INSIDE

• • •

• Sentencing
Creative Punishment
Alternatives

p. I

• Maryland Jails
New Strategies to Stop jail
Expansion

p. I I

Carl B. Cleme~ts. an expert on
prisoner c1assifrtation, examines
offender nee@assessment in this
issue beginning on page I.
NUMBER 18, WINTER 1989

ISSN 0748·2655

Sentencing: Guidelines and
Planning Services Foster Wider
Use of Alternatives
Russ Immarigeon
Good sentences resemble good inventions. Like Edison's light bulb, they
should be simple and widely usable.
-judith Greene
Sentencing Programs Director
Vera Institute of justice

What we require is not so much distinctive responses to unusual cases but a
policy of more imaginative sentencing.
-Andrew von Hirsch
Professor of Criminal justice
Rutgers University!

If one wants to develop a fair, just and
effective sentencing system, one must
put more money and more intelligence
into nonincarcerative punishments.
-Norval Morris
Professor of Law and
Criminology
Univer$,ity of Chicag0 2

Russ Immarigeon, a regular contributor to
the NPP JOURNAL, is the director of public policy research for the Maine Council of
Churches' Criminal Justice Committee.
I Andrew von Hirsch, "Creative Sentencing: Punishment to Fit the Criminal," The Nation, Oune 25,
1988), pp. 901-902. The Greene and von Hirsch
quotes are from this article; all von Hirsch quotes
later in this article, unless noted otherwise, are
also from this source.
'Norval Morris, "Alternative to Imprisonment: Failures and Prospects," Criminal Justice Research Bulletin, 3(7) (1987), p.6. A free copy of this article
can be obtained from the Criminal Justice Research
Bulletin, Sam Houston State University, Criminal
Justice Center, Huntsville, TX 77341, 409/2941635.

Lack of Political Leadership
In the midst of the recent BushDukakis campaign. Ronald Goldfarb. a
Washington. D.C. attorney and the author of several books on pre-trial practices and criminal sentencing reform.
wrote in the New York Times that neither candidate "has offered a credible

crime and law enforcement program
that would improve public safety. cut
public costs. or attempt to reform the
criminal justice system." 3
Indeed. both candidates' treatment of
prison furloughs given to Willie Horton
in Massachusetts. and other prisoners in
California and Texas who later committed gruesome crimes. was increasingly devoid of credibility. By election
day. the candidates shared an unadmirable common ground characterized by
gross innuendo and the inability to put
particular cases within a larger. and
more reasoned. criminal justice
framework.
-continued on next page
-------'Ronald Goldfarb, "Crime: Old Whine, New Bottles," New York Times, (October 5, 1988).

CLASSIFICA nON

How to Evaluate Offender
Needs Assessment
Carl B. Clements
Incarcerated offenders often share
similar backgrounds. crime histories. or
current offenses. Such factors form the
basis of securitylcustody classification decisions--decisions that determine how
offenders are assigned to institutions. to
levels of supervision and control. to
housing arrangements. and to jobs and
programs. Although recent advances
-continued on page five

Carl B. Clements, Ph.D., is professor of
psychology and director of clinical training
at the University of Alabama. His recent
publications are in the area of offender assessment and classification, delinquency
prevention and treatment, and the functions of psychologists in correctional institutions. He has been a consultant to a
number of state and national corrections
agencies and has testified in several landmark prison conditions cases.

An effective offender needs profile can address
traditional classification concerns as well as
evaluate vocational readiness.

A PROJECT OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION. INC.

-continued from front page

Political campaigns have never been
fertile ground for thinking about crime
in this country. Candidates often rely on
failed strategies of the past for future
fights against crime. In this campaign, decidedly little intelligence or leadership4
was applied to sOciety's response to
criminal behavior. Bush's proposals centered on less lenient judges, tougher
sentences and more prisons. Dukakis
talked about more drufcrime prosecutors and more prisons. These were proposals, one might think, that would not
take root in a kinder and gentler
society.
As the election drew near, Kelsey
"The presidential candidates did have an opportunity to show positive leadership about alternatives
to incarceration. When Bush raised questions
about furloughing first-degree murderers, Dukakis
had an opportunity to describe to the American
public how the Massachusetts program helped numerous, violent offenders become nonviolent, responsible persons. When David Rothenberg ran
The Fortune Society in New York, he typically responded to tabloid headlines like "Parolee Kills
Cop" by holding a press conference at which
newly released prisoners told about the difficulties
they faced when they reentered free society.
Rothenberg once asked how come we never see
headlines saying "Parolee Gets Job." Dukakis could
have emphasized the considerable achievements of
this program. People who have spoken at any
length with prisoners on furlough in Massachusetts
know that the prisoners' desire to make the program work was an essential aspect of the program's success. But neither Dukakis nor his advisers looked in this direction, and the opportunity
was lost. In the end, Dukakis ended up pushing on
the American public television advertisements
about Reagan and Bush support for furlough programs which released people who later committed
violent crimes, an approach which seemed very
"Bush-Iike."
'The October 1988 issue of The Eighteen Eleven,
the professional journal of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, reported Bush and
Dukakis responses to the question, "What is your
position on the federal role in our nation's inadequate prison system1 Would you seek additional
funding to build prisons to house federal, state and!
or local pris6ners1" Bush (read his lips) said longer
prison sentences mean less crime (ignoring decades
of criminal justice-research) and that his administration would rely on unused military bases,
quicker construction methods, and private sector
initiatives. Dukakis said that more prison space was
needed for dangerous criminals (ignoring the large
number of nondangerous criminals currently incarcerated). Dukakis did mention, in passing, that the
careful screening of nondangerous offenders for
house arrest, electronic monitoring, and intensive
supervision programs, but called these "new approaches to imprisonment." Typo or faux pas1 Regardless, the Governor's next reference was to
the fact that he made the "hard decision" to site
the first new prison in the Commonwealth in
twenty years (ignoring well-reasoned local opposition to what is essentially an inappropriate site and
the fact that as the election drew near the state's
plans for building this prison were at least a year
and a half behind schedule).

2 WINTER 1989

have resulted from unguided judicial or
administrative discretion.
Andrew von Hirsch, in a cautionary
article published in The Nation last June,
noted how little guidance is given to
those who prepare or decide to impose
creative sentences. Von Hirsch's arguKaufman, a former corrections officer
now teaching at DePauw University,
.~ ment that creative sentences are imwrote in The Wall Street Journal about 4:j~ posed disparately and with little coherhow American reliance on incarceratio%, ent purpose is strikingly similar to
ill-fits a civilized nation. "A policy of irri- , charges he and others brought against
prisoning more and more young men:'tias discretionary abuses which arose in the
short-term appeal," she said. "As we,~\
indeterminate sentencing systems, before
may be learning too late, however, tHe
a large wave of sentencing reform in the
longer-term effect is to make ours "a
early I970s begin to restrict judicial
more precarious society in which to live. discretion.',,>"'
"The average inmate," Kaufman reminds us, "serves only a few years beCreative Sentencing
fore returning to the outside commu"Creative sentencing," more a media
nity. What has he learned in that time?
term than a functional description of
To survive in a world where everyone
how courts impose criminal dispositions,
has access to a lethal weapon and must
refers vaguely to sentences which offer
demonstrate a willingness to use it. To
alternatives to prison or probation.
accept sexual and economic victimization More often than not, the term creative
of himself and his fellow inmates. To
sentencing is used to mark highly publifeign-eventually to feel-indifference
cized cases wherein the middle- or upto the sadism around him. We should
per-class offender receives a less than
consider the logic and the wisdom of
traditional sentence.
subjecting millions of our fellow citizens
Von Hirsch observes that the impulse
to the horrors of prison life and then
behind creative sentencing is the desire
expecting them to return to society and
for more imaginative sentencing options.
sin no more."6
However, a more important stimulus has
Campaign polemics, however, were
been the desire to effectively change junot the only source of assaults on, or
dicial sentencing decisions so that ofconcern about, the use of alternatives to fenders who would normally be imprisincarceration. Several criminal sentences,
oned would be given a community-based
issued in different states during the
sanction.
lengthy campaign, also received significant, although generally underdeveloped,
Sentence Planning Services
publicity.
In the late 1970s, the National Center
In Maine, a federal district court judge
on Institutions and Alternatives (NCIA)
sentenced Harvey Prager, a convicted
developed Client Specific Planning (CSP)
marijuana smuggler, to five years probation, with the special condition that he
TIlE
organize, establish, and operate a hospice for AIDS patients. Several months
earlier, John Zaccaro, the son of former
Vice-presidential candidate Geraldine
OF THE
Ferraro, was sentenced to a one-month
NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT
term of house imprisonment after being
convicted of selling a small amount of
Editor: Jan Elvin
cocaine to an undercover agent.
Editorial Asst.: Betsy Bemat
Prager and Zaccaro, unlike Horton,
were well-placed or well-to-do, and
Alvin J. Bronstein, Executive Director
The National Prison Project of the
their sentences, like Horton's furlough,
American Civil Uberties Union Foundation
were met with skepticism and outrage.
1616 P Street, N.W.
Ensuing publicity caused Vermont offiWashington, D.C. 20036
cials to forbid the use of home imprison(202) 331-0500
ment for drug offenders. In Maine, letThe National Prison Project is a tax-exempt foundation~
funded project of the ACLU Foundation which seeks to strengthen
ters to Portland's Sunday paper brought
and protect the rights of adult and juvenile offenders; to improve
charges of class privilege, judicial improoverall conditions in correctional facilities by using existing adpriety, and inadequate sensitivity to the
ministrative. legislative and judicial channels; and to develop alternatives to incarceration.
victims of the drug trade.
The reprinting ofJOURNAL material is encouraged with the
The clearest common note to these
stipulation that the National Prison Project JOURNAL be credited
with the reprint, and that a copy of the reprint be sent to the
different cases is that they each may

Political campaigns have never
been fertile ground for thinking
about crime in this country.

JOURNAL

editor.

"Kelsey Kaufman, "Horton Case Obscures the Issues," The Wall Street Journal, (November 2,
1988), p. A20.

The JOURNAL is scheduled for publication quarterly by the
National Prison Project. Materials and suggestions are welcome.
The National Prison Project JOURNAL is designed by James
True. Inc.

to enable judges to choose nonincarcerative sentences for their clients. In concept, Client Specific Planning derived
from methods used by public defenderbased social workers developing community-based rehabilitative sentencing plans,
and by NCIA founder Jerome Miller
when he directed the court-ordered decarceration of juvenile offenders in Pennsylvania in the mid-I 970s.
At the time, advocates of alternative
sentencing were looking for a means of
convincing judges (and legislators) that
alternatives to incarceration should be
preferred over terms of imprisonment.
However, while many people advocated
for alternatives to incarceration, little attention was given to how courts would
actually impose such sentences. NCIA
expertly exploited this situation with a
successful marketing campaign which extolled CSP's virtues.
While most CSP cases are standard
criminal cases, many of those cases highlighted in NCIA's publicity campaign
were really more exceptional in nature.
One case, for instance, involved a suburban Maryland youth who, with I I
friends, drove--and drank-from party
to party one spring evening. As the
night wore on, the youth-who had no
prior record-lost control of his vehicle
and ten of his friends were killed in the
ensuing accident. NCIA convinced the
court to sentence the youth to pay a
fine, to participate in alcohol counseling,
weekly psychotherapy sessions, strict
community supervision, and 20 hours of
community service work for three years
in a hospital emergency room, instead of
sentencing him to prison.
One danger of creative sentences such
as these is the general perception that
either these folks got off lightly or were
given special treatment because of their
position or status in society. The Maryland youth was a good, middle-class suburban kid. John Zaccaro had famous parents. And Harvey Prager-the Portland
drug smuggler-was bright, a college
graduate, and able to afford high-quality
legal counsel. ...
Sentence planning services frequently
propose creative sentences. These services imaginatively fashion a number of
nonincarcerative options, such as community service, restitution and rehabilitative services, to form components of
their clients' sentence plan. Plans must
be accepted and imposed by the court.
These services are not simply for the
well-off client, however. Joan Gauche,
executive director of Sentencing Options, the sentence planning agency in
Portland which worked on the Harvey
Prager case, reports that many of her
clients are indigent. Similar programs
across the country depend on paying
clients or foundation grants for support,

but are typically centered on indigent,
tions; 2) more consistent application of
prison-bound clients. Comparative statis- these sanctions to otherwise jail- or
tics about the operation of these proprison-bound offenders; 3) greater availgrams are hard to come by. Program
ability of these sanctions to all appropriate offenders, regardless of their social
experience suggests, though, that if any
class; and 4) easier enforcement.
injustice is done by the use of these services (particularly for the well-off) it i s ; . .
. .
that these services aren't given routinely,~, Imprisonment GUidelines
to indigent clients throughout state and';.;;
Statewide sentencing policies may be
/0/' necessary to assure that alternatives to
local criminal justice systems.
Sentence planning services are, in fac;t;' incarceration are used for targeted jailand prison-bound offenders, and that
becoming more common in criminal dit'
fense circles. Marc Mauer, assistant di;.'~
they are imposed fairly, without overrector of The Sentencing Project, a •Y
burdening offen~rs with disproportionWashington, D.C. agency which offers
ate amounts of t· ese alternative sanctions. Recently . innesota, Pennsylvania
technical assistance to public and private
defense bars on sentencing issues, reand Washington--states which already
have incarceration guidelines--are conports that only 18 sentence planning
programs existed in 1978. Today, more
templating the development of guidelines for nonimprisonment sanctions. The
than 100 are in operation and the numMinnesota Sentencing Guidelines Comber is growing. At least 25 states have
some form of sentencing planning promission, for instance, is concerned about
sentence disparity, lack of cohesive purgram; some prOVide traditional rehabilitation-oriented planning services, while
pose, and the imbalance of having guidelines in place at one end of the sentencothers are based on the Client Specific
Planning model (NCIA itself has offices
ing scale but not at the other.
in California, New York, Texas, Virginia,
At a June 21, 1988, public hearing, the
and Georgia).
Commission heard testimony from those
Despite constant funding problems,
advocating nonimprisonment guidelines
and those who oppose them. Only 20%
Mauer says, many of these programs
have been in operation for a number of
of the state's convicted felons receive
years. Slowly, they have become an inte- fixed sentences under Minnesota's sentencing guidelines, while 80% of the
gral part of defense services in many jurisdictions. States such as California, Indi- state's convicted felons still receive indeana, New Mexico, New York, North
terminate sentences.
Carolina, and Wisconsin budget from
Proponents of nonimprisonment
guidelines suggest five sets of problems
$150,000 to $760,000 a year for defense-based sentence planning services.
resulting from a lack of such guidelines.
First, proportionality problems have
Sentence planning services are vulnerable, however, since they are not gener- emerged. Some offenders want to really used on a system-wide basis. Instead, turn to prison because nonincarcerative
sanctions are harsher than prison terms;
their referrals come from defense attorneys who know about their services. Ad
some offenders, who have committed
hoc referrals and inadequate funding are
less serious crimes, are receiving nonintwo indicators that these programs
carcerative penalties which are as restand little chance, by themselves, of
strictive or more restrictive than other
having much impact on the overall numoffenders, who have committed far
ber of persons sent to local jails or prismore serious offenses.
Second, little uniformity exists in the
ons, even when they are effective in diverting or displacing specific offenders.
amount of jail time, fines, restitution, or
The primary problem with creative
length and type of treatment imposed
sentences, von Hirsch argues, is that
upon non-prison-bound offenders. Third,
they have tended to gain acceptance
little certainty exists that nonimprisonment sanctions will be fully carried out
"without any clear sense of what they
are supposed to accomplish other than
prior to discharge by the courts. Fourth,
replace prison terms.
whereas judges are held accountable for
imposing prison terms, they are not re"Punishment conveys our disapproval
of criminal conduct," von Hirsch exquired to explain their reasoning for jail
plains, "and should be graduated to reterms, length of probation supervision,
f1ect that conduct's degree of reprehenfines, and restitution.
sibility. Maintaining proportionality
And, finally, while one of the hallrequires an ability to compare penalties'
marks of the Minnesota sentencing
severity. The more idiosyncratic the sen- guidelines experience has been its success in controlling the state's prison
tence, the more difficult the comparison
becomes."
population size, the Commission has yet
Von Hirsch suggests four possible
to plan and implement community-based
benefits of standardizing noncustodial
resources for nonimprisonment
sentences: I) clarification of the pursentences.
-continued on next page
poses for which we impose these sancWINTER 1989 3

-continued from previous page

Intermediate Sanctions
Intermediate sanctions suggest a fuller
range of penalties from which the court
can more appropriately devise individual
sentences directly addressing the punitive needs of specific cases.
Several years ago, the Vera Institute
of justice and other sentencing reform
advocates began speaking about developing a full continuum of sanctions. These
sanctions include restitution, day fines,
community service, home incarceration,
and intensive supervision probation.
They are meant to offer the court an escalating nexus of control over convicted
offenders without having to rely on imprisonment, particularly when terms of
incarceration are given simply because
less restrictive, but nonetheless incapacitative, options are not available.
Intermediate sanctions have been used
for some time now, but they are rarely
used with any sense of overall purpose.
The Vera Institute of justice uses intermediate sanctions such as community
service and day fines for the explicit
purpose of supervising modest, feasible
penalties which can be easily enforced
while diverting offenders from shortterm jail sentences. Georgia has developed a "balanced approach to corrections" featuring a range of increasingly
restrictive options. These planned efforts
are, however, the exception rather than
the rule.
The emergence of intermediate sanctions, along with increased attention to
how courts and sentencing advocates
shape particular criminal penalties, offers
some hope that criminal justice practice
can be improved in the near future.
In a monograph on intermediate sanctions, which the U.S. National Institute
of justice will publish later this year, Michael Tonry and Richard Wills of the
Castine Research Corporation observe
that "the existence of meaningful punishments other than incarceration makes it
possible to specify linkages between the
general purppses of sentencing and the
specific purposes of individual sentences
that are difficult to specify when the
penal choice is limited to prison and
non-prison...
Tonry and Wills give the following
examples: "For an offender for whom
incarceration is the overriding penal
purpose at sentencing," they suggest,
"house arrest enforced by electronic
monitoring may do as well as a sixmonth jail term, at less cost to the state,
and with less disruption to the lives of
the offender and his family. Or, for another example, retribution and deterrence may be the applicable purposes at
sentencing for an embezzler. A sizable,
credibly enforced fine may be as effec4 WINTER 1989

The emergence of intermediate
sanctions . . . offers some hope
that criminal justice practice can
be improved in the near future.
.~

tive for these purposes as a prison te~,
and much less costly to the state."

i"

Conclusion
''''
Criminal justice reform measuresl?have
y)t
swept across the American scene With
unprecedented speed in the past ,two
decades. These reforms offer different
ways of looking at victims, (e.g., restitution and victim-impact statements),
offenders (e.g., prisoner rights and offender accountability), the relationship
of victims and offenders (e.g., victim-offender reconciliation programs), and the
criminal justice process itself (e.g., sentencing gUidelines and victim-witness
services).
Although these reform initiatives are
essentially compatible with one another,
they are rarely implemented together in
a thorough fashion. Instead, individual reforms have fought for survival, staking
new visionary grounds on old philosophical homesteads. A strong (and sound)
implication of von Hirsch's critique of
creative sentences is that real change
comes not when we see individual instances of reform, but when reforms are
accepted and applied across the board.
Creative sentences tend to receive
publicity not granted more traditional
sentences. They make news because
they appear different. Such publicity
often arouses public fears or opposition,
but it also highlights public misunderstandings about the sentencing process
and how alternative sentences are developed for and accepted by the courts.
By questioning creative sentences or
the lack of nonimprisonment gUidelines,
von Hirsch, the Minnesota Sentencing
Guidelines Commission, and others are
forging the opportunity to examine the
direction in which criminal sentencing
may be heading in coming years.
In all likelihood, the debate will remain markedly similar to that which has
occurred in various state legislatures and
at regional and national conferences over
the past decade. Like Minnesota, some
states will continue to explore fixed, determinate sentencing. Other states will
take comparatively ad hoc approaches
toward sentencing reform.
This window of opportunity nonethe-

Creative sentences tend to
receive publicity not granted
more traditional sentences.

less opens a way to allay public fears by
explaining how these sentences were
developed, how they are offered for the
court's consideration through a process
available for all offenders in all cases, and
what these sanctions are expected to
achieve.
Finally, von Hirsch implies that reforms can gain strength and viability
through critical self-examination. Model
projects, such as the Minnesota Sentenc- .
ing Guidelines Commission and the Vera
Institute of justice programs, routinely
monitor and ~assess their progress.
Program development should expand
beyond these':linodel programs, however,
and some evidence suggests this is beginning to happen. At a conference in Raleigh, North Carolina this past October,
for example, the National Community
Service Sentencing Association (NCSSA)
raised the issue of how the goals of
community service sentencing relate to
community service program activity.
Dennis Schrantz, who was elected
NCSSA's president at the conference,
recently observed that "too many alternative programs use the popular rhetoric
of diverting people from jailor prison to
save money and then do very little if
anything to make certain that jail- and
prison-bound people end up in the
program.
"The history of alternatives," he explained, "is that they have failed, by and
large, to focus on the populations they
have set out to divert. This increases admissions to institutions because some of
the people who are enrolled fail and
then are sent to prison as a result. Since
they weren't headed for prison in the
first place, the program goals are turned
upside down.
"We must begin to focus on what we
want our criminal justice sanctions to do
and set policies to bring these goals
about," said Schrantz, who is also the
grants administrator for North Carolina's community penalties program.
''These sanctions must be based on the
amount of money we expect taxpayers
to pay for the resources we are developing. Nothing is free." III

-continued from front page

have improved our ability to "objectively" classify offenders for assignment
and risk management, I we have made
relatively less progress in identifying
other important characteristics.

Beyond Custody and Security
Classification does not end when a security level is assigned. Offenders with
similar custodial profiles may be vastly
different in other important ways. Those
with very different risk levels may have
common traits or needs. This concept of
profile uniqueness has critical implications for management, decision-making,
and the discharge of correctional goals
and objectives. Identify a large group of
"medium security" inmates, for example,
and you will detect a wide range of
needs in such areas as vocational training, psychotherapy, treatment of sexual
deviancy, job skills, aggression, and victimization. Locate law violators who
need alcoholism treatment and you will
find offenders ranging from the meek,
passive, and low-risk, to the violent and
hardened.
Corrections systems often fail to assess important offender needs, particularly when the appropriate service or
program or intervention is not currently
available. This failure has two important
negative by-products. First, the offender
may not be managed/treated in ways
that facilitate his survival or improvement in the corrections system. Second,
no data are collected that would reveal
the absence of resources needed to improve correctional management. In the
past several years, however, some states
have begun to use a needs assessment
system to guide the allocation of resources and to identify future priorities?
HALLMARKS OF NEEDS
ASSESSMENT
Establishing a Needs Profile
An individualized approach to offender
classification has been discussed for several decades. Although "treatment" was
an original goal of this approach, a
preoccupation with custody and security
has been evident, especially as prison
crowding became commonplace. Other
offender needs were considered secondary and were often evaluated in piecemeal or haphazard fashion. Despite this
sometimes casual approach-and considerable diversity across jurisdictions--patterns and practices have emerged which

'J. Austin, "Assessing the New Generation of
Prison Classification Models," Crime and Delinquency 29(4), (1983), pp. 561-576.
>C.B. Clements, Offender Needs Assessment, American Correctional Association. College Park, MD,
(1986).

New needs assessment techniques can identify which inmates will benefit most from vocational
training programs.

allow certain offender sub-groups and
common needs to be identified. As a result, correctional staff can potentially develop a more deliberate response to the
wide range of offenders currently in
prison.
How prominently the needs assessment procedure is featured in the classification process is one indication of attention to this issue. Whether that
assessment achieves parallel status to the
custody concerns may be inferred from
how results are communicated. Is the
needs assessment an afterthought? Are
the results buried in the inmate's file? In
a recent study sponsored by the National Institute of Corrections,3 we
found a trend toward integration of
needs assessment with custody considerations. In several states, needs assessments and profiles-some of them
graphically represented-are now centrally placed in the inmate's record. Logically, these profiles should guide prison
staff in their choice of interventions directed specifically at documented needs.
However, that outcome is often hard to
trace. One facilitating process has been
to at least identify the availability and location of resources. In some states, for
example, the programs and services offered by each institution are catalogued
and described. This procedure also typically features a display summary or resource matrix. Overall, such indicators
suggest that assignments are being made
with some acknowledgement of individual offender needs.

Assessment Dimensions
What areas of needs assessment
should be included in the classification
process? Health, mental health status,
'Ibid.

What areas of needs assessment
should be included in the
classification process?
and victimization potential seem to be
high priorities for most prison systems.
Such attention may be due in part to legal challenges in these areas. Also prominent are the traditional concerns of educational and vocational status. However,
these well-known dimensions require
more than a cursory assessment; recent
refinements have been encouraging.
Some state systems, for example, no
longer simply describe offenders' needs
in all-or-none fashion, e.g., as healthy or
not, as psychologically adjusted or not,
as needing vocational training or not. Instead, classification staff assess the nature
and severity of problems within each dimension. This approach allows a more
efficient matching of the offender to the
type and intensity of service or management strategy. Programming, then, is not
limited to the acutely ill or severely
maladjusted.
A second assessment trend has been
to include other less traditional dimensions that have implications for management, treatment, and reintegration. Such
factors may include alcohol and drug
abuse, job readiness, or other crime-related dimensions. Specific interventions
in the form of short courses, problemoriented management groups, counseling, intermediate care facilities, or
long-term treatment programs follow
logically from these determinations. As
implied earlier, these assessments are
not an academic exercise but a meaningful part of the classification process, vital
-continued on next page
WINTER 1989

5

-continued from previous page
to both offenders and the correctional
system itself.
Objective Approaches

Subjective, clinical, or even superstitious approaches to assessment and classification occasionally lead to spectacular
prediction successes. Every correctional
worker remembers having a "gut feeling" that later proved to be accurate.
On balance, however, such approaches
lead to scores of incorrect placements
and wasted resources. What is needed is
increased reliability and consistency in
correctional decision-making-in other
words. a more objective approach to
needs assessment.
In evaluating whether current practice
meets objective standards, several criteria may be used: I) each assessment
should have a clearly defined purpose so
that staff can determine what information is relevant; 2) standardized definitions and assessment gUidelines should
be provided so that each offender can
be evaluated in a similar way; 3) each offender should be categorized with respect to the type(s) and severity of
needs using a common language; and 4)
for each need or assessment area, types
of interventions should be established in
advance so that treatment implications
are readily apparent. Without these minimal guidelines, the assessment exercise
is wasteful, even counterproductive.
The use of valid assessment instruments or techniques is another important criterion. Objectivity has been facilitated by the recent development of
instruments to assess important traits,
skills, and coping abilities. Although some
scales or instruments were developed
for other fields (Le., they are not offender-specific). applications in such
areas as alcoholism, depression, suicide
potential. vocational readiness. and interpersonal skills can readily be made.
Environmental Management

The concept of needs assessment
seems straightforward-assess, treat,
cure. The medical, curative model is seductive but, by itself, usually inadequate.
Correctional programs must not only
provide some offenders with new tools,
they must also provide an environment
which increases the chance that such
tools or skills will be absorbed and retained. The correctional environment itself should support. or at least not negate, the value of specific interventions.
The recent decade of prison crowding
has underscored how important the environment is in influencing offender be·C.B. Clements, "Towards an Objective Approach
to Offender Classification," Law and Psychology Review 9, (1985), pp. 45-55.

6 WINTER 1989

Every correctional worker
remembers haVing a "gut
feeling" that later proved to be
accurate.
havior. Physical conditions, resource .~
availability, and management approaches'\;
can all serve to provoke, inhibit. or fa9il~
itate a wide range of both negative artd ,
positive behaviors.
:t~·
The day-to-day prison setting sho~d
be managed in ways that facilitate cdtrectional goals. Assigning offender~. to
appropriate programs or custodial supervision addresses only one portion of the
person-environment interaction. Other
physical and psychological dimensions
that influence offenders' daily behavior
and adjustment are equally important
targets. For example, Tochs suggests
that, within certain risk levels, inmates
should be placed and supervised on the
basis of their assessed need for structure. privacy, safety, social stimulation,
and other such person-environment factors. Q uay6 has developed a system of
supervisory strategies that are tailored
to different sub-groups of offenders. A
similar type of assessment and management program is being field-tested by
the National Council on Crime and
Delinquency.7
Given the recent growth of the unit
management approach--in which correctional staff are assigned to a particular
housing unit and have responsibility for
major aspects of programming-recommendations such as Toch's and Quay's
seem a natural outgrowth. The objective
of these models is to better use existing
correctional resources through staff
training and careful distribution. The random housing of inmates of very different
needs and characteristics is simply not
justifiable when management and correctional goals are considered. Ultimate
success, however, will depend on the
ability to assign offenders to the correct
management group and to deliver a consistent and responsive superviSOry
approach.
Treatment Implications

As implied earlier, it is important to
be able to prescribe, or at least identify,
SH. Toch, LiVing in Prison: The Ecology of Survival,
(New York, Free Press), (1979).

"H.C. Quay, Managing Adult Inmates: Classification
for Housing and Program Assignment, American
Correctional Association, College Park, MD.
(1984).
l Austin and C. Baird, "Reducing Prison Violence
Through More Effective Classification Management:
An Experimental Test of the Prisoner Management
Classification System," National Council on Crime
and Delinquency (Proposal to the National Institute of Justice), (1987).

particular treatments, or interventions
or management strategies that logically
connect to the assessment outcome.
While this step seems straightforward, it
has often been overlooked. Institutional
staff often must decide what the treatment implications are for a particular
"diagnosis." Otherwise. they may assign
offenders to programs based more on
availability than relevance. The need for
staff discretion and fleXibility aside. it is
necessary to have clearly defined interventions for targeted sub-groups of
offenders.
Intervention} may come in the form
of courses. tr;tihing modules. unit management assignments, special clinical services, sheltered housing, or a whole
range of options. Several jurisdictions. including the federal prison system, have
been able to specify the availability of
program options and, in most cases. to
identify which offenders will benefit
from particular programs. Additionally,
several systems are able to track offenders' assignments and enrollments and
to assess the degree of compliance with
treatment recommendations. A tracking
or monitoring system is also essential to
determine whether resources are being
rationally distributed and whether they
are achieving their intended effect. The .
presence of such a system suggests that
needs assessment and programming are
being taken seriously.
Information Management

Two problems often exist with offender information: quantity (too much)
and quality (too little). Correctional staff
often have more data than they can use.
The problem is compounded when information is unreliable or incomplete. The
technology of needs assessment requires
that information necessary for decisionmaking be established in advance. The
results of a systematic assessment--essentially a needs profile--should be an
integral part of the offender's classification record. The capacity to code, store,
and retrieve such information using microcomputer systems should be available.
This technology should also provide access to system-wide data to answer such
questions as how many medium security
offenders have drug abuse problems. or
what proportion of newly received inmates have psychological problems. Such
basic questions can be overwhelming if
the answers lie buried in file cabinets.
While assessing each offender, the relevant data should be tabulated and
stored. When such information is available. officials can evaluate the correctional system as a whole and make informed decisions about current demands
and future developments.

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Although some states have implemented many of the procedures highlighted to this point, there are several
barriers which must be addressed if
needs assessment is to progress further.
Limits of Trait-centered
Approaches
Human behavior is only partially predictable from measures of personal traits
and attributes. In fact, most recent research suggests that behavior is primarily
a function of person-environment interplay. Yet, needs assessment and other
aspects of classification rely almost exclusively on an analysis of the individual.
Psychological tests, interviews, and case
histories are typically focused on individualtraits. Such traits or internal attributes do not fully explain the diverse
causes of law-violating behavior or
prison misconduct and maladjustment.
Although research has helped establish
risk profiles or personality patterns that
improve prediction accuracy, the payoff
is inherently limited. While the behavior
of some offenders may appear to be
consistent across many setting~, we must
also develop a person-by-environment
approach to classification. That is, we
must be able to specify how offenders
react to various prison conditions and
how those circumstances influence their
survival and reintegration into society.
Current classification systems rarely address management or adjustment problems that arise as a product of the correctional environment.
Program Disruptions
Crowded prison systems seem particularly vulnerable to a constant shuffling
of inmates from facility to facility. Frequent inmate turnover both in location
and programs is a chronic correctional
problem. The result is programmatic and
environmental disruption that interferes
with correctional goals. Crowded systems often respond primarily to bedspace demands""or custody considerations. Needs assessment and programming considerations drop in priority, and
the associated management advantages
are lost, often at a time when they are
most critically needed. Even when prisons are crowded and programs are few,
efforts should be made to identify and
follow through with offenders who may
benefit most from correctional services.
A degree of stability and continuity
could be achieved for at least some portion of the prison system.
Poor Quality Intervention
Classification and needs assessment
procedures seem irrelevant if there are

Status Report: State Prisons
and The Courts
Compiled by the National Prison Project, january 1989.
The National Prison Project Status
Report provides an inventory of states
which are currently operating under
court order or are subject to pending~:,",
litigation. Encompassed is litigation wh!ch
involves the entire state prison syste~
or major institutions in the state and' ,
which pertains to overcrowding and'·'
conditions of confinement. Also reported are states which have been relieved from prior court orders (not including jails except for the District of
Columbia).
* Asterisks indicate states/jurisdictions
where the ACLU has been involved in
the litigation.
I. Alabama:* The entire state
prison system is under court order dealing with total conditions and overcrowdfew meaningful programs to which offenders may be assigned. Why conduct
detailed assessments if they do not result in realistic opportunities for intervention? The principal justification would
be to collect system-wide data on offenders which might stimulate the development of needed programs. If sufficient
numbers of offenders can be shown to
require particular kinds of programming
or management, one may more easily argue for resource allocation, redistribution, or expansion. This kind of system
planning is regrettably rare.
To enhance program options, some
correctional agencies have copied wellknown noninstitutional approaches to
treatment and management. Current examples in the psycho-educational area
include life-skills training, stress management, self-paced individualized instruction, and cognitive-behavioral self-control procedures. These applications seem
to be enjoying some good success in justice settings.s An effective needs assessment system provides a means to selectively assign offenders to such programs.
Confusion About Goals
The corrections business has multiple
and often competing objectives. Classification professionals cannot be expected
to have solved this dilemma. The confusion is often transmitted to the needs
assessment system, and its effectiveness
may be diluted because the goals of pre8E. Morris and C Braukmann. (eds.). Behavioral Approaches to Crime and Delinquency. (New York,
Plenum). (1987).

ing. Pugh v. Locke, 406 F.Supp. 318 (M.D.
Ala. 1976), affd in substance, Newman v.
Alabama, 559 F.2d 283 (5th Cir. 1977),
cert denied, 98 S.Ct. 3057 (1978); receiver appointed, 466 F.Supp. 628 (M.D.
Ala. 1979). The district court entered an
order establishi~ a four-person committee to monitor ,cpmpliance with previous orders (llf3/83). In December
1984, the district court relinquished active supervision after agreement of substantial compliance by the parties. A
possible application for reopening the
case is being examined by the monitor's
committee.
2. Alaska:* The entire state prison
system is under a consent decree and a
court order dealing with overcrowding
and total conditions of confinement.
Cleary v. Smith, No. 3AN-81-5274 (Su-continued on next page

diction and intervention are unclear. In
the face of multiple classification objectives, assessments must be designed to
address each goal. If the concern is with
security, assessments should have a demonstrated relationship to that objective;
if survival in the institution is important,
the relevant factors must be determined;
for the goals of adjustment and reintegration, the assessment must reflect how
those program objectives can be addressed. A worthy needs assessment system provides written descriptions of
each classification issue, the relevant assessment tools, and the interventions
that are available to address the identified needs.
SUMMARY
The field of corrections is increasing
its use of needs assessment to guide decision-making. Criteria have been suggested in this article which may provide
a basis for evaluating further progress or
current adherence to basic principles.9
Forces which undermine the use of
needs assessment are also described, and
suggestions to counteract them are offered. In general, needs assessment has
achieved recognized status in the field.
Full implementation of principles and
procedures, however, lags behind. II1II
'CB. Clements. Offender Needs Assessment, American Correctional Association. College Park. MD.
(1986). See also. CB. Clements. "The Measurement and Evaluation of Correctional Resource
Management." Classification: Innovative Correctional
Programs. Eastern Kentucky University. (1988). pp.
5-10.

WINTER 1989 7

The weight-lifting yard at San Quentin Prison, California.
-continued from previous page

perior Court for the State of Alaska,
3rd jud.Dist. March 3. 1986).
3. Arizona:* The state penitentiary
is being operated under a series of court
orders and consent decrees dealing with
overcrowding. classification. and other
conditions. Orders, August 1977-1979,
Harris v. Cardwell. c.A. No. 75-185
PHX-CAM (D. Ariz.). A special maximum security unit is operating under a
consent decree with an appointed monitor. Black v. Ricketts. c.A. No. 84-1 I I
PHX-CAM. consent decree. December
12.1985.
...
4. Arkansas:* The entire state
prison system was under court order
dealing with total conditions. Finney v.
Arkansas Board of Corrections, 505 F.2d
194 (8th Cir. 1974); special master appointed. Finney v. Mabry, 458 F.Supp.
720 (E.D. Ark. 1978); on compliance,
546 F.Supp. 628. After a finding of full
compliance. the federal court relinquished jurisdiction in August 1982. A
new case challenging conditions and
practices was filed in 1985.
5. California:* The state penitentiary at San Quentin is under court order on overcrowding and conditions.
Wilson v. Deukmejian, # I03454 Superior
Court. Marin County (Aug. 5, 1983).
8 WINTER 1989

Order includes a requirement that a
special master be appointed. The segregation units at San Quentin. Folsom. Soledad and Deuel are under court order
because of overcrowding and conditions.
Toussaint v. Rushen. 553 F.Supp. 1365.
aff'd in part. 722 F.2d 1490 (9th Cir.
1984). Also see Toussaint v. McCarthy,
597 F.Supp. 1388 (N.D. Cal. 1984).
entering permanent relief. Later opinion
at _F.2d _. 40 Cr.L. 2066 (9th
Cir. 9/30/86). Two units at Soledad
(Central and North) have been held
unconstitutional but the injunction has
been stayed pending appeal. In Re Daily
and In Re Rock (Sup. Ct. Monterey). In
addition. there is pending litigation at
the California Medical Facility. San Luis
Obispo. and the Women's Prison at
Frontera.
6. Colorado:* The state maximum
security penitentiary is under court order on total conditions and overcrowding. Ramos v. Lamm. 485 F.Supp. 122 (D.
Col. 1979). aff'd in part and remanded,
639 F.2d 559 (10th Cir. 9/25/80). cert.
den.• 101 S.Ct. 1259 (1981). on remand.
520 F.Supp. 1059 (D. Col. 1981).
7. Connecticut:* The Hartford
Correctional Center operated by the
state is under court order dealing with
overcrowding and some conditions. Lar-

eau v. Manson. 507 F.Supp. I 177 (D.
Conn. 1980). aff'd, 651 F.2d 96 (2nd Cir.
1981). The Somers Correctional Center
is under a consent decree dealing with
overcrowding and some conditions. Letezeio v. Manson. No. H-82-252 (D.
Conn. 1984). There is additional pending
litigation on overcrowding at Somers.
Bartkus v. Manson. No. H-80-506, and
at the Montville Correctional Center.
Foss v. Lopes. Niantic Women's Prison is
under a court order. West v. Manson,
No. H-83-366 (D. Conn. 10/3/84).
8. Delaware:* The state penitentiary is under court order dealing primarily with overcrowding and some
conditions. Anderson v. Redman. 429
F.Supp. I 105 (D. Del. 1977). All major
Delaware prisons are now under a consent decree. Dickerson v. Castle. c.A.
No. 10256 (November 22. 1988).
9. Florida: The entire state prison
system is under court order dealing with
overcrowding. Costello v. Wainwright.
397 F.Supp. 20 (M.D. Fla. 1975). aff'd,
525 F.2d 1239 and 553 F.2d 506 (5th
Cir. 1977). See also 489 F.Supp. 1100
(M.D. Fla. 1980). settlement on overcrowding approved. A special master has
been appointed.
10. Georgia: The state penitentiary
at Reidsville is under court order on to-

tal conditions and overcrowding. A special master was appointed in June 1979.
Guthrie v. Evans, CA. No. 3068 (S.D.
Ga.). A number of other facilities are under challenge.
I I. Hawaii:* The men's prison
(O.CCC) in Honolulu and the women's prison on Oahu are under court order in a totality of conditions suit. Spear
v. Ariyoshi, Civ. No. 84-1104 (D. Hawaii). Order entered June 1985; monitors have been appointed.
12. IlIinois:* The state penitentiary
at Menard is under court order on total
conditions and overcrowding. Lightfoot v.
Walker, 486 F.Supp. 504 (S.D. III.
21 19/80). The state penitentiary at Pontiac was under a court order enjoining
double-ceiling and dealing with overcrowding. Smith v. Fairman, 548 F.Supp.
186 (CD. III. 1981), rev., 690 F.2d 122
(7th Or. 1982) (no proof of violence or
long periods in cell). Litigation is pending
at other institutions.
13. Idaho:* The women's prison is
under a consent decree on conditions.
Witke v. Crowl, Civ. No. 82-3078 (D.
Id.), with an appointed monitor. The
men's Idaho Correctional State Institution is under a court order on conditions. Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Correction, 595 F.Supp. 1558 (D. Id. 1984).
14. Indiana:* The state prison at
Pendleton was found unconstitutional on
total conditions and overcrowding.
French v. Owens, 538 F.Supp. 910 (S.D.
Ind. 1982), affd in pertinent part, 777
F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1985), cert. den.,
_ _ U.S._ _, (1986). The state penitentiary at Michigan City is under a
court order on overcrowding and other
conditions. Hendrix v. Faulkner, 535
F.Supp. 435 (W.D. Ind. 1981), affd sub
nom. Wellman v. Faulkner, 715 F.2d 269
(7th Cir. 1983), cert. den., 104 S.Ct.
3587 (1984). The state prison at Westville is being challenged on overcrowding
and conditions. Anderson v. Orr, CA. No.
S83-048I (N.D. Ind., case filed 1983,
NPP joined 1987).
15. Iowa: The state penitentiary is
under court or<Wr on overcrowding and
a variety of conditions. Watson v. Ray,
CA No. 78-106-0 I, 90 F.R.D. 143 (S.D.
la. 1981).
16. Kansas: The state penitentiary
is under a consent decree on total conditions. Arney v. Bennett, No. 77-31 32
(D. Kan. 1980).
17. Kentucky:* The state penitentiary and reformatory are under court
order by virtue of a consent decree on
overcrowding and some conditions. Kendrick v. Bland, 541 F.Supp. 21 (W.D. Ky.
1981) (consent decree entered). On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed virtually all of the district court's orders,
_ _ F.2d _ _, 35 Cr.L. 2366 (6th
Cir. 7/27/84). The women's state prison

is under court order on a variety of con25. Nevada:* The state penitentiary
is under court order on overcrowding
ditions. Canterino v. Wilson, 546 F.Supp.
174 (W.D. Ky. 1982), and 564 F.Supp.
and total conditions. Craig v. Hocker,
711 (1983).
CA. No. R-2662 BRT (D. Nev.) (con18. Louisiana: The state penitensent decree entered 7/18/80). New addition to state penitentiary under court
tiary is under court order dealing with
overcrowding and a variety of condi,order on total conditions. Phillips V.
tions. Williams v. Edwards, 547 F.2d 1206 ~ryan, CVR-77-221-ECR (D. Nev.) (con(5th Cir. 1 9 7 7 ) . c i S e n t decree entered July 1983). Both
19. Maine:* The state penitentiary ,~cases have been consolidated with a new
was challenged on overcrowding and a ,'~ (:onsent decree entered May 19, 1988. A
variety of conditions. The trial court
monitor has been appointed.
26. New Hampshire:* The state
granted relief only as to restraint cells
and otherwise dismissed the complaint.
penitentiary is under court order dealing
Lovell V. Brennan, 566 F.Supp. 672 (D.
with total conditio'ils and overcrowding.
Maine 1983), a(f'd, 728 F.2d 560 (1st
Laaman v. Helge~, 437 F.Supp. 269
(D.NH 1977). ..
Cir. 1984).
20. Maryland:* Medium and maxi27. New Mexico:* The entire sysmum security prisons were declared un- tem is under court order on overcrowding and total conditions. Duran v. Apoconstitutionally overcrowded. johnson v.
Levine, 450 F.Supp. 648 (D. Md. 1978),
daca, CA. No. 77-72I-C (D.N.M.)
Nelson V. Collins, 455 F.Supp. 727 (D.
(consent decree entered 8/1/80). Special
Md. 1978), affd, 588 F.2d 1378 (4th Cir. master appointed June 1983.
1978), on remand, _ _ F.Supp. _ _
28. New York: In 1984, the state
(D. Md. 1/5/81), rev. and remanded, 659
was forced by court order to keep open
F.2d 420 (4th Cir. 1981) (en bane). A
the Long Island Correctional Facility
settlement agreement and consent deupon a finding that conditions and
cree were subsequently entered in both
overcrowding in other state prisons was
cases. johnson V. Levine, now johnson v.
unconstitutional. This order was affirmed
Galley, was consolidated with Washingin the Court of Appeals. Mitchell v.
ton V. Keller, now Washington v. Tinney,
Cuomo, 748 F.2d 804 (2nd Cir. 1984).
479 F.Supp. 569 (D. Md. 1979), and an29. North Carolina:* A lawsuit
other settlement agreement and supplewas filed in 1978 at Central Prison in
ment to the settlement agreement were Raleigh on overcrowding and conditions
entered in October 1987 and February
and a similar lawsuit is pending involving
1988, respectively.
the women's prison. Batton V. No. Caro21. Massachusetts: The maximum
lina, 80-0143-CRT (E.D.N.C); see also
security unit at the state prison in Wal50 I F.Supp. 1173 (E.D.N.C 1980) (depole is being challenged on total condinying motion for summary judgment). In
tions. Blake v. Hall, CA 78-3051-T (D.
September 1985, a consent judgment
Mass.). A decision for the prison officials
was entered covering overcrowding,
staff, programming, and medical services
was affirmed in part and reversed in part
and remanded, 668 F.2d 52 (I st Cir.
in the 13 units of the state system's
1981).
South Piedmont area. Hubert V. Ward,
22. Michigan:* The women's prison C-C-80-414-M (W.D.N.C). A lawsuit
is under court order. Glover v. johnson,
covering conditions and crowding has
478 F.Supp. 1075 (E.D. Mich. 1979); furbeen filed with respect to the Craggy
ther order entered, 510 F.Supp. 1019
Unit outside of Asheville, N.C Epps V.
(1981). The entire men's prison system
Martin, A-C-86-162 (W.D.N.C) (comis under court order on overcrowding
plaint filed on May 29, 1986). Consent
and other conditions. U.S. v. Michigan,
decree entered August 1987.
No. G84-63, and also in Knop v. johnson,
30. Ohio:* The state prison at Lu685 F.Supp. 636 (W.D. Mich. 1988). Part casville was under court order on overof Knop is on appeal. Monitor appointed. crowding. Chapman V. Rhodes, 434
The state prison at Jackson is under a
F.Supp. 1007 (S.D. Ohio 1977), affd
consent decree on other conditions.
6/6/80 (6th Cir.), rev'd, 101 S.Ct.2392
Hadix v. Milliken, CA 80-73581 (E.D.
(1981). The state prison at Columbus is
Mich. 5/ I3/85).
under court order resulting from a con23. Mississippi: The entire state
sent decree on total conditions and
prison system is under court order deal- overcrowding and was required to be
ing with overcrowding and total condiclosed in 1985. Stewart V. Rhodes, C.A.
tions. Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291
No. C-2-78-220 (S.D. Ohio) (12179).
(5th Cir. 1974).
The state prison at Mansfield is being
24. Missouri:* The state penitenoperated under a consent decree on
various conditions. Boyd v. Denton, CA.
tiary is under court order on overcrowding and some conditions. Burks v.
78-1054A (N.D. Ohio 6/83).
Teasdale, 603 F.2d 59 (8th Cir. 1979), on
31. Oklahoma:* The state penitenremand, 27 Cr.L. 2335 (W.D. Mo.
tiary is under court order on total con5/23/80).
-continued on next page
WINTER 1989

9

---<ontinued from previous page
ditions and the entire state prison system is under court order on overcrowding. Battle v. Anderson, 564 F.2d 388
(10th Cir. 1979). The district court's decision to retain jurisdiction to assure
continued compliance was upheld, 708
F.2d 1523 (10th Cir. 1983). The district
court relinquished jurisdiction in mid1984 and that decision is on appeal.
32. Oregon: The state penitentiary
was under a court order on overcrowding. Capps v. Atiyeh, 495 F.Supp. 802 (D.
Ore. 1980), appeal pending (9th Cir.),
stay granted. 101 S.Ct. 829 (1981), stay
vacated by decision in Rhodes v. Chapman (see Ohio above). On remand. the
district court determined there was no
Eighth Amendment Violation. 559
F.Supp. 894 (D. Ore. 1982).
33. Pennsylvania:* The women's
prison at Muncy is being challenged on
conditions and practices. The state
prison at Graterford is being challenged
on total conditions. Hassine v. jeffes
(trial in May 1986). The state prison at
Pittsburgh is being challenged on overcrowding and conditions. Tillery v. Owens, c.A. No. 87-1537 f'/V.D. Pa. 1 filed
December 14. 1987).
34. Rhode Island:* The entire state
system is under court order on overcrowding and total conditions. Palmigiano v. DiPrete, 443 F.Supp. 956 (D.R.1.
1977). A special master was appointed in
September 1977. New population caps
were imposed by order in June 1986.
Various contempt orders have been
entered.
35. South Carolina:* The state
penitentiary is being challenged on overcrowding and conditions. Mattison v. So.
Car. Bd. of Corrections, CA No. 76-318.
The entire prison system is under a consent decree on overcrowding and conditions. Plyler v. Evatt, c.A. No. 82-876-0
( 1/8/85). Release order in summer of
1986 was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Mediator has been appointed.
36. South Dakota:* The state penitentiary at Sioux Falls is under a court
order on a v41riety of conditions. Cody v.
Hillard, 599 F.Supp. 1025 (D.S.D. 1984).
Overcrowding order affirmed, 799 F.2d
447 (8th Cir. 1986). Rehearing en banc
vacated and rev'd in part, 830 F.2d 912
(8th Cir. 1987).
37. Tennessee:* The entire system
is under court order for overcrowding
and conditions. Grubbs v. Bradley, 552
F.Supp. 1052 (M.D. Tenn. 1982). Population ordered reduced and a special master was appointed (Dec. 1982). Court
enjoined new intake because of failure
to comply with population reduction orders. Order, 10/25/85.
38. Texas: The entire state prison
system has been declared unconstitutional on overcrowding and conditions.
10 WINTER 1989

Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F.Supp. 1265 (S.D.
Tex. 12110/80), stay granted and denied,
650 F.2d 555 (5th Cir. 1981), stay
granted and denied (5th Cir. 1/14/82). A
special master has been appointed. On
appeal, the district court order was affirmed in part, vacated in part and vacateP,
without prejudice in part for further hea~
ings. 679 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir. 1982).
stipulation was reached and a consent . ~
decree entered on the crowding issu~s
in 1985. A contempt order was ente'red
by the district court on December·~ .
1986. Ruiz v. McCotter, H-78-987-CJ\
(S.D. Tex.).
39. Utah: The state penitentiary is
being operated under a consent decree
on overcrowding and some conditions.
Nielson v. Matheson, C-76-253 (D. Utah
1979).
40. Vermont: State prison closed.
41. Virginia:* The state prison at
Powhatan is under a consent decree
dealing with overcrowding and conditions. Cagle v. Hutto, 79-0515-R (E.D.
Va.). The maximum security prison at
Mecklenburg is under court order dealing with various practices and conditions.
Brown v. Murray, 81-0853-R (E.D. Va.)
(consent decree entered April 1985).
The state penitentiary at Richmond was
being challenged on the totality of conditions. Shrader v. White, c.A. No. 820247-R (E.D. Va.). Trial court decision
dismissing the complaint in June 1983.
The Court of Appeals affirmed and remanded in part, 761 F.2d 975 (4th Cir.
1985).
42. Washington:* The state reformatory is being challenged on overcrowding and conditions. Collins v. Rhay, CA
No. C-7813-V (W.D. Wash.). The state
penitentiary at Walla Walla has been declared unconstitutional on overcrowding
and conditions and a special master has
been appointed. Hoptowit v. Ray, C-79359 (E.D. Wash. 6/23/80), aff'd in part,
rev'd in part, vacated in part and remanded, 682 F.2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1982).
In a later appeal, Hoptowit v. Spellman,
753 F.2d 779 (9th Cir. 1985), the Court
of Appeals affirmed the findings of the
district court on remand with respect to
the conditions of confinement and remanded the case for the entry of an
order.
43. West Virginia: The state penitentiary at Moundsville is under court
order on overcrowding and conditions.
Crain v. Bordenkircher, #81-C-320R (Circuit Court, Marshall County 6/21/83).
Decision affirmed by West Virginia Supreme Court in 1986. A special master
has been appointed. The Huttonville
Correction Center is also under court
order with respect to conditions. Nobles
v. Gregory, #83-C-244 (Randolph Co.
Cir. Ct. 2122185).
44. Wisconsin:* The state prison at

A'r-

Waupun is under a court order on overcrowding and conditions. Delgado v.
Cady, 576 F.Supp. 1446 (E.D. Wisc.
1983).
45. Wyoming:* The state penitentiary was being operated under terms of
a stipulation and consent decree. Bustos
v. Herschler, c.A. No. C76-143-B (D.
Wyo.). The federal court relinqUished jurisdiction in early 1983.
46. District of Columbia:* The
District jails are under court order on
overcrowding and conditions. Inmates of
D.C. jail v. jac~on, 416 F.Supp. 119
(D.D.C. 1976)" Campbell v. McGruder,
416 F.Supp. 1.00 and III (D.D.C. 1976),
affirmed and remanded, 580 F.2d 521
(D.C. Cir. 1978). On remand, the court
ordered a limit on the period of doubleceiling and an increase in staff. 554
F.Supp. 562 (D.C.D.C. 1982). In 1985,
the district court held conditions at the
jail required an order that intake be enjoined. A consent decree requiring reduction in population was entered August 22. 1985. Inmates of D.C. jail v.
jackson, #75-1668 (D.C.D.C.). Several
facilities at the Lorton Complex, the
District's prison, are under court order
for overcrowding and conditions. There
are population caps in place in both the
Central Facility and the Maximum Secu-.
rity Facility. Twelve john Does v. Barry,
#80-2136 (D.C.D.C.). Contempt orders
entered. On December 22, 1986, Lorton's medium security Occoquan facilities came under court order and a population cap was imposed. Inmates of
Occoquan v. Barry, 650 F.Supp. 619
(D.C.D.C.), vacated and remanded. 844
F.2d. 828 (D.C. Cir. 1988), motion for
rehearing en banc denied, 850 F.2d. 796
( 1988) (dissenting opinions and separate
statements).
47. Puerto Rico: The Commonwealth Penitentiary is under court order
on overcrowding and conditions. Martinez-Rodrigues v. jiminez, 409 F.Supp. 582
(D.P.R. 1976). The entire commonwealth prison system is under court order dealing with overcrowding and conditions. Morales-Feliciano v. Barcelo, 497
F.Supp. 14 (D.P.R. 1979). A special master was appointed in 1986.
48. Virgin Islands: Territorial
prison is under court order dealing with
conditions and overcrowding. Barnes v.
Gov't of the Virgin Islands, 415 F.Supp.
1218 (D.V.I. 1976).
Summary

Entire Prison System Under Court Order or
Consent Decree
Ten jurisdictions: Alabama,* Alaska,*
Florida, Mississippi, New Mexico,*
Rhode Island,* South Carolina,* Tennessee.* Texas, Puerto Rico
---<ontinued on next page

MARYLAND

Litigation Can Stop
Unnecessary Jail Building
Claudia Wright
Susan Goering
In November of 1987 the National
awareness about the need for and the;~. ,
Prison Project, along with the ACLU of
effectiveness of alternatives.
.if)
Maryland, filed challenges to the condiMany of the most important earIY't~
tions of confinement in three small jails
prisoners' rights cases were jail condilocated on the remote Eastern Shore of
tions cases? They set the stage for "the
Maryland.' Small jails like these with
"big prison cases"-system-wide chalfewer than I00 prisoners are not usually
lenges to prison conditions-- that have
the subject of our litigation. Over the
been the staple of the National Prison
course of these cases, however, we have
Project docket over the years. In subsediscovered some new strategies and exquent years we were involved in jail
. cases only rarely. We participated in
citing opportunities that have made the
effort even more worthwhile than we
state-wide challenges to jail conditions
expected. One certain result of these
based on statutory obligations of state
cases will be the implementation of preofficers to set standards and regulate
compliance in local facilities.) We also
trial and post-sentencing alternatives to
incarceration in a region where such
represented sentenced prisoners in the
mammoth District of Columbia jail case.4
programs had never existed before. We
are also optimistic that our litigation will
For the most part, jail cases have been
serve to slow or stop unnecessary new
handled by local private attorneys, legal
jail construction, by increasing public
aid offices, or other smaller public interest groups committed to addressing
Claudia Wright is the associate director of community problems. These cases number in the hundreds, and some have met
the National Prison Project
with great success. Our role in these
cases has been primarily as a c1earingSusan Goering is the legal director of the

American Civil Liberties Union
Maryland.

of

2See, e.g., Miller v. Carson. 563 F.2d 741 (5th Cir.
1977) (Jacksonville. Florida); Collins v. Schoonfield.

(Talbot County). All three cases were filed in the
United States District Court for the District of
Maryland in Baltimore.

344 F.Supp. 257 (D Md. 1972) (Baltimore, Maryland); Rhem v. Malcolm, 507 F.2d 333 (2nd Cir.
1974) (New York).
'Arias v. Wainwright. No. TCA 79-792 (N.D. Fla.);
Bush v. Viterna. 740 F.2d 350 (5th Cir. 1984).
<Inmates of D.C. Jail v. Jackson, 416 F.Supp. 119
(D.C.D.C. 1976).

Major Institution(s) in the State!jurisdiction
Under Court Order or Consent Decree

Special Masters/Monitors/Mediators
Appointed

Thirty jurisdictions: Arizona,* California,*
Colorado,* Connecticut,* Delaware,*
Georgia, Hawaii,* lIIinois,* Idaho,* Indiana,* Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,* Louisiana,
Maryland,* Michigan,* Missouri,* Nevada,* New Hampshire,* New York,
North Carolina,* Ohio,* South Dakota,*
Utah, Virginia,* Washington,* West Virginia, Wisconsin,* District of Columbia,*
Virgin Islands

Twenty jurisdictions: Alabama,* Arizona,* Arkansas,* California,* District of
Columbia,* Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,*
Idaho,* IlIinois,* Michigan,* Nevada,*
New Mexico,* Rhode Island,* South
Carolina,* Tennessee,* Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Puerto Rico

'Hendricks v. Welch, HM-87-274 (Wicomico
County); Dotson v. Satterfield. JH-87-3123 (Dorchester County); Macer v. DiNisio. PN-87-3122

Formerly Under Court Order or Consent
Decree-Currently Released from Jurisdiction
of the Court
Four jurisdictions: Arkansas,* Oklahoma,* Oregon, Wyoming*

Pending Litigation
Eight jurisdictions: Arkansas, California,*
Connecticut,* Georgia, Indiana,* Massachusetts, North Carolina,* Pennsylvania*

Prison Systems Under Court Order and
Cited for Contempt
Six jurisdictions: Alabama,* Mississippi,
Michigan,* Rhode Island,* Texas, District
of Columbia* iii

Note: There is some overlap between
the second and fourth categories because, in some states where one or
more facilities are under court order,
others in that state are presently being
challenged (e.g., Indiana).

Conditions in local jails are even
worse than in large prisons.
house to assist lawyers, through our National Jail Project, and through publication of the Primer for Jail Litigators which
we continue to distribute.

Jails Often Worse Than Prisons
The NPP's reluctance to take on a
substantial number of jail conditions
cases is no refle,tion on their importance. Generally.! the conditions in local
jails are even worse than in large prisons. Overcrowding in jails has become a
very serious problem, not only because
more people are being locked up, but
also because state prisons often consign
their overflow of sentenced prisoners to
the jails to alleviate systemic overcrowding. Jails tend to be more violent and
dangerous places than prisons. Suicides
occur more frequently. Prisoners come
in directly from the street as unknown
quantities, often with alcohol, drug or
psychiatric problems. Meaningful classification and separation, while essential,
are rarely effected. Vulnerable inmates
are at the mercy of more aggressive
cellmates. Especially in smaller jurisdictions, jail correctional officers are less
experienced and less well-trained than
their prison counterparts. All these factors combine to make life in the typical
county jail intolerable.
Yet, we have been hesitant to take on
jail cases because each one requires almost the same expenditure of time and
resources as a large prison conditions
case which would benefit many more
people. Moreover, jail litigation is less
attractive to us because we know that
successful litigation almost inevitably
leads to construction and expansion,
widening the net of incarceration to include more and more people who really
pose no danger to the community. The
politics of jail construction do not seem
to permit construction of smaller, newbut-improved jails. That tension between
the need to improve conditions and the
reluctance to fuel the movement toward
more and bigger jails has dis~ouraged
our participation in this kind of litigation
in the past. Our recent experience in
Maryland, however, has given us some
new ideas to consider and the incentive
to rethink our attitude toward jail
litigation.

Eastern Shore Jails in Shambles
In the fall of 1987, the ACLU of
Maryland and the National Prison Project embarked on an inspection tour of
seven county jails on the Eastern Shore.
Conditions in three of these jails cried
-continued on next page
WINTER 1989

II

We feared that prisoners might

perish in a fire.
-continued from previous page

out for redress. In Wicomico County,
eight prisoners were jammed into each
7 x 15 foot cell. The stench of human
waste and bodies crowded together in
incredible filth was overwhelming. The
noise was deafening. Toilets, sinks and
showers were all in a state of filth and
disrepair. Dorchester County regularly
housed three men in each 7 x 6 foot cell
in a jail that was constructed in 1883.
The walls were literally crumbling. We
feared that prisoners might perish in a
fire. Talbot County also housed prisoners in a century-old facility that was
grossly overcrowded, and, like the
others, met none of the commonly accepted professional codes for fire or
public health in correctional institutions.
In all three jails prisoners were often
held for a year or more before trial,
with no provision for exercise, and no
opportunity to go outside at all.
We decided to join together as cocounsel in challenging these conditions
for several reasons. First, the inhumane
conditions were compelling; we simply
could not walk away. Moreover, we
knew that the local ACLU did not have
the resources to proceed without the
NPP. Finally, we hoped to develop a
new strategy that could further reform
in a broader sense. As we looked more
closely at the task before us, it became
apparent that we could use the eXisting
wretched conditions to draw attention
to the need for alternatives to imprisonment and intermediate sanctions.
Because the three jails are located in
adjacent counties, we decided that if we
brought cases in all three simultaneously,
we could coordinate our use of expert
and lawyer time more effectively. Further, Wicomico County was constructing a huge new jail, built to house up to
600 prisoners-over three times as
many beds as were needed. The other
two countie~had plans on the drawing
Attorneys Claudia Wright (I.) of the National
Prison Project, and Susan Goering (r.) of the
ACLU of Maryland, represent the inmates in
three Maryland jail cases.

Women are kept in ankle chains in the recrea-;,."
tion room of the Talbot County Detention Cen-.~
ter, Easton, M a r y l a n d . ' ; '
Overcrowding is evident in this trusty cell in
Wicomico County Detention Center, SaIisbu'¥,
Maryland.

Talbot County Detention Center, Easton,
Maryland.
This photo shows makeshift sleeping arrangments at the Talbot County Jail. A bed has
been placed in the hallway in front of the
shower.

board to build new large jails. Thus, one
goal of the litigation was to force the
counties to consider sharing resources
by making the new Wicomico jail a regional facility, and to discourage the
building in Talbot and Dorchester. This
was an ambitious plan because of the history of political conflict among the counties; the outcome of our strategy is still
uncertain. Nonetheless, the footing for
our plan has been laid. Four hundred
beds are now available in Wicomico
County, and Dorchester and Talbot are
being forced, by our litigation, to drastically reduce their populations. Housing
prisoners in the neighboring county is
the obvious solution, and time will tell
whether local officials will take advantage of this unusual opportunity.

Roche and Lindsay Hayes were able to
profile the county jail population for us
in very short order. We demonstrated
to Wicomico County officials that large
numbers of prisoners they were housing
in their jail had very low bonds, and
were held on misdemeanor offenses for
which it was unlikely they would receiv~
prison sentences. In January 1988, under
the threat of an imminent trial, defendants were willing to discuss settlement
of the case. Given the inhumane and
overcrowded jail, the lack of any plausible defense, and that the opening of the
new jail was still six months away, defendants agreed to implement a pre-trial
release program and a work release program designed to lower the population.
In July 1988, they moved into the new
600-bed facility with only 65 prisoners.
They have, as expected, increased the
population now that they have more
space, but the programs are still basically
intact. And, importantly, space is still
available for Dorchester and Talbot prisoners. Whether they will use it remains
to be seen, but now we know we have
a plan that will work to bring alternatives to Dorchester and Talbot
Counties.
The pOSSibility remains that the officials of Talbot and Dorchester Counties
will get together to solve their similar
problems. Both of these counties have
very small populations and usually have
no more than 50 to 60 prisoners at any
one time. Both have approximately 100bed jails on the drawing board, but construction is several years away. Like Wicomico, they have many people locked
up who would be eligible for alternative
sentencing options. We have reached an
agreement in the Dorchester case which
includes the immediate implementation
of pre-trial release and work release

tJt

Another Unexpected and Positive
Result
The overbuilding by Wicomico compelled us toward an additional litigation
strategy: leveraged alternatives to imprisonment. We were horrified when
we learned the capacity of the new jail
(600) under construction in Wicomico
County. The old jail held less than 100
prisoners. The population of the largest
city in the county was only 25,000, with
no expectation of significant growth in
this century! We decided when we filed
suit that, although it was too late to affect that construction plan, we could
force the county, because of the leverage we had in our conditions case, to
start pre-trial supervised release and
work release programs before the new
jail was ready to open.
We set to work with the National
Center for Institutions and Alternatives
j (NCIA) to study the population of the
~ jail and devise appropriate alternative
~ programs for them. NCIA experts Tim

programs. We will likely be able to accomplish the same result in Talbot
County. With time now on our side, we
are convinced that the cost-effectiveness
of these alternative programs will discourage the counties from bUilding, or at
least from building so much. Officials
from the counties are talking to each
other now about the possibility of a
joint effort to build only one jail to
house both populations.
To engage in litigation to improve
conditions of confinement for the imprisoned justifies itself. But trying to
keep people out of jails, drawing attention to the use of alternatives to incarceration, educating county officials about
the benefits of alternatives to their com-

munities, and finding ways to discourage
construction, are exciting dimensions of
jail litigation that make our efforts more
meaningful and productive. It further justifies the expenditure of our scarce resources in jail cases. Key to this approach is, of course, our association wit". ~
the National Center on Institutions and,l£
Alternatives. Through litigation we cany'o
capture the attention of county official~f"' ~
Once they are listening, NCIA proviq,es" ~
the facts and figures to make a pers~~ ~
sive case for the use of alternatives, "~d £
can then put together specific programs
Speakers at the Fr~edom Fund Banquet in Octo meet the unique needs of a particular tober 1988. Stand)JJg is Robert Brantley, chaircommunity. In this way, we offer a deal
person of the NAACP Prison Support
to the county that it really can't afford
Committee.
to refuse. II1II
ecutive deputy director, also offered
words of encouragement to the inmate
members and commended the branch on
its many achievements. Among the distinguished guests were City Council representatives Jacqueline McClean and
Lawrence Bell; a representative from
Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke's office;
and Rev. John L. Wright, president of
the Maryland State Conference. John
McDonald, president of the Maryland
Penitentiary Chapter delivered a thunderous speech, exclaiming,

"Tomorrow's Neighbors"
Celebrate NAACP Inmate
Chapter
Olinda Moyd
Robert L. Brantley
The National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP), the nation's oldest civil rights
organization, was founded in 1909 by a
group of black and white individuals representing a variety of civil and religious
organizations. It has led the fight against
racial discrimination and other systematic
injustices that plague America's minorities and poor. The NAACP has diligently
fought against injustice in every arena,
from the courtroom to the picket line,
waging an untiring battle to raise the
standard of living of America's
"underclass."
Approximately one year ago, prisoners at the Maryland Penitentiary were
given the opportunity to join the
NAACP family. (There have been other
prisoner chap~rs formed, for example,
at Lewisburg Federal Penitentiary, and in
state prisons in Pennsylvania and New
Jersey.) It was a dream that many
thought would never come true. After
several years of fighting to establish an
inmate chapter, the Maryland Penitentiary branch was chartered in November
1987. The only existing NAACP inmate
chapter in the state of Maryland, this

Olinda Moyd is a staff associate with the
National Prison Project and vice chair of
the NAACP Prison and Support Committee.
Robert L. Brantley is committee chair and
a member of the Baltimore NAACP Board
of Directors.

chapter is sworn to support "principles
of equality and justice" and to "keep the
goals of the NAACP above any purely
personal or individual interest." The
Maryland Penitentiary branch, in its inaugural year, has worked hard to uphold
and maintain the traditions of the
NAACP.
During its first year, the branch sponsored its First Annual Jubilee Celebration which it joined with a commemoration of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. A
drive to fund a library in memory of Latonya Wallace (a Baltimore City student
who was a victim of violence) resulted
in the donation of more than $2,000 towards the purchase of books. The
branch began a pen pal campaign with
more than I00 elementary school students; sponsored a religious awareness
seminar whose panel consisted of community representatives from various religions; and developed a newsletter, The
Communique, distributed monthly.
On October 5, 1988, the Maryland
prisoner branch held its -first Annual
Membership Social where family members and friends were able to visit their
loved ones in a social atmosphere. On
October 25, 1988, the branch held its
first Freedom Fund Banquet, with Mrs.
Frances Hooks as the keynote speaker.
Dr. Benjamin L. Hooks, executive director of the NAACP, was scheduled to
speak but was unable to attend due to a
last-minute out-of-town engagement.
Dr. William Pollard, former NAACP ex-

We (the inmates) have long awaited the
institution of the NAACP and see it as a
vehicle-a forum from which we could
at long last be heard-a platform from
which we could deliver a much needed
message. Our message is much the
same message that led to the formation
of the NAACP eighty odd years ago.
Simply put, that message is: we care!
We care about racial injustices, teen
pregnancy, the homeless, the Supreme
Court's civil rights decisions, campaign
election issues, disintegration of the
black family, and drugs in our communities. We care about these things for the
same reason you care. We care because
we are still part of the human family.
Regardless of the generalizations and
stigmatizations that society places upon
us, we are, and always will be, lOVing
and caring men. We are still your sons,
your brothers, your husbands . . . we are
still part of you.
The message was well received by the
guests and the inmate members who
have every reason to feel proud of their
accomplishments. The branch has experienced a year of tremendous growth and
development during its first year. The
banquet was planned as a celebration of
those successes and as the anchor of the
coming year's efforts.
The inmate branch has adopted two
-continued on next page
WINTER 1989

13

-continued from previous page

new projects-The School Uniform
Project and the Christmas Project. The
branch believes that many of the problems encountered by public school students are the direct result of the students' desire to wear expensive, brandname clothes. Not only does this present a financial burden on parents, they
feel, it brings about misplaced values
among our young people. The branch
feels that the proposed wearing of uniforms in the public schools is an innovative and effective Vlay to alleviate some
of the peer pressure and instill a sense
of pride in young children. The branch
plans to contribute to the Uniform Project by providing funding for as many as
five uniforms at each of the city elementary schools that have adopted the Uniform Project. The second project is the
Christmas Project. On December 16,
17, and 18 of this year, the inmates of
the Maryland Penitentiary will be permitted to have special holiday visits with
their children. The branch proposes to
contribute to this event by providing token gifts to each child who participates
during this special visitation period. The
branch also plans to provide two photographs, free of charge, to each visiting
party.
All members of the Maryland Penitentiary branch must pay $1 0 annual membership to the Association. The fee is
forwarded to the National Office and
distributed for use by the branches. The
inmate branch has its own constitution
and by-laws; it currently has 240
members.
This branch could not have been established without the support of the
NAACP National Office and the local
NAACP Prison Support Committee.
The National NAACP Prison Program is
responsible for establishing and stabilizing the 36 inmate branches, including I I
in federal institutions. However, there
has historically been a decline in effectiveness of a prison branch when it has
lost support of the external community.
Without the gijidance and direction of
the more experienced NAACP members, prison branches tend not only to
deteriorate internally, but also to fall
prey to the repressive and divisive tactics of prison administrators. This has led
to the establishment of the NAACP
Prison Support Committee. This committee offers needed gUidance and sup'. port to the inmate chapter. The Prison
Support Committee, an NAACP subcommittee, acts as a liaison between the
inmate members, the community, and
the correctional officials. The inmates
who are active NAACP members benefit in several ways by their affiliation
with the NAACP. First, every inmate
member is encouraged to take advan14 WINTER 1989

tage of the educational opportunities offered by the institution. When existing
educational programs have been found
to be inadequate, the education committee of the inmate chapter has submitted
proposals to improve and expand these
programs to correctional officials. Sec- ~
ond, committee chairs and elected offi-:a.
cers develop acute leadership skills dur-'1li
ing their term of participation with the/if
NAACP. Finally, with the help of the ,•. '~'
Prison Support Committee and other~';
NAACP assistance, the inmate brancli;

For the Record
Durfee Award Honors Prisoners'
Rights Activists
III Stephen B. Bright, director of the
Southern Prisoners' Defense Committee
in Atlanta, Georgia, and Isabelle Patten,
founder of the Lewisburg Prison Project
in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, are among
the 1988 winners of the Durfee Award.
The Durfee Award recognizes individuals who have "significantly enhanced the
human dignity of others through the law
or legal instruments."
Bright was honored for his "long and
extraordinary commitment to justice for
the indigent, particularly for defendants
in capital cases, the justice system's least
palatable cause."
Patten was recognized for her work
on behalf of prisoners at the maximum
security federal penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania.
Others receiving the award were the
Rev. James McClosky of Princeton, New
Jersey, for investigative work leading to
the overturning of the life sentences of
several prisoners wrongly accused of
murder and rape, and Franklin E. Kameny of Washington, D.C. for his work
in guaranteeing the civil rights of gays
and lesbians.
The biennial Durfee Awards Program
was established in 1982 by trustees of
the Durfee Foundation, a non-profit,
charitable foundation in Los Angeles.
Each winner receives a check for
$10,000 and a framed Durfee Award.
III The National Center on Institutions and Alternatives (NCIA), in
cooperation with Juvenile and Criminal Justice International, and with assistance from the National Sheriffs'
Association, recently released several
training aids on jail suicide prevention.
The National Study ofJail Suicides:
Seven Years Later comprises data from all
jails (county and city) and police department lockups throughout the country on
the incidence of jail suicides during 1985
and 1986. Subsequent comparison with

maintains a viable connection with the
community and is able to address community concerns and support community
projects.
The NAACP Maryland Penitentiary
branch has become an active self-help
group for its members and has served to
offer support to the community to
which they will return. The NAACP believes that the development and training
of incarcerated individuals is important
because "today's inmates are tomorrow's neighbors." III

,

NCIA's prior national research revealed
that, absent minor variations, there were
no appreciable differences in jail suicide
characteristics since 1979. Most of the
key characteristics of jail suicide-offense, intoxication, method/instrument,
isolation and length of incarcerationhave remained virtually unchanged over
time. The consistency of such findings
could impact the ability to deter future
suicidal behavior.
The Training Curriculum for Suicide De-

tection and Prevention in Jails and Lockups
is intended to equip law enforcement of-.
ficers and jail administrators and their
staffs with a basic understanding of suicidal behavior as it relates to facility environment. Topics include jail suicide research, why jail environments influence
suicidal behavior, signs and symptoms of
suicidal behavior, high-risk periods, assessing suicide risk (screening), supervision of suicidal inmates, arresting/correctional officer role in prevention, litigation, facts and fiction, jail design, first
aid, and controversial issues in prevention. Transparencies are also available.
The study sells for $20, the training
curriculum for $25.
For more information, contact: lindsay M. Hayes, project director, NCIA,
635 Slaters Lane, Suite G-I 00, Alexandria, VA 22314,703/684-0373.

III Several new books explore the influence of penal conditions on prisoners.
University of Texas psychologist Paul B.
Paulus' review of the prison crowding
literature suggests that: negative effects
increase as prison populations rise and
exceed design capacity; smaller prisons
have fewer health-related problems; and
negative influences of prison size and degree of crowding vary according to levels of uncertainty and interference. Paulus finds that prisoners show a high
degree of tolerance for crowdedness.
Canadian researchers Edward Zamble
and Frank J. Porporino conducted prisoner response research at penitentiaries
in Ontario where they found that posi-

tive effects of imprisonment wear off
shortly after release. Prisons, they argue,
have a limited ability to change undesirable offender behavior.
In a more narrowly defined study of
the impact of imprisonment, a team of
Yale University medical researchers, led
by Adrian M. Ostfield, found that the
blood pressure of offenders jailed in the
Billerica House of Corrections in Middlesex County, Massachusetts varied according to number of times incarcerated, ethnic origin, age, education level,
religiosity, transiency of pre-jail resi-

dence, and type of in-jail housing, among
other factors.
Paulus' Prison Crowding: A Psychological
Perspective ($43) and Zamble and Porporino's Coping, Behavior and Adaptation
in Prison Inmates ($40) are published by
Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., 175
•
Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10010. Stress,~

• The Sentencing Project announces
the publication of Annotated Bibliography:
Recent Articles on Sentencing Issues, a 58page bibliography listing over 150 articles from law reviews, bar journals, and
other publications that have appeared
since 1978. Issues covered include alternative sentencing, capital punishment,
Crowding, and Blood Pressure in Prison :'i~ sentencing guidelines, mandatory sen($29.95) by Ostfield, Kasl, D'Atri and it tencing, and sentencing advocacy. The
Fitzgerald, is published by Lawrence ~d;{; Bibliography is available for $1 0 from the
baum Associates, Inc., Suite 102, 365!"f;
Sentencing Project, 1156 15th St., N.W.,
Suite 520, Washington, D.C. 20005.
Broadway, Hillsdale, NJ 07642.~J~

,

The National Prison Project Status Report lists by

I

state those presently under
court order, or those which
have pending litigation either
involving the entire state
prison system or major institutions within the state. Lists
only cases which deal with
overcrowding and/or the total
conditions of confinement.
(No jails except District of
Columbia.) Periodically updated. $3 prepaid from NPP.

The National Prison

- - - - - l - Project JOURNAL,

$25/yr. $21yr. to prisoners.

Bibliography of Women in
Prison Issues. A bibliography

The Prisoners Assistance
Directory, the result of a na-

QTY.COST

tional survey, identifies and describes various organizations
and agencies that provide assistance to prisoners. Lists
national, state, and local organizations and sources of assistance including legal, library,
medical, educational, employment and financial aid. 8th Edition, published December
1988. Paperback, $25 prepaid
from NPP.

of all the information on this
subject contained in our files.
Includes information on abortion, behavior modification
programs, lists of other bibliographies, Bureau of Prison
policies affecting women in
prison, juvenile girls, women in
jail, the problem of incarcerated mothers, health care, and
general articles and books. $5
prepaid from NPP.

Offender Rights Litigation:
Historical and Future De-

A Primer For Jail Litigators is a detailed manual with

~Iopments. A

practical suggestions for jail litigation. It includes chapters on
legal analysis, the use of expert witnesses, c1~ actions,
attorneys' fees, enforcement,
discovery, defenses' proof,
remedies, and many practical
suggestions. Relevant case citations and correctional standards. Ist Edition, February

book chapter
by Alvin J. Bronstein published
in the Prisoners' Rights
Sourcebook (1980). Traces
the history of the prisoners'
rights movement and surveys
the state of the law on various
prison issues (many case citations). 24 pages, $2.50 prepaid
from NPP.

Fill out and send with check payable to

The National Prison Project
1616 P Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036

1984. 180 pages, paperback
$15 prepaid from NPP.

I
The Jail Litigation Status
- - - - - l - Report gives a state-by-state
listing of cases involving jail
conditions in both federal and
.Ail6\, state courts. The Report cov~ ers unpublished opinions, consent decrees and cases in
progress as well as published
v<"""""'; decisions. The Report is the
...
first nationwide compilation of'
litigation involVing jails. 1st
Edition, published September
1985. $15 prepaid from NPP.
I

AIDS in Prison Bibliog-

- - - - - l - raphy lists resources on AIDS
in prison that are available
from the National Prison Proj-·
ect and other sources, including corrections policies on
AIDS, educational materials,
medical and legal articles, and
'.r<~ recent AIDS studies. 31 pages.
$5 prepaid from NPP.

I

AIDS in Prisons: The Facts

- - - - - l - for Inmates and Officers is
a simply written educational
tool for prisoners, corrections
, staff, and AIDS service provid\.\\' ers. The booklet answers in an
~~
easy-to-read format commonly
\
.•..... I asked questions concerning
~ the meaning of AIDS, the
~...
. . medical treatme.nt avaiiable,le•~ ~ gal rights and responsibilities.
Sample copies free. Bulk or. ders: 100 copies/$25. 500 copies/$ I00. 1,000 copies/$150
•
QTY. COST
prepaid.

.>

NAME

_

ADDRESS

_

CITY, STATE. ZIP

_

WINTER 1989

15

1111111111.
The following are major developments
in the Prison Project's litigation program
since September I, 1988. Further details
of any of the listed cases may be obtained by writing the Project.
Abbott v. Thornburgh-This is the
national class action which challenges the
mail and literature policies of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Argument before
the Supreme Court was held on November 8, 1988.
Baraldini v~Meese-This case alleges
that the Federal Bureau of Prisons assigned plaintiffs to the High Security
Unit in the Lexington Federal Penitentiary in violation of their First, Eighth
and Fifth Amendment rights. In August,
the court granted plaintiffs a highly favorable decision, and in September, defendants filed a motion for expedited appeal. We opposed that motion.
Duran v. Carruthers--This case challenges conditions in the New Mexico
state prison system. In October we received a favorable attorneys' fees decision on two of our pending fee
applications.
Harris v• Thigpen-This case challenges the Alabama Department of Corrections' program to test all prisoners
for HIV antibodies, and to segregate
those who test HIV-positive. In late September we filed a memorandum in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment.

National prison Project
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
1616 P Street, NW, Suite 340
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 331-0500

New Prisoners Assistance Directory
Available from NPP. Eighth Edition.
See PUBLICATIONS, p. 15.
16 WINTER 1989

D.c-Thi~l

Inmates of Occoquan v.
case seeks to improve conditions and tEl':.
Iieve overcrowding at the District of/'
Columbia's Occoquan facility. The G@Urf
of Appeals denied our petition forrp~
hearing en banc in a 6-5 panel decisi~n in
July and remanded the case to the district court. Rather then seek certibrari,
we elected to return to the district
court. We have been actively engaged in
negotiations with the parties and plan to
submit a settlement to the court very
soon.
jerry M. v. D.C.-This case challenges
conditions at D.C.'s two juvenile facilities. On October 14, the court entered
an order requiring defendants to take
specific actions by court-imposed deadlines including hiring staff, placing youths
in group homes within 45 days, and reducing all institutions to single room
capacity.
Maryland jails: Hendricks v. Welch,
Macer v. DiNisio, Dotson v. Satterfield-These cases,fiIed by the Prison
Project and the Maryland ACLU, challenge conditions and practices in three
jails on Maryland's Eastern Shore. In
Hendricks, just before an agreement by
the parties was to be approved by the
court, the county moved all prisoners
into a newly constructed jail. Defendants
moved to dismiss the case as moot and
plaintiffs agreed to the dismissal. In Dotson, the court granted preliminary injunctive relief on the issue of inmates'
right to receive publications. Following
an Augtlst hearing, the court ordered an

end to triple-ceiling and imposed a limit
on the population in the women's dorm.
We entered into negotiations with defendants and reached final settlement of
all issues on October 3, 1988.
Palmigiano 't\ DiPrete-This case
challenges co~itions in the Rhode Island
state prison s1stem. In late October, the
court found defendants, the Governor,
and the corrections director in contempt for violating population limits at
the Intake Service Center, and ordered
that fines of $10,000 a day be imposed if
defendants are not in full compliance by
February 20, 1989.
Plyler v. Evatt (formerly Nelson v.
Leeke~This case challenges overcrowding and conditions in the South
Carolina prison system. In September,
we filed a petition for certiorari in the
Supreme Court in response to a Fourth
Circuit decision allowing defendants to
modify the consent decree. Certiorari .
was denied in October. Defendants appealed the court's decision on attorneys'
fees in September.
U.S. v. Michigan/Knop v. johnsonThis is a statewide Michigan prison conditions case. The Sixth Circuit granted a
stay in Knop. We filed a motion toreturn the judgment to the district court
to allow the court to modify its order
on the racial harassment issue. In U.S. v.
Michigan, following a hearing, we received a favorable court order concerning mental health and some aspects of
overcrowding. II

Nonprofit Org.
U.S. Postage

PAID
Washington, D.C.
Permit No. 5248