s departments can — and
should — be held responsible for suicides within their facilities,
according to Hayes. “Ultimately, they are responsible for what
goes on within those walls,” he said.
But the community also can play a large role in tackling the root
causes of inmate suicides. In Champaign County, Aaron Ammons,
a CUCPJ co-founder and activist, says that the group’s members
have tried to take a hard look at the bigger social problems facing
their community — of which jail suicides are just one symptom.
Drug use, lack of mental health counseling, suicide rates among
the general population and overzealous prosecutions can all play
a role, Ammons believes. Ammons said that prosecutors in
Champaign County have pursued felony convictions at a rate that
leaves little hope for first-time and nonviolent offenders. Cuts in
mental health funding have also played a role, Ammons added.
—23—

JAIL MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES INITIATIVE
FROM THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS

(JAILS DIVISION)
Nearly 6 to 8 percent of the more than 10 million annual
commitments to jails are individuals with severe mental
illnesses. Many sheriffs and jail administrators view the
challenge of responding to the needs of this population as
one of the major issues in jail management. In response, the
National Institute of Corrections (NIC) has worked
collaboratively with the National Institute of Mental Health
for the past several years, and more recently, with the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration’s Center for Mental Health Services to
increase and improve these services. As a result of these
collaborations, the NIC Jails Division has developed a mental
health initiative for jails.
An important component of the initiative is the offering of
regional workshops conducted in collaboration with state,
regional, and local jurisdictions. The 21-hour regional
workshops will be provided upon request to help small and
medium-sized jails enhance mental health services and
service delivery for inmates. Several jurisdictions in a region
can each send a three-person team consisting of a jail
administrator, a representative of the jail’s community mental
health provider, and the person who coordinates mental
health services for inmates. Each workshop will include:
overview of the problem, planning principles, contract
development, leadership and managing change,
implementation strategies, staffing and cross-training, and
coalition building. The workshops are conducted at the
request of a host agency, which is responsible for furnishing
the training rooms and equipment. The NIC Jails Division
provides two trainers, the curriculum and training materials.
Participants are responsible for their own expenses.
In addition to the workshops, the NIC Jails Division’s mental
health initiative includes the following services:
♦

On-site Technical Assistance: This assistance
usually consists of an assessment of a jail system’s
mental health needs, but also can be targeted at
suicide prevention issues in the jail;

♦

Newsletter: The NIC Jails Division funds the Jail
Suicide/Mental Health Update, a newsletter
which is distributed free of charge on a quarterly
basis;

♦

Information Resources: The NIC Information
Center has compiled a jail mental health information
resource order form that contains 22 items. The
form is available at the mental health workshops
held in Longmont, Colorado and at regional sites.
It can also be obtained by calling the Information
Center at (800) 877-1461.

For more information on the NIC Jails Division’s mental health
initiative, on-site technical assistance, and the mental health
workshops, contact the agency at (800) 995-6429, or visit
their website at: www.nicic.org

Ultimately, the community sets the priorities — and they have the
choice of whether or not to take action. “(The community is) going
to have to stay vigilant,” Ammons said. “The elected officials
are going to think you’ll go away. But officials must know that
the (public) is not going to go away.” Ammons said that his
organization’s efforts to eliminate jail suicides go beyond merely
protests — it is about shaping the kind of community where
everyone is safe and protected, even those who have broken
the law. “They can see we’re not just out here protesting,”
Ammons said. “We want to be part of this process — to help
them do their jobs better.”
For Sheriff Walsh, that job now includes not just locking up
prisoners, but also protecting them. “These people downstairs,
they are almost like my children,” he said. “I have a statutory
duty to take care of them.”
As for Ahten, she has become a tireless advocate for inmate
rights, who has gained the grudging respect of local elected
officials and community leaders in Urbana. Ahten is now
working on a new goal to provide a library service for
Champaign County inmates. Despite the fact that the jail is less
than two blocks from the University of Illinois campus, inmates
do not have access to books, according to Ahten. Her ultimate
goal, Ahten says, is to get the community to see inmates as real
people with problems — not just statistics in the daily
newspaper. A recovering alcoholic, Ahten said she has
compassion for individuals struggling to turn their lives around.
In her view, community resources should go toward tutoring,
job training, drug counseling and recovery — not just adding
beds in the jail. “What I’m hoping to do is get the whole
community thinking about the jail,” she said. “As a community,
we can start to think preventatively. These people are not put
away and never coming back. They are community members.
You can’t pretend they don’t exist.”
In Ravalli County, the families of the inmates who committed
suicide are just starting to ask questions — to try to find out
why. Becky Rickman, Ryan Heath’s maternal grandmother, lives
in Portland. Rickman traveled to the Bitterroot to help her
daughter, Linda Heath, Ryan’s mother, when she heard the news
that Ryan had been arrested for an alleged sexual assault. Trying
to set aside visitation hours for other family members, Rickman
was unable to see Ryan in the two weeks before his death.
Rickman still doesn’t know why — why Ryan was so
despondent, or whether his death could have been prevented.
“I didn’t get in to talk to him at all,” she said. “Somewhere there
was a breakdown in communication.” Ryan was severely
hearing impaired — but Rickman said she still doesn’t know
whether detention guards were aware of that fact. Mostly,
Ryan’s family simply wants answers, Rickman said. “The whole
family feels his death was entirely needless,” Rickman said.
“Right now, all I can say is that there is a great deal of
unanswered questions.”
The above article was written by Dana Green, a staff writer
for the Ravalli Republic in Hamilton, Montana. It appeared
in the June 8, 2005 edition of the newspaper and is reprinted
‰
with the permission of the Ravalli Republic.
—24—

JAIL SUICIDE/MENTAL HEALTH UPDATE

T

his technical update, published quarterly, is part of
the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives
(NCIA)’s continuing efforts to keep state and local
officials, individual correctional staff, mental health/
medical personnel, and interested others aware of
developments in the field of jail suicide prevention and
jail mental health services. Please contact us if you are
not on our mailing list. Readers are encouraged to offer
opinions and/or submit pertinent materials for inclusion
into future issues.
This publication is supported by Cooperative Agreement
Award Number 04J34GJD9 from the National Institute of
Corrections (NIC), U.S. Department of Justice. Points of
view or opinions stated in this document do not
necessarily represent the official position or policies of
the U.S. Department of Justice.
Unless otherwise noted, all articles appearing in this
newsletter are written by Lindsay M. Hayes, Editor/Project
Director.

AVAILABLE JAIL/PRISON/JUVENILE
SUICIDE PREVENTION MATERIALS
And Darkness Closes In...National Study of Jail Suicides
(1981)
National Study of Jail Suicides: Seven Years Later (1988)
Training Curriculum on Suicide Detection and
Prevention in Jails and Lockups—Second Edition
(1995)
Curriculum Transparencies—Second Edition (1995)
Prison Suicide: An Overview and Guide to Prevention (1995)
Juvenile Suicide in Confinement: A National Survey (2004)
Jail Suicide/Mental Health Update (Volumes 1-12)
For more information regarding the availability and cost
of the above publications, contact either:
Lindsay M. Hayes, Editor/Project Director
National Center on Institutions and Alternatives
40 Lantern Lane
Mansfield, Massachusetts 02048
(508) 337-8806 • (508) 337-3083 (fax)
Web Site: www.ncianet.org/cjjsl.cfm
E-Mail: Lhayesta@msn.com
or
NIC Information Center
1860 Industrial Circle, Suite A
Longmont, Colorado 80501
(800) 877-1461 • (303) 682-0558 (fax)
Web Site: www.nicic.org

APPENDIX IX

LEGAL ISSUES
PREA

8/12/2012

NIC: 2012 CHIEF JAIL INSPECTOR’S NETWORK
JULY 18-19, AURORA COLORADO

LEGAL ISSUES IN TODAY’S JAIL

Supervisor Liability



Inmate Communication (Postcards; Publications)



Arrestee Strip Searches (The Supreme Court Has
Ruled)

clsh@comcast.net
612-306-4831



Religious Rights



PREA



Use of Force

AVOIDING DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE
The law does not require “perfection” but
requires that you are not “deliberately
indifferent” to it.
 Do



Presented by
Carrie Hill, esq

@2012 Carrie L. Sandbaken Hill, All Rights Reserved
The information contained herein is to be used solely for training purposes and shall not
be construed as legal advice. Users of these materials should consult legal counsel to
determine how the law of their individual jurisdiction affect the application of these
materials to their individual circumstances. Legal requirements may vary in individual
jurisdictions and may be modified by new rulings.



LEGAL UPDATES: AGENDA

something! Gather the requisite knowledge so
that you are aware and take corrective action if
necessary.

USING AUDITS AND INSPECTIONS TO BEAT
DELIBERATE INDIFFERENT CLAIMS
A jail official or sheriff

“ would not escape liability if the evidence
showed that he merely refused to verify
underlying facts that he strongly suspected
to be true, or declined to confirm inferences
of risk that he strongly suspected to exist.”
Farmer v. Brennen,
114 U.S. 1970, 1982 (1994)

1

8/12/2012



Legal Updates are Critical……
Then…
 You must do something with the knowledge…



STANDARD

THE

 But

Substantial
Risk of
Serious
Harm

Starr v. Baca, Civ No 09-55233 (9th Cir. February
11, 2011)(cert. denied) (remanded)

Conduct
Caused Harm

 Supervisor

OR Sheriff may be personally liable for
damages IF it can be shown that he or she was
deliberately indifferent to the rights of inmates under
their care/control.

Knowledge of
Risk

Disregard
Risk

© 2000 Carrie L. Sandbaken Hill, All rights reserved.

USING AUDITS TO BEAT DELIBERATE
INDIFFERENCE

LEGAL DEFINITIONS=STANDARDS MATTER


First Amendment:



Religious Rights:



Fourth Amendment:



1.

2.

3.
4.

Know the law (federal, circuit, state)
• Create, distribute and train on legal-based guidelines
• Modify policy and procedure accordingly
Create an inside out audit program
• What is the purpose of the audit?
• Change the mindset
• Verify and avoid
Assign Corrective Action Plan
Document All Action Taken, creating a proactive defense

•
•
•

Legitimate governmental interest.
RLUIPA: Compelling Necessities Test
“Reasonableness”
Legitimate Governmental Interest



Eighth Amendment: Conditions of Confinement



Eighth Amendment: Force

•
•

•
•

Deliberate Indifference
Excessive force: Was the force applied in a good faith effort
to maintain and restore order, or maliciously and sadistically
for the very purpose of causing harm.
Reasonableness
6th Circuit: “Objective Reasonableness”
8

7

2

8/12/2012

REPORTS

What five factors set forth by the US Supreme Court against which use of force incidents will be evaluated?

Written contemporaneously with the event;
 Written in First Person


National Sheriffs’
Association F05.02.04 (Version 2009)

 i.e.

Section F: Security & Control

Justification for Use of Force.

“perceived threat” and why you chose the
amount of force that you did.

Rationale. The standard for use of force which applies to law enforcement officers working the streets is the 4 th Amendment’s objective
reasonableness; however, in jails and other correctional facilities, there is a far less demanding test. The standard for us e of force in jails in the
sadistic and malicious test which is based on the 8th Amendment (for convicted prisoners) and the 14th Amendment (for pretrial detainees). The
criteria for evaluating use of force and determining whether the force was reasonable and constitutional or malicious and sadistic was established by
the U.S. Supreme Court in Whitley v. Albers[1] and Hudson v. McMillian.[2] The court discussed five factors which must be used to evaluate the
reasonableness of force. Those factors are those set forth above in the text of this standard.
Compliance.
A.
B.
t
C.

“Use of Force” Report

 Articulating your

Policies and procedures for use of force shall include the following objective criteria for evaluating use of force:
A.
the threat perceived by the responsible officers;
B.
whether in light of the perceived threats it was reasonable to infer force was necessary to resolve the exigency;
C.
what efforts were made by officials to temper the forceful response;
D.
the amount of force used in relation to the need for force; and
E.
whether injuries suffered by the prisoner were clearly of greater severity than the circumstances could plausibly justify.

Compliance with this standard can be achieved by:
adopting and implementing written policies and procedures which include the five factors listed above;
adopting and implementing a format for reporting use of force that requires each of the five factors to be separately addressed in t
the report; and
completion of use of force training for each jail officer that is taught using legal based guidelines as a premise.

Annotation.
1. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321 (1986).
2. Hudson v. McMillian, 112 S.Ct. 995, 999 (1992).

 i.e.

“Incident” Report

 Articulating your

 i.e.

“rationale” for the decisions made

“Search” Report

 Articulating your

“rationale” for the search (4 part test of
Bell and depending on your circuit, whether or not you
needed “reasonable suspicion”)

 Video

Tape Review

HOW DO YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE
 Legal

update training
Constitutional Requirements
State or County Jail Standards
 Legal Based Guidelines

11

3

8/12/2012

FIRST AMENDMENT

FIRST AMENDMENT

First Amendment:
 Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press, or the right of the
people peacefully to assemble, and to petition
the government for a redress of grievances.”



FIRST AMENDMENT: TEST
Turner v. Safley Test
 1. Is there a ‘valid, rational connection’ between
the regulation and the legitimate governmental
interest put forward to justify it?
 2. Are there alternative means of exercising the
basic right that remain available to the inmate?
 3. The impact accommodation of the asserted
right will have on officers and other inmates and
on the allocation of prison resources?
 4. The existence of obvious, easy alternatives”exaggerated response”

U.S. Supreme Court requires lower federal
courts to give deference to the expertise,
judgment, and discretion of corrections
officials.
 Before the courts can assume jurisdiction, they
must consider “4” factors to determine whether
a violation of the First Amendment exists.
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987).
 FACTS:

FIRST AMENDMENT: MAIL DEFINITIONS
MATTER!!!


Personal Mail Definition:




Privileged/Attorney Mail Definition:




All incoming and outgoing mail not from the inmate’s
attorney
All incoming and outing mail from an inmate’s attorney
of record, including their staff.

Misc. Privileged Mail Definition:


Some states consider mail to and from the Attorney
General, Elected Officials, Prosecutors and ACLU as
“privileged.”

4

8/12/2012

POSTCARDS (STILL A HOT TOPIC)

POSTCARDS

Arizona
 Covell v. Arpaio, 662 F. Supp.2d 1146 (D.Ariz. 2009)


DO NOT IMPLEMENT “POSTCARD ONLY” POLCIIES
FOR LEGAL MAIL

Sheriff Arpaio’s mail policy that banned incoming letters and restricted incoming mail to
metered postcards was reasonably related to legitimate governmental interests in reducing
contraband and smuggling

Gibbons v. Arpaio, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83297, 2008 WL 4447003 (D.Ariz. Oct. 2, 2008)
Gambuzza v. Parmenter, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60444, (M.D. Fla. May 28, 2010)
California (Ventura)(Garcia v. Pentis)










plaintiffs argue “…postcard rule is cruel and unusual punishment, subjecting
inmates to unnecessary emotional and psychological distress and a sense of
despair”
State Supreme Court to rule in favor of Jail January 2012



Define “legal/privileged” mail
Define “official or business” mail
Define “personal” mail

HAVE A SEPARATE POLICY ON PUBLICATIONS

Utah (Tucker v. Cache County)
Religious Correspondence? (deeply spiritual matters)
Various Options (3 ½ X 5 1/2; 11 X 5 ½)
Washington (Prison Legal News v. Spokane Washington)
Settled. Only incoming and publications.
Florida, Santa Rosa (Hamilton v. Hall)
Settled. Both postcards and regular mail

PUBLICATIONS

FIRST AMENDMENT: PUBLICATIONS


Overview
Individuals in the “free world” have a First Amendment
right to correspond with inmates.
 However, those rights may be restricted when dealing
with inmates.
 Any restriction(s) on mail of individuals corresponding
with inmates must be “reasonable.”
 “IF” rejected, on an ISSUE by ISSUE basis.
 “IF” rejected:


entitled to notice;
for the rejection;
 and opportunity to challenge to an individual of authority.
(Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989); Montcalm
Publishing v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (CA4 1996))


 reason

19



Reasonableness.

5

8/12/2012

FIRST AMENDMENT: MAIL

FIRST AMENDMENT: PUBLICATIONS

Restricting Publications:
 Notification:

Music Publications:
 Frazier. Ortiz, Civ. No. 10-1133 (Unpub. 10th
Cir. March 28, 2011)

Provide inmate with reason for decision;
Provide the publisher with notice of the rejection and
the specifics for the decision.
 Allow the publisher and/or inmate to object/file a
grievance with an individual of authority.



A

sex offender was denied music publications
thought to be sexually oriented.
 Qualified

immunity (inmate didn’t prove how his First
Amendment rights were violated and he still received
other publications not adverse to his rehabilitation).

 Thornburgh

v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989); Montcalm
Publishing v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (CA4 1996);Martin v. Kelley,
803 F.2d 236 (6th Cir. 1986); Rogers v. Martin, 84 Fed.Appx.
577, 579 (6th Cir. 2003).



FIRST AMENDMENT: PUBLICATIONS

FIRST AMENDMENT: PUBLICATIONS

Kaden v. Slykhuis, Civ. No. 10-2751 (8th Cir. August 25,
2011)









An inmate’s rights may be violated when the facility denied him
from receiving his comic book determined to be “violent”
 Initially believed to be “too violent” (yet, Japanese children
watched this comic strip on television)
LGI exists to prohibit mail containing material that might incite
violence.
 Other publications were allowed that depicted violence
("WWE, Guns and Ammo,Karate, Football Weekly and Boxing)
Case was remanded to determine if a LGI exists or whether the
“violent mail” policy was an exaggerated response.

Van Den Bosch v. Raemisch, Civ. No. 09-4112/101408 (7th Cir. September 15, 2011).


No First Amendment violation when inmates were denied
receiving “The New Abolitionist” (aka “Wisconsin Prison
Watch).
A prison reform newsletter which arguably contains misleading
information, encourages distrust of prison staff and could
undermine the prison’s rehabilitative initiatives.”
 The inmates failed to show that classifying the publication as
“harmful” was unreasonable.


6

8/12/2012

FIRST AMENDMENT: PUBLICATIONS


Prison Legal News


PLN v. Fulton County Settles First Amendment Censorship Suit,
Pays $149,759.21 (only $30,000 was for damages)



PLN v.Berkeley County and Sheriff DeWitt (United States District Court of












Don’t use pornography (can’t define)
Due Process



Daily Bread’s Publication contains staples thereby denying religious access.
Volume is relevant


Jail denies (security; overburdensome, staff intensive…)
Plaintiffs argue no security threat or jail could remove







Obtaining copies of inmates name from internet and sending in mail

FIRST AMENDMENT: PUBLICATIONS


Relying solely on fire safety arguments may not fly.
May still require notice to offender and publisher.



“But prohibiting inmates from receiving mail based on the postage rate at
which the mail was sent is an arbitrary means of achieving the goal of
volume control.”

Bahrampour v. Lamper, 356 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2004)



The “right” of inmates to receive bulk mail was not clearly established law.
However, an outright denial of bulk mail is unconstitutional.

Volume is relevant

Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2005)


Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2001), held that
publishers and prisoners “have a constitutionally protected right to
receive subscription non-profit bulk mail and that a ban on bulk mail
was unconstitutional as applied to such mail.”38
Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2001) Oregon administrative
rule which prohibited inmates from receiving bulk, third and fourth class
mail was unconstitutional as applied to “pre-paid” and “for-profit”
subscription publications (no rational connection between the postage
rate and an increase in contraband)


Don’t use pornography (can’t define)
Due Process

FIRST AMENDMENT: PUBLICATIONS

Your Rationale for rejecting is relevant:


PLN: 7,000 subscribers out of 2.3 million inmates (14 at the
Berkeley County Jail)

Jail refused the acceptance of publications that had staples
 Daily Bread’s Publications contain staples
Jail refused the acceptance of publications which depicted sexual images (activity)


Unsolicited (what to do?)




unrestricted to any and all
religious materials (even if unsolicited) and (even if the
publication has staples) (i.e. Daily Bread; Prison Legal
News…)

Staples (who removes?)


PLN; ACLU; DOJ together

 DOJ argued that there should be

Issues:






PLN; ACLU; DOJ
Refusing the acceptance of publications that have staples
Refusing the acceptance of publications which depict sexual images (activity)




v.Berkeley County and Sheriff DeWitt (United States
District Court of South Carolina-Civil Action No. 2:10-02594-MBS)

Jail barred inmates from receiving non-religious materials







 PLN

South Carolina-Civil Action No. 2:10-02594-MBS)




PERIODICALS: SETTLEMENTS







Banning non-subscription bulk mail and catalogs did not meet the
Turner requirements of being rationally related to legitimate
penological interests (Increase paper accumulation-fire hazards;
increase in contraband in bulk mail vs. 1st or 2nd class mail;
increase in staff time)
If the inmate’s name is on the mail, it should be delivered-absent
a legitimate penological interest. (Relevant-inmate requested the
publication, not the fact that they didn’t pay for it.)
QI was granted for the non-subscription bulk-mail issue because
at the time it was not clearly established law.

“This case was distinguishable from Jones v. North
Carolina’s Prisoners’ Labor Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119 (1977),
in which the Supreme Court upheld a ban on junk mail sent
indiscriminately to all inmates. In Jones the inmates were
permitted to receive mail that was sent to them individually”

7

8/12/2012

FIRST AMENDMENT: PUBLICATIONS


Prison Legal News v Cheshire, District Court of Utah Northern

FIRST AMENDMENT: PUBLICATIONS

Division, June 30th, 2006.
 Jail’s policy of

providing issues of PLN in their law
library met the Turner requirements.



 Length of

stay was relevant (ALOS: 30.5 days-PLN takes 4
weeks to process subscriptions. Even longer term inmates
still had access. No request for PLN was ever denied.
Rather only 3 requests in one year.

Jones v. Salt Lake County, Civ. No. 04-4185 (10th
Cir. September 28, 2007)


 Although

“authorized subscriptions” was not defined, the
policy referred to the “publisher’s only rule” requiring that the
subscription come from the publisher.

 Jail’s policy did

not allow personal publications, but
rather the jail subscribed to @32 different publications
for the inmates to check out.



 PLN was



not part of the 32 but rather part of the law library.
Due Process requirements were met, even if not perfect, as PLN
was offering “samples” of their publications.

FIRST AMENDMENT: PUBLICATIONS


Hrdlicka v. Reniff, Civ. No. 09-15768
January 31, 2011)(cert denied)

(9th

and Crime, Justice & America claimed their First
Amendment rights were violated when CJA, an unsolicited
publication, was denied in two California jails.
 District Court found in favor of Defendants, applying the Turner
test.
Police prohibited the distribution of unsolicited publications
regardless of content or postage rate.

 Ninth

Failure to deliver PLN was a result of human failure not
the prison policy.

FIRST AMENDMENT: PUBLICATIONS

Cir.

 Inmates



Prison policy which rejected bulk mail except “for
authorized subscriptions” did not violate the inmate’s
rights.

Circuit overturned, saying defendants did not have
legitimate governmental reasons for denying the unsolicited
publication (32 counties allow it in). Calif DOC allows it.
 CJA is delivered to jail and put in the common area or if not
accepted, it is delivered directly to the inmate by obtaining a
copy of the inmate roster. 1 periodical per 10 inmates.



Parkhurst v. Lampert, Civ. No. 10-8078 (Unpub.
10th Cir. March 30, 2011)
 Regardless

of content, unsolicited bulk mailings
may be withheld.
 (Rationale:

increase tensions and result in disruptive

behavior)

8

8/12/2012

FIRST AMENDMENT: PUBLICATIONS
Overview:
• Definitions Matter (personal vs. privileged)
• Have a policy regarding notification when
publications are rejected requiring notice,
reason for rejection and opportunity to appeal t
• Consider subscribing to publications
• Review your state laws: are you restricted from
allowing any type of advertisements (bonds
etc….)?
• What is your policy on removing of staples?

ARRESTEE STRIP SEARCHES: IT’S GETTING
EXCITING………


“Arrestee” strip search cases were/are highly
litigated!




Huge monetary awards

The Supreme Court had not addressed this issue
since its decision in Bell v. Wolfish in 1979.
History: Blanket strip search policy for all arrestees is
unconstitutional absent reasonable suspicion to believe
they are carrying drugs, weapons or contraband.
 4 federal court of appeals’ decisions forced the
Supreme Court to finally rule on this issue.

STRIP SEARCH: JUSTIFICATION (HISTORY)






 See

Powell (11th Cir.); Bull (9th Cir.): Florence (3rd Cir.) and
Jimenez (5th Cir.)



General Rule: permitted when reasonable and furthers
a legitimate penological interest
Bell v. Wolfish 441 U.S. 520, 558 (1979)
The Court held that routine strip searching of pretrial
detainees was not a per se violation of the Fourth
Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches
and seizures.
In articulating the balancing test applicable to such
searches, the Court stated: The test of reasonableness
under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise
definition or mechanical application

9

8/12/2012

ARRESTEE STRIP SEARCHES: CONSTITUTIONAL
STANDARDS: BELL TEST


ARRESTEE STRIP SEARCHES: HISTORY

Balance need for the search against the
invasion imposed on the inmate:



 Blanket

strip searches of arrestees are
unconstitutional absent reasonable suspicion to
believe the arrestee is concealing drugs, weapons
or contraband.

 Institution’s need

for the search; against
 How intrusive is the search;
 The manner in which the search is conducted; and
 The place in which the search is to be conducted.


More intrusive the search, the greater the
institution’s need.
 Institution’s need is usually safety and security.


 Prevention

when reasonable and furthers a
legitimate penological interest (safety, security…)

indiction of contraband into the facility

*ARRESTEE STRIP SEARCHES:HISTORY
MOVING INTO GENERAL POPULATION-REASONABLE
SUSPICION NOT REQUIRED

The visual inspection of a disrobed or partially
disrobed subject (no touching)
may even have underwear on;
search of an area for which there exists a
reasonable expectation of privacy (breast ; opening
the blouse; lifting bottom edge of panties and bra)
 Called many things (strip search; clothing exchange,
medical check)



Powell v. Barrett, Civ. No. 05-16734 (11th Cir. September 4,
2008),


 Subject



 Any



Justification:
 Permitted

ARRESTEE STRIP SEARCHES: DEFINITION IS
CRITICAL


Rule:



Sitting en banc, the Eleventh Circuit reversed its prior decisions and
interpretation of Bell v. Wolfish.
Reasonable suspicion is not required before strip searching an
arrestee as part of the booking process and moving them into
general population.

Bull v. City and County of San Francisco, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS
2684 (9th Cir. en banc February 9, 2010)


Reasonable Suspicion is not required prior to moving arrestees into
general housing: The policy is reasonable under the Fourth
Amendment


Amount of Intrusion (Very Intrusive)

Edgerly v. City and County of San Francsco, Civ. No. 05-15080, 05-15382
(9th Cir. March 19, 2010).




One month after the Bull decision, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed prior precedent and
prohibited the routine strip search of such individuals who were not being
introduced into the general housing and jail population.

.

10

8/12/2012

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT RULES
MOVING INTO GENERAL POPULATION-REASONABLE SUSPICION
NOT REQUIRED


Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of
Burlington, (566 U.S. - 2012)




Reasonable suspicion is not required prior to moving arrestees
into general population

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT RULES
Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the
County of Burlington, (566 U.S. - 2012)
 Justice Kennedy delivered the 5/4 opinion


Correctional officials have a legitimate interest, indeed
a responsibility, to ensure that jails are not made less
secure by reason of what new detainees may carry in
on their bodies. Facility personnel, other inmates, and
the new detainee himself or herself may be in danger if
these threats are introduced into the jail population.
 Strip Search defined-imprecise
 The difficulties of operating a detention center must
not be underestimated by the courts. Turner v. Safley,
482 U. S. 78, 84–85 (1987). Jails (in the stricter sense
of the term, excluding prison facilities) admit more than
13 million inmates a year.


The Court relied and upheld on Bell v. Wolfish and Turner v.
Safley.
In a 5-4 decision the Justices justify the strip searching of all arrestees
entering “general population” for the following reasons:
 (1) the prevention of disease, specifically MRS). Of these three, the
potential for smuggling of weapons, drugs, and other contraband poses
the greatest security threat. (2) the identification of gang members by
observing their tattoos, and (3) the detection and deterrence of
smuggling weapons, drugs or other contraband into the facility,





It was a case of first impression for the High Court.
Deference/Substantial Deference to the administrator!!!!!!!

42

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT RULES
Strip Search defined-imprecise


It may refer simply to the instruction to remove
clothing while an officer observes from a
distance of, say, five feet or more; it may mean a
visual inspection from a closer, more
uncomfortable distance; it may include directing
detainees to shake their heads or to run their
hands through their hair to dislodge what might
be hidden there; or it may involve instructions to
raise arms, to display foot insteps, to expose the
back of the ears, to move or spread the
buttocks or genital areas, or to cough in a
squatting position.
43

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT RULES




The difficulties of operating a detention center
must not be underestimated by the courts. Turner
v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 84–85 (1987). Jails (in the
stricter sense of the term, excluding prison
facilities) admit more than 13 million inmates a
year.
Maintaining safety and order at these institutions requires the expertise of correctional officials, who must
have substantial discretion to devise reasonable solutions
to the problems they face. The Court has confirmed the
importance of deference to correctional officials and
explained that a regulation impinging on an inmate’s
constitutional rights must be upheld “if it is reasonably
related to legitimate penological interests.
44

11

8/12/2012

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT RULES

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT RULES

 Jails

are often crowded, unsanitary, and dangerous
places. There is a substantial interest in preventing
any new inmate, either of his own will or as a result
of coercion, from putting all who live or work at
these institutions at even greater risk when he is
admitted to the general population.
 People detained for minor offenses can turn out to
be the most devious and dangerous criminals





Even if people arrested for a minor offense do not
themselves wish to introduce contraband into a jail, they
may be coerced into doing so by others.
If, for example, a person arrested and detained for
unpaid traffic citations is not subject to the same search
as others, this will be well known to other detainees with
jail experience. A hardened criminal or gang member
can, in just a few minutes, approach the person and
coerce him into hiding the fruits of a crime, a weapon, or
some other contraband. Ex- empting people arrested for
minor offenses from a standard search protocol thus
may put them at greater risk and result in more
contraband being brought into the detention facility. This
is a substantial reason not to mandate the exception
petitioner seeks as a matter of constitutional law.

45

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT RULES

46

UNADDRESSED ISSUES IN OPINION IV

It also may be difficult, as a practical matter, to
classify inmates by their current and prior
offenses before the intake search. Jails can be
even more dangerous than prisons because
officials there know so little about the people
they admit at the outset.
 The record provides evidence that the
seriousness of an offense is a poor predictor of
who has contraband and that it would be
difficult in practice to determine whether
individual detainees fall within the proposed
exemption.


47



This case does not require the Court to rule on the
types of searches that would be reasonable in instances
where, for example, a detainee will be held without
assignment to the general jail population and without
substantial contact with other detainee




The accommodations provided in these situations may
diminish the need to conduct some aspects of the searches
at issue.

There also may be legitimate concerns about the
invasiveness of searches that involve the touch- ing of
detainees. These issues are not implicated on the facts
of this case, however, and it is unnecessary to con- sider
them here.

48

12

8/12/2012

CROSS GENDER SEARCHES: NEW IN 2011YOUR DEFINITIONS ARE CRITICAL!!!!!







Byrd v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Department, Civ. No
07-16640 (9th Cir. January 04, 2011)(Final)
Cross Gender Strip Searches of inmates, absent an
exigent circumstance, was ruled unconstitutional by the
9th Circuit.
“If the search conducted were in fact a “pat-down”
search of a partially clothed inmate, we would probably
agree that the search was reasonable. However,
because Byrd was subjected to a cross-gender strip
search while nearly nude, we conclude that the search
was patently unreasonable.”
The dissent is excellent.

AFTER FLORENCE: CARRIE’S “NON-LEGAL” ADVICE
Reasonable Suspicion is not required prior to moving an arrestee into general
population















Define “general population”
Define “strip search” and “pat search”
Verify that you do not have any current statutory language; standards; consent decrees
that restrict you.
 If so, you must have them either amended or changed.
Absent an exigent circumstance, cross gender strip searches are unconstitutional
Do not strip arrestees returning with release orders
There is a difference between a strip search and a “forced clothing removal”
Do not conduct group strip searches
Be ready for issues regarding transsexual, transgendered, intersex arrestees
Pat Searches: females inmates-female officers; male inmates-either male or female
correctional officers
Provide training and testing on search
Draft legal based policies and procedures with rationale statements
Professionalism and Respect for Privacy are Key
Bell v. Wolfish; Turner v. Safley; and Florence vs. Board of Chosen Freeholders are your
key leading Supreme Court decisions regarding search. Use them! Articulate your
rationale!

“ALTERNATIVE IMAGING TECHNOLOGY”
THE STRIP SEARCH ALTERNATIVE?
Being

Used in Federal Facilities; Cook County,
Collier County etc…
Cost(scanner).
Less
Cost

intrusive consistent with Bell v. Wolfish
to buy v. Cost to pay out

(SCAT

Monies: Forfeiture Monies; Leases)

Unresolved

questions about privacy.
One jail: prior to eliminate arrestee strip AND pat
searches with Imaging.






Jail interests: more thorough searches; less “hands
on”; better contraband detection; reducing contraband
potential in housing units
Reducing: No “don’t touch me” fights in booking?

“Manner and Place” Concerns

13

8/12/2012

RELIGIOUS RIGHTS: OVERVIEW


First Amendment:




Free Exercise of Religion; and
Establishment Clauses
Supreme Court Decisions:





Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)
O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (1987)

RLUIPA:



Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of
2000 42 U.S.C. §2000cc-1(a)-(2) (RLUIPA)
Supreme Court Decision



Cutter v. Wilkinson, 44 U.S. 709 (2005)
Sossamon v. Texas, No. 08–1438 (U.S. April 20, 2011)

ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE: ELEMENTS


An action (institutional regulation) is
unconstitutional if:
 it

lacks a secular (non-religious) purpose,
primary effect either advances or inhibits
religion; or
 it fosters an excessive entanglement of government
with religion.
 its

FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE: ELEMENTS
Turner v. Safley Test (Deference Expected)
 1. Is there a ‘valid, rational connection’ between
the regulation and the legitimate governmental
interest put forward to justify it?
 2. Are there alternative means of exercising the
basic right that remain available to the inmate?
 3. The impact accommodation of the asserted
right will have on officers and other inmates and
on the allocation of prison resources?
 4. The existence of obvious, easy alternatives”exaggerated response”

ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE: SECULAR PURPOSE
Lamb v. Arpaio , CV-09-0052 (D. Ariz. 2009)
 Constant and continuous playing of Christmas
music between 9am-7pm in the day room, was
not a violation of the Establishment Clause:

14

8/12/2012

RLUIPA-TEST


“[n]o government shall impose a
substantial burden on the religious
exercise of a person residing in or
confined to an institution” unless the
burden “is in furtherance of a
compelling governmental interest” and
“is the least restrictive means” of
furthering that interest. 42 U.S.C.
§2000cc-1(a).

RLUIPA: TEST





Has the policy substantially burdened the exercise of the
religion? Inmate Proves
If “yes” does the regulation create a substantial burden
on the prisoner’s free exercise of religion, then officials
must have a compelling governmental interest for its
actions. Jail/Prison Proves
If “yes” then the religious practice must be restricted in
the least restrictive means. Jail/Prison Proves



SUPREME COURT
RELIGIOUS RIGHTS: RLUIPA
Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005); 125
S.Ct. 2113 (2005)
 In a unanimous decision by the United States
Supreme Court, Justice Ginsberg delivering the
opinion stated:
 “On its face,”…“the Act [RLUIPA] qualifies as a
permissible legislative accommodation of
religion that is not barred by the Establishment
Clause.”

RLUIPA
Not all regulation of religious activity or
expression triggers the protection of RLUIPA.
 The statutory protections of RLUIPA are
required only if restrictions impose a
substantial burden on a prisoner’s religious
practices.


Use objective criteria; and
Make a genuine effort to consider alternatives.

15

8/12/2012

RLUIPA- SUPREME COURT DECISION


There is no reason to anticipate that abusive
prisoner litigation will overburden state and local
institutions. However, should inmate requests for
religious accommodations become excessive,
impose unjustified burdens on other
institutionalized persons, or jeopardize an
institution's effective functioning, the facility would
be free to resist the imposition. In that event,
adjudication in as-applied challenges would be in
order. Pp. 13-16. Cutter v. Wilkinson, U.S. (2007)

RLUIPA-TEST


1. Has the policy substantially burdened the
exercise of the religion? Inmate must prove.


B. Is the burdened activity “religious exercise,” ?
Religious Exercise defined: “any exercise of religion, whether
or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.”
 No matter what, the inmate does not have to prove that the
“exercise” is “compelled by or central to” their religious
beliefs.




“Although RLUIPA bars inquiry into whether a particular
belief or practice is "central" to a prisoner's religion, the
Act does not preclude inquiry into the sincerity of a
prisoner's professed religiosity” Cutter v. Wilkinson,
544 U.S. 709,, 725 (U.S. 2005).

RLUIPA-TEST


1. Has the policy substantially burdened the
exercise of the religion? Inmate must prove.
 A.

The Supreme Court “assumed” that the religions
in question were bona fide religions.
(Nonmainstream religions involved in Cutter:
Satanist; Wicca; Asatru; and Church of Jesus Christ
Christian)

RLUIPA-TEST


1. Has the policy substantially burdened the
exercise of the religion? Inmate must prove.
A. Is the religion “bona fide?”-Interesting Question
B. Is the burdened activity “religious exercise?”
 C. If so, is the burden “substantial”?



 More

difficult to define
of Belief”?

 “Sincerity


SC explained that a burden on religious exercise is “substantial”
and, therefore, impermissible when it influences an adherent to act
in a way that violates his or her sincerely held religious beliefs.
(Bitner v. Williams; Kosher kitchen example-wearing gloves?)

16

8/12/2012

RLUIPA-TEST



C. If so, is the burden “substantial”?
“Sincerity of Belief”?
SC explained that a burden on religious exercise is “substantial”
and, therefore, impermissible when it influences an adherent to act
in a way that violates his or her sincerely held religious beliefs.
(Kosher kitchen example-wearing gloves?)
 RLUIPA does not permit the assumption that because an adherent
lacks sincerity or “religiosity” with respect to one practice does not
mean that they lack sincerity with respect to other tenants of their
faith. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7)(A)“(providing protection for "any
exercise of religion") (emphasis added); see also Reed v. Faulker,
842 F.2d 960, 963 (7th Cir. 1988 (recognizing "the fact that a
person [who] does not adhere steadfastly to every tenant of his faith"
may still be sincere about participating in some religious practices”.


RLUIPA: TEST
1.
2.

3.

Has the policy substantially burdened the
exercise of the religion? Inmate Proves
If “yes” does the regulation create a substantial
burden on the prisoner’s free exercise of religion,
then officials must have a compelling
governmental interest for its actions. Jail/Prison
Proves
If “yes” then the religious practice must be
restricted in the least restrictive means.
Jail/Prison Proves



CHAPLAINS


Maddox v. Love, Civ. No 10-1139 (7th Cir.
2011)


"Prisons need not provide every religious sect or
group within a prison with identical facilities or
personnel and need not employ chaplains
representing every faith among the inmate
population.

Use objective criteria; and
Make a genuine effort to consider alternatives.

CHAPLAINS


McCollum v. California DOC, 647 F.3d 870 (9th
Cir. 2011)
A

Wiccan chaplain lacked standing to claim that
hiring only chaplains of the five major faith,
Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim and Native
American religions was unconstitutional.

17

8/12/2012

PERIODICALS: SETTLEMENT


JUDAISM: PRIVATE PROVIDERS

PLN v.Berkeley County and Sheriff DeWitt (United
States District Court of South Carolina-Civil Action No.
2:10-02594-MBS)



Florer v. Congregation Pidyon Shevuyim, Civ. No. 07-35866
(9th Cir. April 15, 2011)


 PLN;

ACLU; DOJ together
 DOJ argued that there should be unrestricted to any and all
religious materials (even if unsolicited) and (even if the
publication has staples) (i.e. Daily Bread; Prison Legal News…)


 Jail




PLN: 7,000 subscribers out of 2.3 million inmates (14 at the
Berkeley County Jail)



refused the acceptance of publications that had staples
Daily Bread’s Publications contain staples

 Jail

refused the acceptance of publications which depicted
sexual images (activity)





is relevant

ISLAM/MUSLIMS: NOT OBSERVANT
Hall v. Ekpe, Civ. No. 09-4492 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.
December, 2010)


Officials were successful in denying an inmate participation
in Ramadan as a result of not being an “observant Muslim”.

1) security by reducing unnecessary inmate movement;
(2) economy by minimizing unnecessary expenses associated with
providing Ramadan privileges.
 The prison did not bar the prisoner from observing Ramadan by
fasting and praying on his own, and when he later resumed regularly
attending Friday prayer meetings, he was again allowed to
participate in subsequent formal prison Islamic activities, "including
the post-Ramadan fast of Shawwal."

PIERCINGS


Cortez v. Noll, Civ. No. 09-15690 (Unpub. 9th Cir. August 22, 2010)







Chernetsky v. Nevada, Civ. No. 08-16100 (Unpub. 9th Cir. July 19, 2010)



Tyson v. Guisto, 2009 WL 5184126 (9th Cir. 2009)













No violation of RLUIPA or the First Amendment when Tarot cards were denied in an inmate’s cell for his use
but were allowed during the Chaplin service.

HEADCOVERINGS
Khatib v. County of Orange, et al Civ. No. 08-56423 (9th Cir. March 15, 2011)




Inmate’s claim that his rights under RLUIPA were violated for not being allowed to attend Friday Jum’ah prayers
for a three-year period was allowed to proceed.

Singson v. Norris, 553 F.3d 660(8th Cir. 2009)




Case was remanded to determine whether a “compelling” governmental interest existed in denying an inmate
access to the sweatlodge to practice his Wiccan religion.

TAROT CARDS





Case was remanded to determine whether a “compelling” governmental interest
existed in requiring an inmate to remove his body piercings violated RLUIPA.

SERVICES


Must have attended 3 of the 4 Jumu’ah prayer services.
 Allowed to observed Ramadan and pray on his own.

They articulated legitimate governmental interests.

But the record indicates that Florer had the opportunity to make phone
calls and write letters to contact religious organizations outside the
prison, and that he actually did so. There is nothing in the record that
indicates that Defendants blocked his access to other religious
communities or his ability to request religious materials and information
from other individuals and

RLUIPA: MISC.






“Services will be open to all offenders, however, the Jewish authorities
will determine who can participate in liturgical related activities.”

The 9th Circuit disagreed finding that the private religious
providers were “private parties” and not state actors, and did not
"foster or further" any government policy. They therefore could not
be sued for allegedly violating the prisoner's civil rights.

Don’t use pornography (can’t define)
Due Process

 Volume



Inmates at the Washing DOC sued private religious contractors for
failing to recognize them as “Jewish” therefore denying them the
ability to have access to the Torah, visit from a Rabbi, Jewish
calendar etc…

RLUIPA applies to temporary holding facilities.
The case was remanded to the district court to determine if security concerns justified prohibiting
the plaintiff from wearing her scarf, or hijab.

Sovereign Immunity: Rule of Unequivocal Waiver
Sossamon v. Texas, No. 08–1438 (U.S. April 20, 2011)
RLUIPA does not contain an unambiguous waiver of sovereign immunity,
so it does
not authorize individuals to recover money damages against a state.

18

8/12/2012

MUST YOU PROVIDE A RELIGIOUS DIET? QUICK
OVERVIEW





“No” according to Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112 (5th
Cir. 2007)-cert denied 128 S.Ct. 707 (2007) Fact Specific.
“No” according to Sefeldeen v. Alameida, Civ. No. 05-15809
(9th Cir. June 4, 2007).- Vegetarian meal for Muslim inmates
did not violate the inmate’s rights under the 1st Amendment
or RLUIPA. In this case, the inmate did not initially argue that
the vegetarian meal violated his religious beliefs but rather
that the meal was nutritionally inadequate. He had a failure
to exhaust issue under RLUIPA because he didn’t initially
raise the religious dietary argument at the administrative
level.
“Maybe” according to Shakur v. Schriro, Civ. No. 05-16705
(9th Cir. January 23, 2008). - This case was remanded to
determine whether a compelling governmental interest
existed in not providing a kosher meal to Muslim inmates
which was already being provided to Jewish inmates.

MUST YOU PROVIDE A RELIGIOUS DIET? QUICK
OVERVIEW

MUST YOU PROVIDE A RELIGIOUS DIET? QUICK
OVERVIEW






MUST YOU PROVIDE A RELIGIOUS DIET? QUICK
OVERVIEW










“Yes” according to Fegans v. Norris, Civ. No. 06-3473 (8th Cir. August
11, 2008) Failure to provide a Kosher diet to a follower of the
Assemblies of Yahweh was a violation of RLUIPA.
“Maybe” according to Walker v. DOC, Civ. No. 06-1839 (8th Cir.
August 27, 2008)(unpublished) Case was remanded to determine
whether denying inmate his “daily” kosher meals (“Hebrew Israelite)
was the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling
governmental interest. QI
“Maybe” according to Wofford v Williams, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis
63946 (D.Or., 2008). Argument that all 7th Day Adventists will want a
kosher meal, cost too high, is not persuasive to the court.
“No” according to Linehan v, Crosby, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63738
(N.D. Fl., 2008) Providing a 7th Day Adventist a vegan/vegetarian
diet instead of a kosher diet-OK. Cost of providing kosher diets for
Florida DOC, too costly (CGI). No kosher meals were provided.

“Maybe” according to Pratt v. Corrections Corporation of
America, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 4977 (8th Cir.)-Cause of
action may exist for failing to provide a Halal diet.
“Yes” according to Hudson v. Dennehy, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis
16672 (D. Mass.)-Failing to provide a Halal diet for Muslim
prisoners created a substantial burden as other religious
diets were provided.
“Yes” according to Koger v. Bryan, 523 F.3d 789 ( Cir.
2008)-Failing to provide a non-meat diet for an inmate who
was initially a Baptist, then a Buddhist, then a member of
the Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO) a group associated with
Thelema, violated his rights under RLUIPA.

Yes-Nelson v. Miller, Civ. No. 08-2044 (7th Cir. July 1, 2009),
Failing to provide a religious diet and meat free meals to a
strict catholic (monk).




No-Miles v. Aramark, Civ. No. 07-33622 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.
2009), Aramark “substantially performed” its obligations to
provide kosher meals.




Remanded to determine if CCI existed

Inmate received 23 out of 25 meals.

No-Daly v. Davis, Civ. No. 08-2046 (unpub. 7th Cir. 2009),
District court upheld suspension of inmate’s kosher meals
when he was found buying and eating non-kosher food on 3
different occasions.


The rules were not a substantial burden.

19

8/12/2012

MUST YOU PROVIDE A RELIGIOUS DIET? QUICK
OVERVIEW



No-Jones v. Shabazz, 352 Fed. Appx. 910 (5th Cir. 2009,
Unpublished; Not precedential)
Yes then No-Festivus: Orange County, CA








Bona Fide Religion?
Sincerity
If the Judge can’t figure it out….how are we?

No violation for two week delay in providing the kosher meal. Validating
the sincerity of the inmate’s belief justified the delay.
Cold and meals lacking “variety” also did not violate the inmate’s rights.

Yes-Vinning-El v. Evans, Civ. No 10-1681 (7th Cir. September 16,
2011)


Morrish Science Temple asked for a vegan diet. Chaplain denied it
saying the religion allows for members to eat a variety of fish and meat.
Remanded. It is not the Chaplain’s interpretation of the faith that is
relevant but the sincerity “espoused” by the inmate.

MUST YOU PROVIDE A RELIGIOUS DIET? QUICK
OVERVIEW




Yes-Tapp v. Proto, Civ. No. 10-3-59 (3rd Cir. Dec. 13, 2010)




MUST YOU PROVIDE A RELIGIOUS DIET? QUICK
OVERVIEW

N0-Yaacov v. Collins, 649 F.Supp.2d 679
(N.D.Ohio 2009).
 The

district court granted the defendants’ motion
for summary judgment, finding that the decision to
restrict Kosher meals to prisoners registered as
Orthodox Jews had a reasonable relationship to the
legitimate penological interest of cost control for
budgetary reasons.

NO-Gardner v. Riska, 444 Fed. Appx. 353 (11th Cir. 2011).
There was no evidence that a state prisoner sincerely
believed that a Kosher diet was important to free exercise of
his religion, as required to establish a prima facie case
under RLUIPA, since the prisoner neither stated that he
sincerely believed a Kosher diet was important to free
exercise of his religion nor refuted prison records of the
prisoner's purchases of numerous non-Kosher items from
the prison canteen. Canteen operators' statements showed
that they sold the prisoner non-Kosher items, that they
heated many of those items for the prisoner, and witnessed
him consuming non-Kosher items. The court noted that the
canteen carried Kosher items.

MUST YOU PROVIDE A RELIGIOUS DIET? QUICK
OVERVIEW


NO-Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir.
2009).


Isolated acts of negligence, in which prison officials
failed to approve the state prisoner's requests for
religious accommodations in a timely fashion, did not
amount to a violation of the prisoner's right to free
exercise of religion.
 (failed

to approve a request for fried foods (until after the
holiday); failed to provide two sack lunch accommodations for
religious fasting (until after the holiday); improper cleaning of
kosher utensils and non-kosher utensils.


Not a custom, policy or practice. The omissions were seen as
individual violations and not a custom, policy or practice. No intent
to deliberately contaminate the kosher utensils.

20

8/12/2012

RLUIPA: RELIGIOUS DIETS


Fairly Safe Guide to Providing a Religious Diet:
 Assuming

it is a Bona Fide Religion;
 Assuming Sincerity of Belief Is Not In Question;
 Absent a safety and security reason (compelling
governmental reason), err on the side of the diet.
 Encourage the

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
Sovereign Immunity: Rule of Unequivocal Waiver
 Sossamon v. Texas, No. 08–1438 (U.S. April
20, 2011)
 RLUIPA

does not contain an unambiguous waiver of
sovereign immunity, so it does not authorize
individuals to recover money damages against a
state.

use of a contract and commissary

monitoring

DOJ PRESS RELEASE ON PREA: MAY 17, 2012
The Justice Department today released a final rule
to prevent, detect and respond to sexual abuse in
confinement facilities, in accordance with the
Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA). This
landmark rule sets national standards for four
categories of facilities:
adult prisons and jails,
lockups,
 community confinement facilities and
 juvenile facilities.



@2012 Carrie L. Sandbaken Hill, All Rights Reserved
The information contained herein is to be used solely for training purposes
and shall not be construed as legal advice. Users of these materials should
consult legal counsel to determine how the law of their individual
jurisdiction affect the application of these materials to their individual
circumstances. Legal requirements may vary in individual jurisdictions and
may be modified by new rulings.

Today’s rule is the first-ever federal effort to set
standards aimed at protecting inmates in all such
84
facilities at the federal, state and local levels.

21

8/12/2012

PREA:

PREA: FINAL STANDARDS RELEASED

The statute directs the Attorney General to publish
a final rule adopting “national standards for the
detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment
of prison rape . . . 42 U.S.C. 15607(a)(1)-(2).
 However, the standards may not “impose
substantial additional costs compared to the costs
presently expended by Federal, State, and local
prison authorities.” 42 U.S.C. 15607(a)(3).





 The

Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, §42 U.S.C
15601

Published: June 20th, 2012
 Effective Date: August 20th, 2012
 “Compliance” Date: August, 20th 2013
 1st Set of Audits (1/3rd): August 20th 2014
 All Facilities Audited: August 20th 2016


85

PREA: EFFECTIVE DATE


 42

 60

The success of the PREA standards in combating
sexual abuse in confinement facilities will depend
on effective agency and facility leadership, and the
development of an agency culture that prioritizes
efforts to combat sexual abuse.
 Effective leadership and culture cannot, of course,
be directly mandated by rule. Yet implementation
of the standards will help foster a change in
culture by institutionalizing policies and practices
that bring these concerns to the fore.


Facilities-Immediate

USC 15607(b)

Days after registered.

 Registered:
 Official:

4

PREA: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: LEADERSHIP

Effective Date:
 Federal

DOJ standards released on May 17th, 2012

June 20th, 2012
August 20th, 2012

4

88

22

8/12/2012

PREA: EXECUTIVE REPORTINCREASE IN INCIDENTS MEANS ???






An increase in incidents reported to facility
administrators might reflect increased abuse, or it might
just reflect inmates’ increased willingness to report
abuse, due to the facility’s success at assuring inmates
that reporting will yield positive outcomes and not result
in retaliation.
Likewise, an increase in substantiated incidents could
mean either that a facility is failing to protect inmates, or
else simply that it has improved its effectiveness at
investigating allegations.
For these reasons, the standards generally aim to
inculcate policies and procedures that will reduce and
ameliorate bad outcomes, recognizing that one possible
consequence of improved performance is that evidence
of more incidents will come to light.
89

CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT (DIFFERENT
FROM PREA)




“Prison conditions may be “restrictive and even
harsh,” Rhodes, supra, at 347, but gratuitously
allowing the beating or rape of one prisoner by
another serves no “legitimate penological
objectiv[e],” Hudson v. Palmer at 548.
“Being violently assaulted in prison is simply
not “part of the penalty that criminal offenders
pay for their offenses against society.” Rhodes
at 347. Farmer v. Brennen.

PREA: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BEST PRACTICES VS. CONSTITUTIONAL






The standards are not intended to define the contours of
constitutionally required conditions of confinement. Accordingly,
compliance with the standards does not establish a safe harbor with
regard to otherwise constitutionally deficient conditions involving
inmate sexual abuse.
Furthermore, while the standards aim to include a variety of best
practices, they do not incorporate every promising avenue of
combating sexual abuse, due to the need to adopt national
standards applicable to a wide range of facilities, while taking costs
into consideration.
The standards consist of policies and practices that are attainable
by all affected agencies, recognizing that agencies can, and some
currently do, exceed the standards in a variety of ways. The
Department applauds such efforts, encourages agencies to adopt or
continue best practices that exceed the standards, and intends to
support further the identification and adoption of innovative methods
to protect inmates from harm.
90

CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT: TEST
8th Amendment protects against cruel & unusual
punishment.
 Conditions violate the 8th Amendment if:
 1.

The prisoner suffered “sufficiently serious
harm” (deprived of an essential human need); and
 2. Correctional officials were “deliberately
indifferent” to the rights, health or safety of the
prisoner.

23

8/12/2012

THE

STANDARD

FARMER: THE OBJECTIVE TEST
Substantial
Risk of
Serious
Harm

Conduct
Caused Harm

Knowledge of
Risk

Disregard
Risk

Prisoner suffered serious harm or substantial risk of
serious harm
 “…a prisoner can establish exposure to a sufficiently
serious risk of harm ‘by showing that he belongs to an
identifiable group of prisoners who are frequently
singled out for violent attack by other inmates’.
 If, for example, prison officials were aware that inmate
“rape was so common and uncontrolled that some
potential victims dared not sleep [but] instead . . . would
leave their beds and spend the night clinging to the bars
nearest the guards’ station.” Farmer citing Hutto v.
Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 681-682n. 4 (1978)

© 2000 Carrie L. Sandbaken Hill, All rights reserved.

FARMER: THE SUBJECTIVE TEST

FARMER: THE SUBJECTIVE TEST

“The second requirement follows from the
principle that “only the unnecessary and
wanton infliction of pain” implicates the Eighth
Amendment.” Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294
(1991)
 In prison conditions cases that state of mind is
one of “deliberate indifference” to inmate
health or safety. Wilson





Had knowledge of a substantial risk of harm
 Knew

or drew inference of need
or drew inference that actions or inactions
would consciously disregard need
 Knowledge is a “Question of Fact”
 Circumstantial evidence is relevant
 Current conduct and attitude affects availability of
Prospective Relief
 Knew

24

8/12/2012

FARMER: THE SUBJECTIVE TEST


PREA: TO WHOM DOES THE ACT APPLY TO?
The standards contained in this final rule apply
to facilities operated by, or on behalf of, State
and local governments and the Department of
Justice.
 Definition of “prison” as “any confinement
facility of a Federal, State, or local government,
whether administered by such government or
by a private organization on behalf of such
government.” 42 U.S.C. 15609

Knowingly or recklessly disregarded the
substantial risk by failing to take reasonable
measures to abate the risk



Aware

of risk from the facts, and
the inference that risk existed and
Action or inaction caused the harm
Drew

98

PREA: TO WHOM DOES THE ACT APPLY TO?

PREA: APPLIES TO ALL JAILS

YES-It



applies to

Jails

99

The final standard also extends to all jails
(rather than, as in the proposed standards, only
those jails whose rated capacity exceeds 500
inmates)

100

25

8/12/2012

PREA: ENFORCEMENT FOR STATE


WHO IS COMPELLED TO COMPLY?

Governor of any State who does not certify full
compliance with the standards is subject to the loss of
5% of Federal Funding of any DOJ





Grant funds otherwise received for prison purposes
Unless Governor submits an assurance that the 5% will be
use for purposes of enabling the state to achieve and certify
full compliance with the standards in future years.
The final rule specifies that the Governor’s certification
applies to all facilities in the State under the operational
control of the State’s executive branch, including facilities
operated by private entities on behalf of the State’s
executive branch. In addition, any correctional
accreditation organization that seeks Federal grants must
adopt accreditation standards regarding sexual abuse that
are consistent with the national standards in this final rule.
42 U.S.C. 15608.



Feds only have the ability to impose financial
penalties on states for non-compliance of state
controlled facilities.



County and local jurisdictions don’t offer that
same opportunity for Feds to impose such
penalties

101

COMPLIANCE


State facilities


Includes facilities contracting with state



Potentially includes all adult, juvenile and communitybased facilities “under the operational control of the
state



This includes private contractors



Inmates housed in another state

PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE


Governor must certify compliance of facilities
under the operational control of state



5% penalty imposed



Demonstrate such dollars are going toward
compliance



No equivalent penalty for local jurisdictions

26

8/12/2012

PREA: ENFORCEMENT FOR JAILS


PREA is not Mandatory for Jails
 It



COMPLIANCE


is VOLUNTARY

There are no Penalties for the Jail


Jails
 County

operational control

Potential “Consequences”
 Potential for

Increased Liability in the event of a §1983
action
 Potential the Court will find “lack of compliance” with the
PREA standards as “Indifference” Knew-and were
indifferent
 If you house “State” inmates, the State could either
require the jails to comply with PREA or loose the
potential to hold STATE inmates. Loss of $$$$$$$$$$



Police Lockups
 Local

jurisdictional control

105

COMPLIANCE

PREA: DEFINITIONS-INMATE




Juvenile facilities


Typically under state control

 Applies



to private contractors

Community-based facilities



“Inmate” as “any person incarcerated or detained in any
facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or
adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or
the terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial
release, or diversionary program.” 42 U.S.C. 15609(2).
this language does not necessitate the adoption of
standards to govern probation, parole, pretrial release,
or diversionary programs. To be sure, former inmates
may report to a parole officer sexual abuse that
occurred while they were in a confinement facility.
However, former inmates—unlike current inmates—
generally possess ample ability to report abuse through
the same channels as any other person living in the
community.
108

27

8/12/2012

PREA: INTENT


PREA: SEXUAL ABUSE DEFINITION

INTENT of the PREA Standards:

Sexual abuse includes—
(1) Sexual abuse of an inmate, detainee, or
resident by another inmate, detainee, or
resident; and
 (2) Sexual abuse of an inmate, detainee, or
resident by a staff member, contractor, or
volunteer.


 PREVENT



 DETECT
 RESPOND

to sexual abuse

109

PREA: SEXUAL ABUSE BY INMATE








110

PREA: SEXUAL ABUSE BY STAFF ….

Sexual abuse of an inmate, detainee, or resident by another
inmate, detainee, or resident includes any of the following
acts, if the victim does not consent, is coerced into such act
by overt or implied threats of violence, or is unable to
consent or refuse:
(1) Contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis
and the anus, including penetration, however slight;
(2) Contact between the mouth and the penis, vulva, or
anus;
(3) Penetration of the anal or genital opening of another
person, however slight, by a hand, finger, object, or other
instrument; and
(4) Any other intentional touching, either directly or through
the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh,
or the buttocks of another person, excluding contact
incidental to a physical altercation.
111



Sexual abuse of an inmate, detainee, or resident by a
staff member, contractor, or volunteer includes any of
the following acts, with or without consent of the inmate,
detainee, or resident: (1) Contact between the penis and
the vulva or the penis and the anus, including
penetration, however slight; (2) Contact between the
mouth and the penis, vulva, or anus; (3) Contact
between the mouth and any body part where the staff
member, contractor, or volunteer has the intent to
abuse, arouse, or gratify sexual desire; (4) Penetration
of the anal or genital opening, however slight, by a hand,
finger, object, or other instrument, that is unrelated to
official duties or where the staff member, contractor, or
volunteer has the intent to abuse, arouse, or gratify
sexual desire;.
112

28

8/12/2012

PREA: SEXUAL ABUSE BY STAFF ….


PREA: SEXUAL ABUSE BY STAFF ….

(5) Any other intentional contact, either directly or
through the clothing, of or with the genitalia, anus,
groin, breast, inner thigh, or the buttocks, that is
unrelated to official duties or where the staff
member, contractor, or volunteer has the intent to
abuse, arouse, or gratify sexual desire; (6) Any
attempt, threat, or request by a staff member,
contractor, or volunteer to engage in the activities
described in paragraphs (1)-(5) of this section; (7)
Any display by a staff member, contractor, or
volunteer of his or her uncovered genitalia,
buttocks, or breast in the presence of an inmate,
detainee, or resident, and (8) Voyeurism by a staff
member, contractor, or volunteer.
113



(8) Voyeurism by a staff member, contractor, or
volunteer.
 Voyeurism

by a staff member, contractor, or
volunteer means an invasion of privacy of an
inmate…by staff for reasons unrelated to official
duties, such as peering at an inmate who is using a
toilet in his or her cell to perform bodily functions;
requiring an inmate to expose his or her buttocks,
genitals, or breasts; or taking images of all or part
of an inmate’s naked body or of an inmate
performing bodily functions.
114

PREA: SEXUAL HARASSMENT

PREVENT

Sexual harassment includes—
 (1) Repeated and unwelcome sexual advances,
requests for sexual favors, or verbal comments,
gestures, or actions of a derogatory or offensive
sexual nature by one inmate, detainee, or resident
directed toward another; and
 (2) Repeated verbal comments or gestures of a
sexual nature to an inmate, detainee, or resident
by a staff member, contractor, or volunteer,
including demeaning references to gender,
sexually suggestive or derogatory comments about
body or clothing, or obscene language or gestures.





115














Develop and maintain a zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse;
Designate a PREA point person to coordinate compliance efforts;
Screen inmates for risk of being sexually abused or sexually abusive, and use
screening information to inform housing, bed, work, education and program
assignments;
Develop and document a staffing plan that provides for adequate levels of staffing
and, where applicable, video monitoring; Train employees on their responsibilities in
preventing, recognizing and responding to sexual abuse;
Perform background checks on prospective employees and not hire abusers; Prevent
juveniles from being housed with adult inmates or having unsupervised contact with
adult inmates in common spaces
Ban cross-gender pat-down searches of female inmates in prisons and jails and of
both male and female residents of juvenile facilities;
Incorporate unique vulnerabilities of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and
gender nonconforming inmates into training and screening protocols
Enable inmates to shower, perform bodily functions and change clothing without
improper viewing by staff of the opposite gender
Restrict the use of solitary confinement as a means of protecting vulnerable
inmates; and
Enter into or renew contracts only with outside entities that agree to comply with the
standards.
116

29

8/12/2012

PREA: DEFINITIONS-PREA COORDINATOR VS.
PREA COMPLIANCE MANAGER

PREA: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
POINT PERSON




To ensure that preventing sexual abuse
receives appropriate attention, the standards
require that each agency and facility designate
a PREA point person with sufficient time and
authority to coordinate compliance efforts..

Coordinator:






Compliance Manager


 (a)

An agency shall have a written policy mandating
zero tolerance toward all forms of sexual abuse and
sexual harassment and outlining the agency’s
approach to preventing, detecting, and responding
to such conduct.

Not a full time position
“sufficient time and authority” to perform the required
responsibilities
Must have access to Leadership at a high level to be set by the
agency and the ability to exercise change.





Where an agency has multiple facilities, a “point person” must be
designated.
The final standard also requires that any agency that operates
more than one facility (regardless of agency size) designate a
PREA compliance manager at each facility with sufficient time
and authority to coordinate the facility’s efforts to comply with the
PREA standards.
Does not need to be an upper management position of authority
as the PREA Coordinator must be.


Guide Implemetation

117

PREA: SCREENING


118

PREA: USE OF SCREENING INFO

§ 115.41 Screening for risk of victimization and
abusiveness. (a) All inmates shall be assessed
during an intake screening and upon transfer to
another facility for their risk of being sexually
abused by other inmates or sexually abusive
toward other inmates. (b) Intake screening shall
ordinarily take place within 72 hours of arrival
at the facility. (c) Such assessments shall be
conducted using an objective screening
instrument.
119






(a) The agency shall use information from the risk screening
required by § 115.41 to inform housing, bed, work,
education, and program assignments with the goal of
keeping separate those inmates at high risk of being sexually
victimized from those at high risk of being sexually abusive.
(b) The agency shall make individualized determinations
about how to ensure the safety of each inmate.
(c) In deciding whether to assign a transgender or intersex
inmate to a facility for male or female inmates, and in
making other housing and programming assignments, the
agency shall consider on a case-by-case basis whether a
placement would ensure the inmate’s health and safety, and
whether the placement would present management or
security problems.
120

30

8/12/2012

PREA: USE OF SCREENING INFO






PREA: PROTECTIVE CUSTODY

(d) Placement and programming assignments for each
transgender or intersex inmate shall be reassessed at least
twice each year to review any threats to safety experienced
by the inmate.
(e) A transgender or intersex inmate’s own views with
respect to his or her own safety shall be given serious
consideration.
(f) Transgender and intersex inmates shall be given the
opportunity to shower separately from other inmates. (g) The
agency shall not place lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or
intersex inmates in dedicated facilities, units, or wings solely
on the basis of such identification or status, unless such
placement is in a dedicated facility, unit, or wing established
in connection with a consent decree, legal settlement, or
legal judgment for the purpose of protecting such inmates.
121

PREA: PROTECTIVE CUSTODY




(a) Inmates at high risk for sexual victimization shall not
be placed in involuntary segregated housing unless an
assessment of all available alternatives has been made,
and a determination has been made that there is no
available alternative means of separation from likely
abusers. If a facility cannot conduct such an
assessment immediately, the facility may hold the
inmate in involuntary segregated housing for less than
24 hours while completing the assessment. (b) Inmates
placed in segregated housing for this purpose shall have
access to programs, privileges, education, and work
opportunities to the extent possible. If the facility
restricts access to programs, privileges, education, or
work opportunities, the facility shall document: (1) The
opportunities that have been limited; (2) The duration of
the limitation; and (3) The reasons for such limitations 122

PREA: SUPERVISION AND MONITORING

(c) The facility shall assign such inmates to
involuntary segregated housing only until an
alternative means of separation from likely
abusers can be arranged, and such an assignment
shall not ordinarily exceed a period of 30 days. (d)
If an involuntary segregated housing assignment is
made pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section,
the facility shall clearly document: (1) The basis for
the facility’s concern for the inmate’s safety; and
(2) The reason why no alternative means of
separation can be arranged. (e) Every 30 days, the
facility shall afford each such inmate a review to
determine whether there is a continuing need for
separation from the general population.
123



The final standard requires each prison, jail,
and juvenile facility to develop and document
a staffing plan that provides for adequate
levels of staffing, and, where applicable,
video monitoring, to protect inmates against
sexual abuse.

124

31

8/12/2012

PREA: CAMERAS






PREA: CAMERAS CONTINUED…..

The facility is in the best position not only to determine the need for
such technology but also to determine how and where to place
cameras. The Department recognizes that technology is best
utilized to supplement, but not replace, staff supervision.
Camera surveillance is a powerful deterrent and a useful tool in postincident investigations. But it cannot substitute for more direct forms
of staff supervision (in part because blind spots are inevitable even
in facilities with comprehensive video monitoring), and cannot
replace the interactions between inmates or residents and staff that
may prove valuable at identifying or preventing abuse.
In addition, cameras generally do not translate into a reduction of
staff levels—additional staff may be required to properly monitor the
new cameras. Indeed, many cameras in correctional facilities are
currently not continuously monitored. While the Department
encourages increased use of video monitoring technology to
supplement sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response
efforts, the agency is in the best position to determine if current or
future funds are best directed at increasing the agency’s use of
technology.



115.15 requires that all facilities implement
policies and procedures that enable inmates to
shower, perform bodily functions, and change
clothing without nonmedical staff of the
opposite gender viewing their breasts,
buttocks, or genitalia, except in the case of
emergency (now reworded as “exigent
circumstances”) or when such viewing is
incidental to routine cell checks.

125

PREA: CAMERAS CONTINUED…..


126

PREA: STAFFING LEVELS

Such policies and procedures shall require
staff of the opposite gender to announce their
presence when entering an inmate housing
unit (for jails and prisons) or an area where
detainees or residents are likely to be
showering, performing bodily functions, or
changing clothing. Accordingly, no staff should
monitor a camera that is likely to view inmates
of the opposite gender while they are
showering, performing bodily functions, or
changing clothing.
127



Staffing Levels:
 In

calculating adequate staffing levels and
determining the need for video monitoring, facilities
must consider several factors, including: (1)
generally accepted detention and correctional
practices; (2) any judicial findings of inadequacy;
(3) any findings of inadequacy from Federal
investigative agencies; (4) any findings of
inadequacy from internal or external oversight
bodies; (5) all components of the facility’s physical
plant (including “blind spots” or areas where staff
or inmates may be isolated);

128

32

8/12/2012

PREA: STAFFING LEVELS


PREA: STAFFING LEVELS CONTINUED….

Staffing Levels:
 (6)

the composition of the inmate population; (7)
the number and placement of supervisory staff; (8)
institution programs occurring on a particular shift;
(9) any applicable State or local laws, regulations,
or standards; (10) the prevalence of substantiated
and unsubstantiated incidents of sexual abuse; and
(11) any other relevant factors. Prisons and jails
must use “best efforts to comply with the staffing
plan on a regular basis” and are required to
document and justify deviations from the staffing
plan.

Given the intricacies involved in formulating an
adequate staffing plan, the Department does not
include specific staffing ratios for adult facilities in
the final standard.
 The final determination as to adequate staffing
levels remains in the discretion of the facility or
agency administration. In addition, the facility is
encouraged to reassess its staffing plan as often
as necessary to account for changes in the
facility’s demographics or needs.


129

PREA: NOT INTENDED TO MEET
CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS


130

PREA: STAFFING LEVELS CONTINUED….

The Department reiterates, however, that this
standard, like all the standards, is not intended
to serve as a constitutional safe harbor. A
facility that makes its best efforts to comply
with the staffing plan is not necessarily in
compliance with constitutional requirements,
even if the staffing shortfall is due to budgetary
factors beyond its control.

131






With regard to the cost of staffing, the Department
notes that the Constitution requires that correctional
facilities provide inmates with reasonable safety and
security from violence, see Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 832 (1994), and sufficient staff supervision is
essential to that requirement.
“best efforts to comply on a regular basis” (best
practices vs. constitutional”
the final standard requires that, at least annually, the
agency must assess, determine, and document whether
adjustments are needed to the staffing plan, but does
not require implementation of such adjustments.
132

33

8/12/2012

PREA: UNANNOUNCED SUPERVISORY ROUNDS


the requirement of unannounced supervisory rounds to
identify and deter staff sexual abuse and sexual
harassment.





PREA: DEFINITIONS-YOUTHFUL INMATES


How often determined by agency
Intermediate level or higher-level supervisors conduct and
document unannounced rounds.

In order to address concerns that some staff members
might prevent such rounds from being “unannounced”
by providing surreptitious warnings, the final standard
adds a requirement that agencies have a policy to
prohibit staff members from alerting their colleagues
that such supervisory rounds are occurring, unless such
announcement is related to the legitimate operational
functions of the facility.



133

PREA: YOUTHFUL INMATES


Sections 115.14 and 115.114 regulate the
placement of persons under the age of 18 in adult
prisons, jails, and lockups. The final rule refers to
under-18 persons in such facilities as “youthful
inmates” (in adult prisons and jails)
standard that restricts, but does not forbid, the
placement of juveniles in adult facilities. The standard
applies only to persons under the age of 18 who are
under adult court supervision and incarcerated or
detained in a prison, jail, or lockup. Such persons are,
for the purposes of this standard, referred to as
“youthful inmates” (or, in lockups, “youthful
detainees”).
134

PREA: YOUTHFUL INMATES

The standard imposes three requirements for
juveniles placed in adult prisons or jails.
 First:
 it mandates that no youthful inmate may
be placed in a housing unit in which he or
she will have contact with any adult inmate
through use of a shared day room or other
common space, shower area, or sleeping
quarters.
135



Second:
 it requires that, outside of housing units,
agencies either maintain “sight and sound
separation” between youthful inmates and
adult inmates—i.e., prevent adult inmates
from seeing or communicating with youth—or
provide direct staff supervision when
youthful inmates and adult inmates are
together.
136

34

8/12/2012

PREA: YOUTHFUL INMATES


PREA: YOUTHFUL INMATES

Third:
 it requires that agencies make their best
efforts to avoid placing youthful inmates in
isolation to comply with this provision and
that, absent exigent circumstances, agencies
comply with this standard in a manner that
affords youthful inmates daily large-muscle
exercise and any legally required special
education services, and provides access to
other programs and work opportunities to
the extent possible.



restricts the placement of youth in adult
facilities to the extent that such placement
would bring youth into unsupervised contact
with adults.

137

138

PREA: SEARCHES

PREA: SEARCHES

DEFINITIONS MATTER:
 PAT SEARCH
 STRIP SEARCH
 EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES



139

Pat-down search:
 means a running of the hands over the
clothed body of an inmate, detainee, or
resident by an employee to determine
whether the individual possesses
contraband.

140

35

8/12/2012

PREA: SEARCHES


PREA: SEARCHES

Pat Searches:
 ban on

cross-gender pat- down searches of female
inmates in adult prisons and jails and in community
confinement facilities, absent exigent
circumstances.



“EXIGENT”
 Exigent

circumstances means any set of temporary
and unforeseen circumstances that require
immediate action in order to combat a threat to the
security or institutional order of a facility.

 To

facilitate compliance, most facilities will have three
years to comply. Recognizing that this requirement may
be more difficult for smaller facilities to implement,
facilities with a rated capacity of less than 50 inmates
are provided five years in which to implement the ban.
 The final standard also clarified that women’s access to
programming or out-of-cell opportunities should not be
restricted to comply with this provision.
 In addition, the final standard requires facilities to
document all cross-gender searches of female inmates.141

PREA: STRIP SEARCH


142

PREA: STRIP SEARCHES

Strip search:
 means a search that requires a person to
remove or arrange some or all clothing so as
to permit a visual inspection of the person’s
breasts, buttocks, or genitalia.

143



Cross Gender Strip Searches:
The final standard retains the general rule against
cross-gender strip searches and body cavity searches
and clarifies that “body cavity searches” means
searches of the anal or genital opening.
 The exception for medical practitioners has been
retained; the emergency exception has been replaced
with an exception for “exigent circumstances” to be
consistent with similar changes from “emergency” to
“exigent” throughout the final standards.


144

36

8/12/2012

PREA: SHOWERING


PREA: GENDER NONCONFORMING

(d) The facility shall implement policies and
procedures that enable inmates to shower,
perform bodily functions, and change clothing
without nonmedical staff of the opposite gender
viewing their breasts, buttocks, or genitalia, except
in exigent circumstances or when such viewing is
incidental to routine cell checks. Such policies
and procedures shall require staff of the opposite
gender to announce their presence when entering
an inmate housing unit.



Gender nonconforming.
 The

term is defined to mean “a person whose
appearance or manner does not conform to
traditional societal gender expectations.”

145

PREA: INTERSEX


146

PREA: TRANSGENDER

Intersex.



 “a

person whose sexual or reproductive anatomy or
chromosomal pattern does not seem to fit typical
definitions of male or female.”
 The definition also notes that “[i]ntersex medical
conditions are sometimes referred to as disorders
of sex development.”

147

Transgender.
 “a person whose gender identity (i.e.,
internal sense of feeling male or female) is
different from the person’s assigned sex at
birth”—reflects the suggestions of numerous
advocacy commenters.

148

37

8/12/2012

PREA: TRAINING

PREA: SEARCHING TRANSGENDER/INTERSEX






(e) The facility shall not search or physically examine a
transgender or intersex inmate for the sole purpose of
determining the inmate’s genital status.
If the inmate’s genital status is unknown, it may be
determined during conversations with the inmate, by
reviewing medical records, or, if necessary, by learning
that information as part of a broader medical
examination conducted in private by a medical
practitioner.
(f) The agency shall train security staff in how to
conduct cross-gender pat-down searches, and searches
of transgender and intersex inmates, in a professional
and respectful manner, and in the least intrusive
manner possible, consistent with security needs.





All current employees who have not received such
training shall be trained within one year of the effective
date of the PREA standards, and the agency shall
provide each employee with refresher training every two
years to ensure that all employees know the agency’s
current sexual abuse and sexual harassment policies
and procedures.
In years in which an employee does not receive
refresher training, the agency shall provide refresher
information on current sexual abuse and sexual
harassment policies.

149

PREA: INMATE EDUCATION

DETECT








150

Make inmates aware of facility policies and inform them
of how to report sexual abuse;
Provide multiple channels for inmates to report sexual
abuse, including by contacting an outside entity, and
allow inmates to report abuse anonymously upon
request;
Provide a method for staff and other third parties to
report abuse on behalf of an inmate;
Develop policies to prevent and detect any retaliation
against those who report sexual abuse or cooperate
with investigations; and
Ensure effective communication about facility policies
and how to report sexual abuse with inmates with
disabilities and inmates who are limited English
proficient;

151

(a)

(b)

(c)

During the intake process, inmates shall receive information
explaining the agency’s zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual
abuse and sexual harassment and how to report incidents or
suspicions of sexual abuse or sexual harassment.
(b) Within 30 days of intake, the agency shall provide
comprehensive education to inmates either in person or through
video regarding their rights to be free from sexual abuse and sexual
harassment and to be free from retaliation for reporting such
incidents, and regarding agency policies and procedures for
responding to such incidents.
(c) Current inmates who have not received such education shall be
educated within one year of the effective date of the PREA
standards, and shall receive education upon transfer to a different
facility to the extent that the policies and procedures of the
inmate’s new facility differ from those of the previous facility.

152

38

8/12/2012

RESPOND












PREA: AUDITS

Provide timely and appropriate medical and mental health care to
victims of sexual abuse;
Where available, provide access to victim advocates from rape crisis
centers for emotional support services related to sexual abuse;
Establish an evidence protocol to preserve evidence following an
incident and offer victims no-cost access to forensic medical
examinations;
Investigate all allegations of sexual abuse promptly and thoroughly,
and deem allegations substantiated if supported by a preponderance
of the evidence;
Discipline staff and inmate assailants appropriately, with termination
as the presumptive disciplinary sanction for staff who commit sexual
abuse;
Allow inmates a full and fair opportunity to file grievances regarding
sexual abuse so as to preserve their ability to seek judicial redress
after exhausting administrative remedies; and
Maintain records of incidents of abuse and use those records to
inform future prevention planning.
153

AUDITS/AUDIT INSTRUMENT/AUDITORS



Audits Every Three (3) Years to Ensure Compliance with the
PREA Standards







Commence three years, plus one year plus 60 days (August 20,
2016)
Within first year and 60 days that at least 1/3rd of the agency is
audited. (August 20, 2014)

Recommended tool by DOJ to assist in the auditing component
Auditors must be certified by DOJ
(c) For each PREA standard, the auditor shall determine
whether the audited facility reaches one of the following
findings: Exceeds Standard (substantially exceeds requirement
of standard); Meets Standard (substantial compliance;
complies in all material ways with the standard for the relevant
review period); Does Not Meet Standard (requires corrective
action). The audit summary shall indicate, among other things,
the number of provisions the facility has achieved at each
grade level.
154

PREA OVERVIEW



Audits begin August 2013



No audit tool has yet been developed



Acquire a thorough understanding of standards



Look back period of documentation is 1 year



Review of existing policies and procedures



Know available resources



PREA Resource Center
* Department or facility




Auditor certification / training
Jails not obligated to engage with any particular
audit organization or auditor



Candidates* for compliance and audit need to:

39

8/12/2012

PREA: DEFNITIONS “FULL COMPLIANCE”


PREA: GOVERNOR

The final rule defines “full compliance” as
“compliance with all material requirements of
each standard except for de minimis violations,
or discrete and temporary violations during
otherwise sustained periods of compliance.”

157

ELECTRONIC RESOURCES


PREA:



Executive Summary







Presidential Memorandum






www.ojp.usdoj.gov/programs/pdfs/prea_executive_summar
y.pdf.

Regulatory Impact Assessment (costs and benefits of
the rule)


DUTY TO PROTECT REMAINS

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/programs/pdfs/prea_final_rule.pdf.



State Compliance § 115.501 State determination
and certification of full compliance. (a) In
determining pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 15607(c)(2)
whether the State is in full compliance with the
PREA standards, the Governor shall consider the
results of the most recent agency audits.
 (b) The Governor’s certification shall apply to all
facilities in the State under the operational control
of the State’s executive branch, including facilities
operated by private entities on behalf of the
State’s executive branch.
158


The Eighth Amendment’s Prohibition against
Cruel and Unusual Punishment remains.
 Deliberate

Indifference Test

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/programs/pdfs/prea_ria.pdf.
www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2012/05/17/presidential-memorandumimplementing-prison-rape-elimination-act.

National Center for the Elimination of Prison Rape


www.prearesourcecenter.org.
159

160

40

8/12/2012

THE

STANDARD
Substantial
Risk of
Serious
Harm

Conduct
Caused Harm

Knowledge of
Risk

RESOURCES


Supplementary Information preceding rules



Copy of PREA Standards



Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA)
 www.ojp.usdog.gov/programs/pdfs/prea_ria.pdf

Disregard
Risk



Tool kit for Jails

© 2000 Carrie L. Sandbaken Hill, All rights reserved.

PROJECT ON ADDRESSING PRISON RAPE
WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF LAW

RESOURCES----LINKS


www.prearesourcecenter.org



www.prearesourcecenter.org/about/contactus



http://nicic.gov/



Brenda V. Smith
 bvsmith@wcl.american.edu



Jamie Yarussi
 jyarussi@wcl.american.edu

41

8/12/2012

USE OF FORCE: RESPONSE TO RESISTANCE
Presented by
Carrie Hill, esq.
clsh@comcast.net
612-306-4831
@2012 Carrie L. Sandbaken Hill, All Rights Reserved
The information contained herein is to be used solely for training purposes and shall not be
construed as legal advice. Users of these materials should consult legal counsel to
determine how the law of their individual jurisdiction affect the application of these materials
to their individual circumstances. Legal requirements may vary in individual jurisdictions and
may be modified by new rulings.

USE OF FORCE: STREET

USE OF FORCE: JAIL/PRISON




Leading Authority: Objective Reasonableness
 Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
 Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
 Brower v. County of Invo, 489 U.S. 593
(1989)
 Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001)

Leading Authorities: (Malicious and Sadistic)
 Whitley v.

Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986)
McMillian, 112 S.Ct. 995 (1992)
 Wilkins v. Gaddy, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 1036
 Hudson v.



Exception in 6th Circuit ONLY


Aldini v. Johnson, Civ. No. 09-3183 (6th Cir., June 29th, 2010)
 The 6th Circuit ruled that the Fourth Amendment, not the Fourteenth,
protects pre-trial detainees arrested without a warrant through the
completion of this probable-cause hearing.
 The objective reasonableness test would apply. (The Fourth
Amendment's standard only permits an officer to use reasonable force to
protect himself from a reasonable threat)

42

8/12/2012

USE OF FORCE: JAIL/PRISON
•

Whitley set the standard for use-of-force scenarios
which involve “exigent circumstances”
•
•

•

“Maliciously or sadistically for the very purpose of
causing harm”.
“Deliberate Indifference” is not the test.

Hudson is a use-of-force case which did not involve
a need to restore order. It set the standard for all
other use-of-force scenarios by establishing a fivepart test.

USE OF FORCE: HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN


All Other Use of Force Scenarios:
 Precedent: Hudson v. McMillian, 112 S.Ct.
995 (1992)
 The extent of the injury is “one” of the factors
considered in determining whether the force
was necessary and wanton.
 The use of excessive force against a prisoner
may constitute cruel and unusual
punishment even though the inmate does
not suffer serious injury.

USE OF FORCE: WHITLEY V. ALBERS


Exigent Circumstances:
Precedent:

Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S.
312 (1986)
Issue: Whether force was applied in a
good faith effort to maintain or restore
discipline or maliciously and sadistically
for the very purpose of causing harm?

USE OF FORCE: HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN
Key Factors in determining whether excessive force
(malicious and sadistic) was used?
 1. Threat perceived by a reasonable officer.
 2. Need for Use of Force
 3. Amount of Force used in relation to the need
for force
 4. Effort(s)made to temper forceful response
 5. Extent of the Injury
A. Exigent circumstances: one factor to be considered
in determining whether the use of force was wanton
and unnecessary.
 B. All other use of force scenarios- serious injury is not
a requirement.


43

8/12/2012

USE OF FORCE


USE OF FORCE: MISC. CASES

Wilkins v. Gaddy, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 1036
 Reaffirmed



LA Heat Ray Gun to subdue violent inmates and curb side incidents.



Council v. Sutton, 2010 WL 476708 (11th Cir. 2010)



 Once the threat has abated, must stop. Use of a Taser and Beanbag
rounds to subdue a compliant inmate.
Forrest v. Prine, Civ. No. 09-3471 (7th Cir. August 31, 2010)
 The use of a Taser was “a reasonable, good faith effort to maintain or
restore discipline within the jail,”



Nasseri v. City of Athens, Civ. 09-11473 (unpub. 11th Cir. 2010)



Hudson v. McMillian.

 The

extent of the injury is one factor to be considered.
 The justification for the amount of force used in relation
to the need for the use of force is controlling.
 The “nature” of the force
 ”Injury and force, however, are only imperfectly
correlated, and it is the latter that ultimately counts”





Currently a “cease and desist” on it until there is further evaluation.

An arrestee’s allegation that he was sprayed with pepper spray in the
booking area of the jail and then later transported back in the patrol car,
and not allowed to decontaminate stated a viable claim.

Browne v. San Francisco Sheriff’s Dept., 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 40515
(N.D. Cal.)


Claim by an inmate that an officer used excessive force by placing a
lethal venomous white tipped spider in his cell was not substantiated.

Carrie L. Hill, Esq.
Carrie Hill Criminal Justice Consulting LLC
Maple Grove, MN 55311
(612) 306-4831
clsh@comcast.net
@2012 Carrie L.Hill, All Rights Reserved
The information contained herein is to be used solely for training purposes and shall
not be construed as legal advice. Users of these materials should consult legal
counsel to determine how the law of their individual jurisdiction affect the application
of these materials to their individual circumstances. Legal requirements may vary in
individual jurisdictions and may be modified by new rulings.

LEGAL UPDATES: CHIEF JAIL INSPECTORS
NETWORK
2012
34

44

APPENDIX X

MARKETING/SURVIVAL
STRATEGIES

8/12/2012

Once upon a time in a land far,
far, away…..there lived a
happy jail inspector who had
no problems……

Surviving in Hard
Times: Marketing the
Jail Inspection
Process
Chief Inspectors Network Meeting
Aurora, Colorado
July 18-19, 2012

What saved us?
 Support from Sheriff’s and Jail Administrators

What do you mean
we are going to be
eliminated?

 Data related to:






Cost of Jail Standards Program vs. Counties doing it
on their own
Litigation compared to other states
Inmate Complaints
Cost of replicating services related to:
 Training
 Consulting
 Technical

Assistance

1

8/12/2012

Marketing your Services
 Support from:








Nebraska Sheriff’s Association
Nebraska Association of County Officials
Nebraska Insurance & Risk Management
Association
Nebraska County Attorneys Association
ACLU
Federal Prosecutor for the State of Nebraska

We have what you want!

You have what we want!

Product
Price
Promotion
Place

Consumer
Cost
Communication
Convenience

 Effective Marketing of our Program!
 Local Ownership of the Program!

Product

Price

Jail Standards Organization

Consumer (Jail, County or City,
Insurance Group, Inmates,
Community)

Jail Standards Organization

Consumer (Jail, County or
City, Insurance Group,
Inmates, Community)

Product
 Expertise & Information
 Liability Protection
 Programming and Needs
Assessment Assistance
 Technical Assistance
 Training
 Education
 Confidence
 Flexibility

Consumer
 Compliance
 Support
 Trust
 Investment in the program

Price
We provide value through:
 Reduced Liability
 Shared Expertise
 Shared Human Resources
 Shared Capitol Resources

Cost
They gain value through:
 Passing inspections
 Reduced Insurance Rates
 Improved facilities
 Improved operations
 Reduced costs for
Attorney’s
 Reduced legal action

2

8/12/2012

Promotion

Place

Jail Standards Organization

Consumer (Jail, County or
City, Insurance Group,
Inmates, Community)

Jail Standards Organization

Consumer (Jail, County or City,
Insurance Group, Inmates,
Community)

Promotion
 Advertising
 Public relations
 Personal selling
 Conferences
 Be Available
 Support other
Organizations

Communication
 Evaluate Everything!
 Information from exit
interviews
 Local needs information
 Regular Contact with the
decision makers

Place
 We can come to you
 We can use technology
 You can come to us
 We can all get together

Convenience
 Ease of buying
 Ease of finding product
 Ease of finding information
 Jails don’t have to do it all
alone

Basic Marketing Questions
1. What is our goal as a jail inspection agency?
2. Who are our core customers? Allies? Opponents?
3. What are the needs of our customers? Allies?

Opponents?

4. What financial and physical resources do we have to

utilize? Who else wants those resources?

5. What products or services can we provide or develop

to meet the needs of our customers?

 How can we prepare the customers to use the products

and services we offer?

 What barriers do we face?
 How can we distribute products and services to our target

markets?

 What are we doing that would constitute advertising?

public relations? good customer service?

 How does marketing our product well enhance the role of

our organization in the system?

3

8/12/2012

Survival Strategies

Know your Consumer
 Who are your consumers

Know what they NEED!
 How do you gather information on what

your consumers need?








Asking
Task Analysis
Needs Assessment
Evaluations
Listening
Going to their events
Inmate complaints

Be Innovative
 Look for new technologies you can use to

improve the system





Management Systems
Security Systems
Better Mattresses
Give them information and show them new things

4

8/12/2012

Its not about what you can
make people do. Its about
what you can make them want
to do.

Create Value!
 Save people money!



 What do you do to EMPOWER:







The people who work in your jails
The people who run your jails
The people who pay for your jails
The people who are in your jails




Build Relationships
 Know people everywhere!








Legislators
Agency and Organizational Leaders
Sheriffs and Administrators
Officers
Attorneys
Ombudsman folks
ACLU

On Construction
On Litigation
On Attorneys
On Staffing
On?????

Educate and Foster Learning
 Raise the Expectations
 Provide opportunities for learning






Conferences
On line training
Specialty Trainings
Film and Book Library
Clearing house on Technology and Contacts

 Be an example

 Be Trusted!

5

8/12/2012

Provide Leadership and BE A
GOOD PERSON!

Know Your Stuff!
 What knowledge, skills and abilities are most important

 In your groups decide:





What 5 Personal Characteristics are most important
in defining leadership?
Display them daily!
Make sure your staff are on board!

in making you successful?

 Make sure you have these
 Make sure your staff have these

 Know why you do things

Be on the lookout!

Benefits

 There will always be someone else who

 Ultimately what we want to have the

wants the resources you have been
given.

ability to do is influence people when
change is needed. We want to have:







Produced results
Been reliable
Been helpful
Been trustworthy
Helped people do their job better
Improved the system

6

8/12/2012

Costs of Failing to Market
 Irrelevance
 Extinction

7