MAYOR’S COMMISSION ON CITY JAIL ISSUES

INTERIM REPORT

December 30, 2005

BRIEF OVERVIEW
The Commission on City Jail Issues (“the Commission”) was created in July, 2005 by
Mayor L. Douglas Wilder to review various aspects of the Richmond City Jail. On August
3, 2005, Mayor Wilder convened the first meeting of the Commission and charged it
with assessing the functionality, polices and procedures, physical plant issues and
overall general effectiveness and efficiency of the jail and its operations. The
Commission was tasked with making recommendations to the Mayor through
interviews, assessments and then “deliberations on an aggressive schedule” to inform the
Mayor’s budget priorities for the next fiscal year. Additionally, the Commission could
include in its review the possibility and/or necessity for building a new jail. The Mayor
requested a report from the Commission on or before December 31, 2005.
Mayor Wilder appointed the following persons as members of the Commission:
Rodney D. Monroe, chief of police (Chair); Leonard Cooke, director, Department of
Criminal Justice Services; Marla Graff Decker, deputy attorney general, Office of the
Attorney General; Walter McFarlane, Esq., Department of Correctional Education;
Walter Ridley, consultant and former director of the Department of CorrectionsWashington, DC; Faye Taxman, professor, Virginia Commonwealth University; and
Izeta Wade, program manager, Division of Motor Vehicles and former parole
examiner, Virginia Parole Board. The Commission was staffed by Pamela O’Berry
Evans, Richmond police general counsel; Rhonda Gilmer, criminal justice planner,
Department of Justice Services; Patrick Roberts, senior assistant to the chief
administrative officer and Banci Tewolde, assistant attorney general, Office of the
Attorney General.
METHODOLOGY
To carry out its objectives, Commission members and staff were assigned to
specific working groups based upon his or her expertise. Meetings were held at least
once each month to share progress and status reports. Each working group established
its own schedule to visit the jail, review records, conduct interviews, and obtain
information from comparable facilities.
From late August, 2005 through November 10, 2005 the Commission working
groups conducted its work by reviewing the documents, conducting interviews and
assessing the physical facility (including locking mechanisms) with varying degrees of
cooperation from Sheriff Michelle Mitchell and her staff. On November 10, 2005, two
days after Sheriff Mitchell was defeated by C.T. Woody in the Richmond City General
Election, Sheriff Mitchell had her staff notify the Commission that the Sheriff’s Office
would no longer cooperate with the Commission, nor provide it any information, tours
or access to the jail.
Due to this development, this report does not represent final or comprehensive
findings and recommendations of the jail and its operations. The Commission presents
this interim report as a summary of emergent issues and recommendations. The

2

Commission requests that its work continue into the new year so that it may present
complete findings which can be verified by more reliable data, unfiltered and
uncensored interviews of staff and inmates, and direct access to all jail documents.
From August through November, to the extent the members of the Commission were
permitted to interview staff, most interviews were attended and/or censored or
interrupted by jail command staff. Additionally many of the requested documents were
not provided, unavailable, incomplete, or unable to be verified through independent
review.
THE PHYSICAL FACILITY
The Richmond City Jail consists of two physically separate buildings: the main
City Jail located at Fairfield Way and 17th Streets, and the city lock-up approximately
two miles away at 501 N. 9th Street. The City of Richmond also houses a relatively small
number of prisoners in Peumansend Creek Regional Jail, located in Caroline County,
which is a minimum/medium security regional jail.
The City lock-up was erected as part of the Public Safety Complex and was
completed in 1962. The management of the lock-up was transferred to the Sheriff’s
Department in 1974. Inmates are booked at the City lock-up and are moved into the
lock-up from an enclosed salleyport. Inmates are moved to and from the main jail and
other locations via a second salleyport.
The main City Jail houses pre-trial and sentenced inmates (local and state
responsible inmates awaiting transfer to the state system). The main City Jail was
constructed between 1963 and 1965. In 1991, an additional 100 bed dormitory unit was
completed to accommodate inmate population growth. Over the years, alternative
changes to cell/dorm use as well as converting some spaces to accommodate
overcrowding conditions have been made by jail staff. There has been no subsequent
comprehensive jail renovation. With the exception of the HVAC system modification in
1980, the lock-up has not been expanded or renovated.
The rated capacity for the Richmond City Jail is 882 and it houses male, female
and juvenile inmates. The average daily population of the City Jail is approximately
1,400 inmates.
The Peumansend Creek Regional Jail was constructed between1997 and 1999. It
is operated by the Peumansend Creek Regional Jail Authority. Richmond City is one of
six member1 jurisdictions of the Authority, and pursuant to a service agreement, has a
right to occupy up to 100 beds of the total 336 beds. The agreement, however,
provides that the Authority will not accept prisoners requiring a high level of security.
Additionally, inmates with any medical conditions are not accepted into the Regional
Jail. Essentially, only low level custody inmates without medical problems are permitted

1.

The other six members include City of Alexandria, County of Arlington, County of Caroline, County of
Loudon and County of Prince William.

3

to transfer to the Regional Jail. This contractual prohibition severely inhibits the Sheriff’s
ability to completely utilize the regional jail to meets its overcrowding needs.
During numerous visits to the facility, Commission members observed that the
current design does not facilitate continuous personal contact between the staff and
inmates of the housing units as is needed in a secured facility. In fact, inmates
constantly fill the halls and the overcrowded general population tiers make it impossible
for the staff to observe more than a few inmates at a time, even though a deputy may
be responsible for supervision of more than 200 inmates at a time. The only area in the
facility that lends itself to the above is the women’s facility, which is a relatively new
construction equipped with cameras.
Recommendations
•

•
•
•
•

•
•

The City of Richmond should immediately conduct a cost-benefit analysis of
its participation in the Regional Jail. After review, the City should explore the
legality of amending its role and responsibility for participating in the Regional
Jail under its current restrictions. The City pays to participate in the Regional
Jail, while it is clear that the Jail fails to accept the type of inmates which
would assist with the City Jail’s overcrowding issues.
Jail administration should receive cost bids for installation of a camera system
in critical areas of the existing jail. The lack of electronic devices to monitor
and surveil the male population is critical.
Jail administration should immediately review the functionality of the camera
system in the women’s facility. During several visits to the jail, Commission
members found this system to be inoperable.
Jail administration should have all of the plumbing fixtures assessed to
determine prioritization of repairs needed. Commission members observed
toilets and sinks to be in disrepair during several visits.
Jail administration should have the plumbing infrastructure assessed to
determine prioritization of repairs needed. A Commission member observed
that the plumbing chases are antiquated and in a state of disrepair, leading to
a lack of adequate water flow in the housing units, sinks and shower stalls,
which were tested.
Jail administration should immediately acquire emergency back-up
generators.
Jail administration should be aware of the critical lack of space throughout the
facility. Of particular concern is day room (visiting room) space, for the
general and maximum security populations. In addition, the facility lacks the
requisite space for out of cell time, education and training activities. There is a
serious lack of storage space for Facilities Management staff, inmate clothing,
technology, training and staff break areas. This critical lack of space prevents
the current jail facility from being able to meet the American Correctional
Association (ACA) standards.

4

•

Jail administration should immediately familiarize itself with the facilities study
and proposals conducted by Dewberry and Davis. This study recommends
extensive repairs and retrofits to the existing jail facility. If all recommended
repairs were made this would cost approximately15 to 20 million dollars.
Details of the expenditures include the following:
o replacement of boilers;
o plumbing renovations for three dormitories at cost of approximately
$53,000 per dormitory;
o renovations for plumbing for all cell units;
o replacement of electrical service and distribution equipment;
o adding an emergency generator system;
o installation of improved lighting;
o installation of wall-mounted fans;
o total window replacement;
o HVAC upgrades for the entire facility (heat only);
o replacement of the kitchen grease hood system replacement;
o shower wall reconditioning;
o new cell door locking devices;
o construction of a new medical triage unit;
o construction of a new laundry facility for inmate clothing;
o control tower upgrade/replacement;
o renovation of the key control facility); and
o renovation of Quartermaster section.

•

•

Considering all of the above, it is recommended that jail administration
conduct a review of the study done by Dewberry and Davis and make a
determination as to which of the recommendations are most cost effective for
the short term, and which are necessary to maintain minimal constitutional
standards for the inmates housed there.
The Commission strongly recommends and advocates for the construction of
a new state of the art facility. A new facility will allow for greater efficiency and
effective use of tax dollars. A new facility will meet constitutional standards,
providing for a better quality of life for inmates and a healthy, wholesome
work environment for employees.

ADMINISTRATION
While it is clear that many of the City Jail deficiencies can be attributed to the
physical plant limitations, a substantial amount of the issues identified by the
Commission are due to deficient supervision, policies, procedures, equipment, training
and prioritization. In light of many of the Commission’s findings in this regard, the
Commission makes the following recommendations:

5

Recommendations
•

•

Jail administration should obtain training opportunities for its staff.
Commission members were advised that other than top jail officials, most
staff were not trained outside of their initial academy training, meeting
minimal recertification requirements, and peer-to-peer training when they
were transferred to new assignments. The Department of Criminal Justice
Services and the Department of Corrections offer extensive training that the
City Jail staff could participate in at minimal, or no cost. Additionally, the
Richmond Police Department continues to offer its training facility for use by
jail staff since the jail training room is inadequate for most training needs.
The Sheriff’s Office and the Police Department staff should collaborate to
develop joint training opportunities, which would reduce the cost to both, and
build a better working relationship between the two agencies.
Jail administration should pursue accreditation via the American Correctional
Association (ACA) and the Commission on Accreditation for Corrections (CAC).
All ACA accredited correctional programs and facilities operate under
minimum standards that are designed to ensure the health, safety, and
welfare of staff and offenders within a correctional setting. The regulations
governing certification and inspection serve as a necessary enforcement
mechanism in monitoring the minimum standards so that local jails, state
correctional facilities, residential centers, probation and parole offices and
other correctional programs and facilities may be evaluated through a
uniform process and be certified as efficient and safe. ACA accreditation
requires written policy and procedures to establish a training and staff
development program for all categories of personnel and address all preservice, in-service, and specialized training, taking into consideration the
institution’s mission, physical characteristics, and inmate populations. This
accreditation process ensures the professional growth of employees through
training plans that annually identify current job-related training needs in
relation to position requirements, current correctional issues, techniques, and
technologies. Additionally, this process assesses administration, management,
the physical plant, institutional operations and services, and inmate
programs; including adequacy of medical services, segregation and detention,
crowding, programs, and provisions of basic services that may impact the life,
safety, and health of inmates, as well as staff. Accredited agencies have a
stronger defense against litigation through documentation and good faith
efforts to improve conditions of confinement. Adherence to nationally
recognized standards for fire, safety, health, and training reduce insurance
claim expenses, resulting in up to 10 percent credit on liability insurance.
Performance based standards provide data that can be used in the day-today management of the facility reducing the occurrence of significant events.
Even in the current facility, achievement of ACA standards should be pursued.

6

•

•

•

•

•

•

The Richmond Sheriff’s Office and the Richmond Police Department should
collaborate to develop a compatible record management system to facilitate
information sharing by the Sheriff’s Office and the Police Department.
Currently, the Richmond City Jail and the Richmond Police Department both
have a record management system; however, the systems are not
compatible.
Jail administration should train all staff in the proper and complete use of
their record management system. The jail uses the Inmate Management
Tracking System (IMATS), an off-the shelf data system, to track inmate
movement. Staff training on this system appears to be limited. Currently jail
staff enter information into IMATS, but staff are not able to use IMATS to
extract the data to create management reports. When the Commission
requested that data be extracted for a report, it was advised that an outside
consultant had to be called in and paid to generate a report from IMATS.
Even then, the report provided was deficient and inaccurate.
Jail administration should seek to automate all jail logs and routine
paperwork. Norfolk City Jail and Virginia Beach City Jail have automated their
logs and paperwork and have achieved greater efficiency and documentation
of routine functions.
Jail administration should conduct a random audit of all current jail log books.
Commission members inspected several log books during visits and found
that much of the routine information that should be detailed in log books was
missing. For instance, in the juvenile tier, members found that logs failed to
detail when inmates received recreation, meals, medical visits and inmate
counts. Despite the deficiencies in the logs, the logs were routinely signed-off
by supervisors. Re-instruction for staff in what information should be
contained in the logs is needed. Supervisor training should also be conducted
to instruct on the roles and responsibilities of supervisors.
Jail administration should immediately review and revise the jail’s search
practices. We were advised that searches of jail staff had not taken place in
more than one year. Commission members observed and were advised that
professional visitors (attorneys, probation and parole officers, clergy, etc.) are
not searched prior to having one-on-one contact visits with inmates inside the
secured facility. Additionally inmates are not searched after these visits before
going back into general population. Commission members were never
searched prior to entering the secured part of the facility on numerous
occasions. Commission members inquired with jail staff why they did not
have a metal detector or wand to search us or professional visitors and were
advised that “DOC standards do not require it.”
Jail administration should restructure the Internal Affairs section of the jail
and relieve it of all functions that do not relate to investigation of
administrative or criminal violations occurring within the jail or by jail staff.
Currently Internal Affairs is staffed by three deputies who are also responsible
for capiases, civil car seizures, asset forfeitures, serving summons, acting as

7

•

the gang unit, fugitive investigation, bomb threat investigation in the jail and
court facilities, and inmate phone monitoring. They devote a very minimal
amount of their time to investigation of actual incidents in the jail and by
staff.
Jail administration should receive regular reports from key jail units. When
asked, personnel in Classification and Internal Affairs reported that they do
not make reports to, nor are regular reports requested of them by jail
administrators. It is critical that jail administrators seek out and analyze
important jail data on a regular basis in order to make informed management
decisions.

CLASSIFICATION
The classification section of this and any jail facility is the brain center of jail
operations. Only by proper classification of inmates can preventable assaultive incidents
be reduced (as to inmates and staff), non-violent inmates be kept safe from more
predatory inmates, higher security be placed upon those who require it, and proper
programs be made available to appropriate inmates. Over the past several years, the
numbers of local, state, and federal inmates have continued to increase, significantly
impacting the Richmond City Jail’s population. Although the number of inmates coming
into the jail is a crucial issue impacting the jail’s overcrowded state, inmate management
is just as crucial.
This analysis is the result of information obtained from a review of classification
policies provided, information obtained through interviews with jail classification section
staff, an observation of the actual classification process, and review of a sampling of
inmate classification files.
The City Jail currently utilizes Objective Jail Classification (“OJC”), a national
standardized process of conducting classification of inmates in jails and prisons. Proper
use of OJC requires careful review and scoring of the following criteria of an inmate’s
background to appropriately classify him:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

assaultive/predatory behavior
escape risk
criminal history
mental or emotional problems
suicide risk
gang affiliation
sexual identity issues
medical condition
treatment/special
management needs

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

communicable disease
court status and sentences
current behavior
violation of institutional rules
threats to order and the
safety of others
age
sex
education and other program
needs

8

•

separation from enemies of
record

OJC policies and procedures were designed to provide fair and consistent
guidelines to determine inmate security level assignments, and to ensure that proper
documentation is maintained of such decisions. In the City Jail, inmates are classified at
intake and placed in one of five (5) housing levels, with level one being the most
restrictive and level five being the least restrictive. With each level of custody
assignment, an inmate receives additional privileges.
The City Jail’s current OJC policies, procedures and classification process have many
deficiencies. Therefore, the Commission makes the following recommendations to
address the identified deficiencies.
Recommendations
•

•

•

•

Jail administration should review and assess the current custody level and
actual application of OJC policies and procedures. The current process is
primarily based upon bed space and does not adequately evaluate an inmate’s
risk to safety, health, and/or security of others and/or inmates at risk from
other inmates. Additionally, current policies, procedures, and practices do not
address the jail’s current overcrowded conditions and lack of space.
Jail administration should implement a computerized tracking system for reclassification requests submitted by inmates. The current system relies
exclusively upon inmate submissions on either a form or any available piece
of paper. Once the reclassification request is submitted (placed into the drop
box outside of the mess hall) there is no way of determining/verifying
whether each request is reviewed, received and/or acted upon by
classification staff. Additionally, even when the requests are received and
acted upon by staff, the request is simply placed in the inmate folder and not
centrally accounted for anywhere. A review of the inmate files found very few
requests being stored there, despite evidence that some reclassification of
the inmate may have taken place.
Jail administration should implement an initial classification/screening process
for temporary cell housing within 8 hours of entry to the jail to allow
classification officers to evaluate risk to safety, health, and/or security of
others and/or inmates at risk from other inmates. Currently the initial
classification/screening process is done within 72 hours and does not
efficiently and effectively evaluate and categorize inmates to facilitate a safe,
secure, and efficient jail operation.
Jail administration should assign medical staff to assess health risks in the
initial classification/screening process. The current intake medical screening
process, conducted via a Triage Questionnaire, is insufficient to properly

9

•

•

•

evaluate inmates for medical/mental conditions. Additionally, without medical
personnel to evaluate the answers given, and to visually observe the inmate,
a proper medical risk assessment cannot be done.
Jail administration should audit classification processes to determine to what
extent, written OJC procedures are followed. Based upon our observations
and information received from classification staff practices were routinely
inconsistent with written classification policies. (E.g. Commission staff
observed classification staff conducting new inmate orientation. Classification
staff required the inmates to sign a checklist of rules that were supposed to
be explained during orientation, while it was observed that less than 50% of
the rules were actually explained to the inmates).
Jail administration should conduct a job study of the classification duties,
appropriately staff the classification office with civilian personnel, and reassign sworn deputies to jail security and enforcement functions. As of
September 2005, there were seven staff members (all sworn) assigned to the
classification office. There were five vacancies, three of which had been
vacant for over a year and two positions vacant for over six months. This
resulted in the section using routine overtime each week, and the critical
classification process being inappropriately shortened.
Jail administration should review classification operations of comparable jail
facilities. The Commission recommends re-organization of the classification
section similar to Norfolk City Jail’s which has the following personnel: Intake
and Triage Counselor (medically trained), Reclassification Specialists, Case
Manager, and Classification Manager.

MEDICAL ASSESSMENT
The Richmond City Jail uses a medical contractor, who is also the medical
director of the Jail. Based upon the Commission’s observations of the medical
department, the following immediate actions are recommended:
Recommendations:
•

•

Jail administration should conduct a complete review of all medical
treatment/services and conduct a cost-benefit analysis, with the assistance of
the City and a medical costs consultant, to determine if medical services
should be fully contracted out to a private vendor, with the sheriff auditing
the contractor for compliance.
Jail administration should consider entering into a contract with a local
hospital for provision of hospitalization and emergency care for inmates who
cannot be treated in the jail.

10

•
•

•
•

•

•

•

•
•

Jail administration should audit current emergency services provided to
determine whether some of the emergency services can or should be handled
in-house.
Jail administration should review pharmaceutical costs to determine if the
process currently in place is cost efficient and managed properly. The
Commission was advised that pharmaceuticals are currently purchased from
CVS or other pharmacies on a case-by-case basis, and no volume purchase
discounts are achieved.
Jail administration should pursue the option of purchasing generic drugs or
low cost alternatives, such as a formulary which would restrict physicians to
list of official approved drugs.
Jail administration should work closely with local courts for early release of
critically ill and terminally ill inmates who are of limited risk to public safety.
The Commission was advised that this currently takes place on an as-needed
basis. The Commission recommends this be assessed on a routine basis.
Jail administration should develop male and female cell blocks or tiers
exclusively designated to the treatment of inmates in need of medical
observation and treatment. Currently inmates in need of medical services are
placed in segregation cells with inmates who are there for administrative,
disciplinary, safety or other reasons. Based upon competing needs, we were
advised that medical inmates are sometimes bumped to accommodate other
demands. Cells in the medical units should be designed for single occupancy.
Jail administration should promulgate Universal Precautions procedures and
train staff in the handling and storage of infectious materials. Commission
members observed the medical refrigerator, which held bodily fluid samples
of inmates, also populated with staff lunches. Commission members also
observed the used hypodermic needle storage unsecured and accessible to
passing inmates and staff.
Jail administration should overhaul and reorganize the systematic procedures
used in the medical section. Jail administration should focus its review upon
the following existing processes: regular sick calls, availability of doctors or
other medical personnel; intake screening; putting medical protocol and
procedures in writing; infectious disease procedures and testing for inmates;
coordination between security staff, medical staff and classification;
procedure for obtaining prescriptions; provisions for hospitalization and
emergency services.
Jail administration should review the specific policies and procedures in place
for mental health services.
Jail administration should make it a priority to computerize medical services
records to permit immediate access to medical records, and medical services
provided. The current manual system prevented medical staff from being able
to reliably respond to Commission requests for verification that inmates had
been provided requested services.

11

•

•

•

Jail administration should implement a system that ensures inmates’ requests
for medical visits or medication will be handled confidentially. Inmates should
not be required to provide such requests to staff. The Commission
recommends the placement of a locked box in high security and isolation cells
for medical drops. This process eliminates any complaints against the officer
for failure to provide such requests to medical. Medical staff should be
required to track and log all such requests and be fully accountable for them
on a daily basis.
Jail administration should promulgate specific procedures and guidelines for
medical treatment and reviews of injury reports by supervisors and team
leaders during their shift for accountability and completeness. Commission
members reviewed at least one log book which detailed a complaint of illness
or injury by an inmate, who requested medical attention. This log book was
later initialed by several supervisors. It was apparent from the logs that no
supervisor took any steps to ensure that the inmate received the requested
medical attention.
Jail administration should benchmark with other jails in Virginia as it considers
medical services for inmates in the jail.

EDUCATION
Commission members observed extreme idleness of inmates at the City Jail.
Such idleness greatly contributes to criminality, disciplinary issues and general disorder
in the jail. It was clear that the space limitations significantly limit the ability to have
extensive programs in the jail, but some attempt should be made to develop more
programs in the existing facility. Currently the City Jail has two main programs, the
GED/education program in the education tier and the BELIEVE program (a substance
abuse program).
Implementation of more education programs would enhance the City Jail
environment. Generally education programs in correctional facilities serve two purposes:
(1) They help to control the jail environment by reducing the inherent risks of inmate
idleness; and (2) They reduce recidivism. A 1996 study by Virginia Commonwealth
University (VCU) and the Department of Correctional Education (DCE) showed that
those who completed a DCE course, either academic or vocational, only recidivated at a
rate of 20 percent, while those who took no courses recidivated at a rate of 49 percent.
Reducing recidivism saves tax payer dollars by eliminating future criminal activity and
making the ex-inmate a tax paying citizen.
Inmate populations also have a high illiteracy level. Federal studies showed that
in the federal system between 60 percent and 80 percent of inmates were functionally
illiterate. Additionally, studies suggest that up to 60 percent of inmate populations have
some level of learning disability.

12

For these reasons, the Commission makes the following recommendations on
educational issues in the City Jail:
Recommendations
•
•
•

•

Jail Administration should increase its GED program. The GED program is the
most feasible because of the higher cost of a high school diploma program.
Jail administration should pursue development and implementation of the “Work
Keys” program. This is a learning program utilized after students have reached a
certain literacy level to aid them to more rapid advancement.
Jail Administration should explore implementation of the Productive Citizenship
program. This is a life skills program that was created by DCE and the Virginia
Department of Corrections (DOC) and is used in DCE’s Community Corrections
schools (which are similar to jails inasmuch as inmates are in the schools from
six months to a year before release).
Jail administration should consider the following as it relates to implementation
of new programs, and/or reorganization of existing programs:
o Suggested Class Size: Smaller classes are preferable because of the
different learning levels of the students and the constant change in
student populations as students leave incarceration and others are
incarcerated. The jail should strive to teach 200 inmates a year with 15 to
20 students in a class at a time.
o Necessary Resources: Teaching 200 inmates a year will require at least
one full time teacher and one part time, five days a week. Inmate tutors
should be utilized to aid in the teaching.
o Suggested Teaching Environment: The ideal teaching environment
separates the students from the other inmate population. Where separate
classrooms are unavailable, students should be segregated into an
education pod where half the students attend class in the morning and
half in the afternoon.

Jail administration should seek the free assistance of the Virginia Department of
Correctional Education to obtain information and resources related to these programs.
CONCLUSION
The Commission submits this document as its Interim Report. We request that
the Commission be retained to complete its more comprehensive review in light of the
lock-out by the out-going sheriff.

13

Additionally, the Commission strongly urges that a new jail facility is imperative
to the achievement of a jail environment that is healthy and safe for the inmates and
staff which occupy it. To this end, the Commission recommends a further study be
conducted to fully identify the most feasible means and location for development of a
new jail.

14