- Email: [email protected]
Rural jails: Problematic inmates, overcrowded cells, and cash-strapped counties
Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 251 – 260
Rural jails: Problematic inmates, overcrowded cells, and cash-strapped counties Rick Ruddell a,⁎, G. Larry Mays b a
Correctional and Juvenile Justice Studies, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY 40475, United States b Department of Criminal Justice, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, United States
Abstract In the United States there were some 1,775 jails with one hundred beds or less, but there had been little empirical examination of these facilities, or the challenges that they confront. This survey of 213 jail administrators from these small facilities found that underfunding, overcrowding, and retention and recruitment of officers were the most significant challenges. By contrast, suicide and violence were perceived to be less serious problems. The small jails sampled also held relatively high percentages of special needs inmates, and this places further demands on these agencies. These challenges are very similar to problems identified several decades ago, suggesting that few structural or operational changes had been made in rural justice systems. In many places, rural jails acted as a default mechanism for failures in other social, health, or community systems and they become the place that “just can't say no.” © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Criminological research historically focused upon the distribution and patterns of crime in urban or suburban areas, and the manner in which justice systems responded to such offenses. Yet, criminologists recently had directed their interests toward crimes that occur in the countryside (Duhart, 2000; Weisheit & Donnermeyer, 2000), rural criminals'activities (Berg & DeLisi, 2005), and the challenges of responding to such offenses (Falcone, Wells, & Weisheit, 2002; Payne, Berg, & Sun, 2005; Weisheit, Falcone, & Wells, 1994). Some of this attention results from victimization data that found that rates of rural property crime are less than suburban or urban rates (Catalano, 2005; Duhart, 2000). Nonethe⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 859 622 1155; fax: +1 859 662 6650. E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Ruddell). 0047-2352/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.03.002
less, overlooking the crimes that occur in rural areas, and the justice system responses, seems shortsighted given that some fifty-nine million Americans lived in these places (Tarmann, 2003). Jail development within the United States was modeled on early English justice systems that specified that a jail (or gaol) had to be located in every county. Transportation of inmates to local courts was a key factor in these decisions, and this had a common-sense appeal in the United States, where transporting arrestees or detainees long distances was inefficient. Additionally, long-distance transportation increased the risk of interference from bystanders or escape. The ability to transport inmates quickly and efficiently today overcomes these barriers, but the tradition continues that jails are located in each county, and in some cases, small towns and cities as well. Today, there are about 1,775 jails of less than one hundred beds (see American Jail Association, 2003), but this number is down considerably from the 2,821 jails of
252
R. Ruddell, G.L. Mays / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 251–260
less than one hundred beds documented by the National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) two decades ago (see Mays & Thompson, 1988). Kerle (2004) also reported that between 1991 and 2003 there were 600 fewer jails in the United States, and most of these were smaller facilities. The decline in the number of these small jails can be attributed to closures, regionalization (where several entities pool their resources to operate a single jail-see Dennis, 1998), and the expansion of smaller jail operations due to overcrowding (Kerle, 2003). Problems identified several decades ago, such as poor staff training, antiquated facilities, and nonexistent rehabilitative programs (see Katsampes, 1982; Kerle, 1982; Kimme, 1985; Miller, 1982) are present today (see Kerle, 2003). Moreover, inmates in these facilities were perceived to be at higher risk of violence (Mays & Thompson, 1988). A recent national-level study revealed that inmates in small jails were up to five times greater risk of suicide than their counterparts in the largest jails (Mumola, 2005), and mortality rates of inmates within Indian Country jails, which are generally under one hundred beds, were also very high (Office of the Inspector General, 2004). While small or rural jails generally confront the same sets of challenges as larger facilities, they are further challenged by their location in communities that are often economically disadvantaged. Despite the programmatic and economic challenges that these 1,775 facilities face, there was very little recent empirical knowledge of jail operations, or small jails. This study responded to this gap in the literature by reporting the results from a survey of 213 sheriffs, jail administrators, and jail commanders about the biggest challenges facing their institutions. Small jails: complex challenges There had been comparatively little scholarship about small jail operations, the populations that they housed, or the challenges they confronted, and most of the information about these facilities was published in the early 1980s. Jails within the United States ranged in size from only four or five beds, to the Los Angeles jail system that housed an average of 18,693 inmates from October to December 2005 (California Corrections Standards Authority, 2006). There was little consensus, however, about what constitutes the descriptors small or rural. Mays and Thompson (1988), for instance, defined small as ten beds or less in their study, but Kerle (1998) observed that jails of fifty or fewer beds were small, and he expanded this definition to one hundred beds in 2004 (Kerle, 2004). The National Institute of Corrections, by
contrast, now defines small jails as being less than 150 beds. Consistent with Kerle's (2004) analysis of disappearing small jails, however, the present study used the midpoint of one hundred beds to classify small jails. Small jails are most often located in rural areas, although there is some debate about the definitions of rural (Weisheit & Donnermeyer, 2000). Most definitions of rural towns or communities define them as having a population of less than 10,000 residents. Increasing the complexity of these definitions are sparsely populated counties that are geographically close to urban areas, or resort communities that have a low population for most of the year, but increase dramatically when out-of-towners come for recreation (the so-called ‘summer-people,’ but these population surges also affect winter recreation communities). Some scholars had also included economic, geographic, or cultural factors in their definitions of rural life, further complicating such definitions. Throughout this study, the descriptors small and rural are used interchangeably as most of these small facilities are located in rural communities. One limitation of this study was the lack of an accurate count of the actual number of jails in rural areas, other than the total of 1,775 small jails that existed in 2003. There are a number of factors that differentiate rural and urban areas. First, many people tend to think of rural counties and towns as a homogenous (typically ‘White’) with agricultural- or resource-based economies, and with a slow pace of life. Populations in rural America, however, are shifting as retirees seek small-town life, and there has been an exodus of young people to the urban areas (Panelli, 2002). In addition, there is a greater degree of racial, cultural, and ethnic diversity (Kirkey & Forsyth, 2001; Tarmann, 2003). The economic landscape has also transformed as agricultural incomes have dropped and service industries (such as tourism) have increased. Scholars have observed that the economic, political, and social landscape of rural America has changed, and that some counties were thriving, while others were in decline (see Vias, 2004). Perhaps the biggest difference between urban and rural areas is the fact that the social environment of rural communities is distinctively different. It is difficult to remain anonymous in small towns and there are higher levels of social interaction, interest in local affairs, and community engagement. Such factors enhance levels of informal social control (Berg & DeLisi, 2005). High levels of familiarity, however, may also contribute to lower levels of reporting crime due to fear, shame, or embarrassment, especially when crimes are committed by family members, neighbors, or friends. Weisheit and Donnermeyer (2000, p. 330) reported that rural residents
R. Ruddell, G.L. Mays / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 251–260
were reluctant to rely on outside assistance, and saw crime as a private matter. Most people hold stereotypes that rural areas are quiet, safe, and pastoral, but rural justice systems have always had to contend with crime, and some counties have comparatively high rates of serious violent crimes (Weisheit & Wells, 2005). A review of the 2004 statistics of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (2005) revealed that the number of murders increased by 23 percent between 2003 and 2004 in nonmetropolitan counties (with less than 10,000 residents). In addition, while rates of violent crime (murder and non-negligent manslaughter, robbery, rape, and aggravated assault) were lower in these nonmetropolitan counties (averaging 215.6 offenses per 100,000 residents), the differences were less than expected once compared to suburban (312.6 offenses per 100,000 residents) or metropolitan counties (331.1 offenses per 100,000 residents). One factor that was seldom considered in such comparisons was that rates of unreported crime might be higher in rural America, especially for domestic violence (Johnson, 2000). Klaus (2006, p. 3) reported findings from the National Crime Victimization Survey that rural intimate partner violence occurs at higher rates than suburban places, and at levels equal to urban areas. As a result of such findings, there had been increasing attention directed toward rural justice systems, although most of these studies had examined the operations of police or sheriff's departments (see Payne et al., 2005; Weisheit et al., 1994). There had been comparatively little scholarship of the characteristics of small or rural jails. An extensive literature review found fewer than ten articles, and three of these early pieces were chapters in a single work on rural crime (Cronk, 1982). The one consistent theme in all of these studies was that small jails face considerable challenges. Kerle (1982, p. 196) found that “insufficient staff, low pay and a lack of training are common problems” and that “the jail job is viewed as a dead-end job taking care of dead-end people.” Similar to later work (see Thompson & Mays, 1991), Kerle maintained that rural jails often act as a default agency for a lack of mental health or other services, and that persons were admitted because there were no viable community-based alternatives. Kerle (1982) reported that basic inmate care in many communities could not be met because counties were impoverished. The solutions to providing humanitarian care for these inmates were thought to be regional jails (where a number of jurisdictions send arrestees to a single jail facility) or jail operations that fall under the auspices of the state department of corrections (jails in six states are operated by the state).
253
Miller (1982) reported the results of a survey of 257 jail managers from facilities of twenty-five beds or less. When asked about the major challenges confronting small jails at that time, Miller (1982, p. 217) found that jail managers cited problems with the physical plant, operations (such as safety and security or classification), and a lack of inmate programs or services. By contrast, jail inspectors reported that jail administrators and staff were the major problems. Using data collected during a 1978 National Institute of Corrections conference of small jail administrators, Katsampes (1982, pp. 232–233) contended that the major problems confronting small jails were a lack of comprehensive criminal justice planning, written policies or procedures, alternatives to incarceration, staff development, and jail standards. Moreover, rural jail administrators were thought to be somewhat isolated from current practice, and their job responsibilities often extended beyond the jail. Kimme (1985, p. 4) reported the results of a survey of 255 jail administrators from facilities of fifty beds or less, and similar to the findings reported previously, found that “operational problems (damage to property, suicides, untrained staff, contraband passage and law suits), staff shortages, and overcrowding” were these facilities' most common challenges. While many of the changes recommended for these problems were architectural in nature, Kimme (1985) placed some of the blame on jail administrators who ran their facilities without regard for standards, accreditation, and the failure to take advantage of resources such as the National Institute of Corrections. It is plausible that the isolation of rural administrators noted in the Katsampes (1982) study was a barrier to accessing such resources. This isolation may be present today: Kellar (2001, p. 92) found that almost half of Texas jail administrators surveyed in 2000 did not have an official email work address. Mays and Thompson (1988, p. 426) conducted an examination involving jails of ten or fewer beds, and found that most were located in the midwestern or western states, were typically older than their larger counterparts, had less space than newer jails, and were less likely to have sight and sound separation of juveniles from adults (or females from males), medical facilities, or an infirmary. Consistent with Kerle (1982), Mays and Thompson (1988) argued that alternatives to incarceration in small jails should be examined, that regional jails be considered, and that state-operated jail systems offered operational advantages to locally-run jails in some jurisdictions, but that the downside might include increased incarceration. Kellar's (2001) analysis of survey data from Texas county jail administrators provided considerable insight
254
R. Ruddell, G.L. Mays / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 251–260
into some problems with small facilities. At the time of this survey, there were 139 institutions of less than fifty beds in Texas. Administrators reported that the most significant problems facing their facilities were retaining officers due to low salaries, a lack of rehabilitative programs, as well as providing medical and mental health care for inmates. Medical care has emerged as a considerable challenge for administrators of all juvenile justice and adult correctional facilities (Anno, 2001). Delivering health care in small jails is more challenging as it may be harder to recruit nurses in small communities, and physicians were unlikely to regularly visit these facilities, making it necessary to transport inmates. A number of suggestions had been offered to increase the professionalism in local corrections, such as accreditation by such bodies as the American Correctional Association, certification through the American Jail Association, adopting state jail standards, and civil litigation. It may be the case that these activities have had a greater impact on large jail operations located primarily in urban areas, than small facilities that are more isolated. In fact, the twelve states that did not have formal standards are likely to be in western or midwestern states, the jurisdictions with the greatest number of small jails (American Jail Association, 2003). In order to better understand the challenges that these rural facilities face, the results from a survey of small jails are reported in the following pages. Characteristics of the national jail sample Four hundred jails with a rated capacity of less than one hundred beds were randomly selected from the American Jail Association's Who's Who in Jail Management (American Jail Association, 2003) in January 2005.1 Each of these facilities was called by members of the survey team to confirm mailing addresses and contact persons. In most cases, the investigators got the opportunity to speak with a jail administrator, shift supervisor, or jail commander, and their participation was encouraged. Of the original sample of four hundred jails, a number of cases were rejected as the facility had grown beyond the parameters of the study (one facility that had a rated capacity of less than one hundred beds in 2003 had grown to over seven hundred beds by 2005). In other cases, respondents refused to participate in the study, and some surveys were returned unopened. In approximately half the cases, the survey instrument was faxed directly to the respondent (usually within a few minutes of the call) and the response rate for these surveys was substantially higher than surveys that were mailed. A second mail-out
was conducted two months later, and a total of 213 surveys were returned (a response rate of 59 percent). Despite the fact that the sample size of 213 jails was reasonably large, the entire rated capacity of these facilities was only 9,172 inmates, which was less than one-half of the average daily population at the Los Angeles County Jail in 2005 (California Corrections Standards Authority, 2006). Within this sample of jails, there was a diverse mix of facilities, including responses from forty-three states, although data about four cases were missing. Table 1 reveals that two regions of the nation, the Midwest and South, were overrepresented in the sample. There were some methodological reasons for this finding, as jails in the Northeast and West tend to be larger. In New Jersey, for instance, there was only one jail of less than one hundred beds, and this one jail was excluded in the random sample. Using data from the 2000 U.S. Census, the mean county size was found to be 21,684 persons, and the average daily jail population was used to determine the average jail incarceration rate of 212 per 100,000 county residents (based on the average daily population of the jail), which was somewhat less than the national jail incarceration rate of 252 inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents at midyear 2005 (Harrison & Beck, 2006). Table 1 displays the characteristics of the jails, as reported by the respondents. The average size of the Table 1 Rural jail characteristics: survey of small jails, 2005 N (s.d.) Jails States⁎ Average population (county or place) Incarceration rate
Facility characteristics Facility age (years) Mean rated capacity (beds) Average daily population Mean rated capacity Mean daily cost (dollars) Mean annual admissions Total rated capacity (beds)
213 43 21,684 (18,929) 212 (169) Mean (s.d.)
Range
40.0 (31.7) 43.1 (25.3) 39.9 (27.0) 85.1 (36.1) 49.1 (29.2) 1101.0 (986.0) 9172.0
4 to 202 4 to 99 1 to 134 12 to 240 10 to 176 25 to 5,200
N Region Northeast Midwest South West ⁎ Four jails had no identifying state (or regional) data.
13 85 77 36
R. Ruddell, G.L. Mays / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 251–260
facility was 43.1 beds with a range of four to ninety-nine beds. Jails tend to be enduring facilities and this sample was no exception, with a mean age of forty years and one facility over two centuries old. One statistic, the daily cost to house an inmate (often called the per diem rate), illustrates the diversity of these facilities: the mean per diem rate was $49.10, but the range was from $10.00 to $176.00. Although it is often difficult to accurately classify the mean cost across a large sample due to definitional differences (see Edelman & Mayer, 1997; Kellar, 2001), the higher costs were typically in places with higher costs of living, such as Alaska, California, or New York. Challenges confronting small jails These results are presented in Table 2, and show that funding was cited as the most important problem. Respondents were given a list of operational problems or challenges and were asked to provide a response that ranged from “not a problem at all” to “a very serious problem” using a five-point Likert-type scale. Funding overwhelmingly was cited as the most important problem. In fact, only a small percentage of jails did not report that this was the most significant problem (mean = 4.24 of a possible 5.0). Jail overcrowding was perceived to be a slightly smaller problem, with a mean of 3.45. While the most recent national jail census suggested that small jails are more likely to operate at less than their rated capacity compared with larger facilities (see Stephan, 2001), there is the possibility that during the week crowding is not as problematic as during weekends, what Thompson (1986) labeled short-term population surges. Thus, the average daily population might not tell the entire story when it comes to jail overcrowding in these places. Providing space for special needs inmates is a challenge for many smaller facilities, as some inmates require single rooms and can't be placed with others. Some of these special needs populations include persons with mental illness, females, and juveniles. Thus, a jail could Table 2 Self-reported problems facing rural jails: survey of small jails, 2005 Problems
Mean (1 to 5; 5 = most serious)
Funding Programs for offenders Recruit jail officers Retain jail officers Jail overcrowding Jail suicide Jail violence
4.24 3.32 3.30 3.26 3.45 1.96 2.27
255
be operating at fewer inmates than its rated capacity, yet be overcrowded. Respondents ranked providing rehabilitative programs for offenders, as well as recruitment and retention of jail officers at approximately the same level of seriousness, in the 3.26 to 3.30 range. The last set of challenges was jail suicides and violence, and respondents ranked these problems at less than half as serious as funding shortfalls (means were 1.96 and 2.27 respectively). These results were unexpected, as it was hypothesized that these issues would be more problematic given the fact that Mumola (2005) reported high rates of small jail suicides. One limitation of this study was that responses about the problems of delivering health or medical care for inmates were not solicited. Respondents in Texas jails for instance, overwhelmingly reported that this was their most serious problem (Kellar, 2001). It was hypothesized that respondents would report overcrowding, jail violence, and suicides as significant problems. Upon review, however, the results closely paralleled those of Kimme (1985, p. 19) who found that staff shortages, overcrowding, and untrained staff were the greatest problems in his survey of administrators working in facilities with fewer than fifty beds. Like the results in this study, suicides (or attempts) and violence were lesser concerns. Again, these results were consistent with Kellar's (2001) survey of Texas jailers. Thus, while jail violence and suicides are disruptive events, they rarely occurred in Texas, and respondents in recent studies perceived these tragedies in the same manner that they did two decades ago. Many respondents felt that offering adequate inmate programs was a concern, and there was a tremendous variation in the programs offered in American jails. Critics have argued that idleness continues to be a significant problem for jail inmates (see Kerle, 1998). One low-cost option is to offer Alcoholics or Narcotics Anonymous programs, which are important interventions given the increased use of drugs in rural America (see Weisheit & Fuller, 2004). This survey solicited responses about the prevalence of such programs and found that 59.2 percent of jails offered Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) programs, while only slightly more than one-third (38.9 percent) offered Narcotics Anonymous (NA) programs. These results were similar to those reported in the 1999 national jail census: Stephan (2001, p. 10) reported that 61 percent of jails provided alcohol counseling programs, while 54 percent offered drug programs. As these twelve-step programs rely on the voluntary assistance of community members, it is unfortunate that these cost-effective interventions are not available to more jail inmates.
256
R. Ruddell, G.L. Mays / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 251–260
Special needs inmates The survey also solicited information about the prevalence of special needs inmates, including persons with mental illness, frequent fliers (inmates with over twenty jail admissions-see Chandler Ford, 2005), ganginvolved inmates, persons with serious illnesses or communicable diseases, elderly inmates, and inmates who had been in jail for longer than one year. Each of these groups poses special challenges for jail officers and other inmates alike, either for the resources that they require, or the interpersonal and security problems that they create. Table 3 outlines the percentages of each special needs group, and how disruptive they are thought to be. Persons with mental illness pose special challenges for all jails, but smaller jails have a more difficult time with these inmates. Ditton (1999) found that approximately 16 percent of jail and prison inmates nationwide suffered from severe mental illness, and other scholars report similar results. Unlike Ditton's (1999) study, the respondents in the present research reported that this group represented only 8.6 percent of the inmates in this sample of small jails. Some scholars have suggested that small jails are less likely to detect these inmates (see McLearen & Ryba, 2003). It is also plausible that there is a greater stigma attached to persons with mental illness in rural America (Thorngren, 2003), and therefore, this population is underreported or these persons migrate to larger cities to live more anonymous lives. Table 3 also reports the perceptions of jail administrators regarding the likelihood of problem behaviors in Table 3 Estimates of special needs jail populations and their conduct: survey of small jails, 2005 Special needs group Persons with mental illness Frequent fliers Gang-involved inmates Elderly inmates Seriously ill Long-term inmates (over one year)
Mean (s.d.)
Disruption index 1⁎
Disruption index 2⁎⁎
8.6% (16.1)
4.4
2.4
31.5% (29.8) 3.7% (8.5)
2.1 2.3
1.8 2.2
1.8% (3.2) 4.4% (9.5) 13.9% (20.3)
.8 – 1.9
.2 – 1.5
⁎ Disruption index 1: mean of undesirable behaviors (self-harm or suicidal behavior, rates of victimization, involvement in assaults on inmates or officers, involvement in other criminal conduct, escapes/ attempts, and disruptive behavior). Highest possible value = 7.0. ⁎⁎Disruption index 2: mean of aggressive or criminal behaviors (assaults, involvement in disruptive behavior, escapes/attempts, and criminal conduct). Highest possible value = 4.0.
special needs jail populations. These problem behaviors included suicide, incidents of self-harm, victimization, assault (either inmates or staff), disruptive behavior within the facility, escapes (or attempts), and other criminal conduct. Two disruption indices were created. First, a disruption index was calculated where one point was counted each time a respondent checked that a special needs group was likely to be involved in any of the disruptive behaviors listed above; the means for each group are reported, and the possible mean ranged from 0 to 7. The second index collected perceptions about undesirable (acting out) and illegal behaviors (such as escapes/attempts and assaults on inmates or staff). The means for each group are also reported, and the possible mean ranged from 0 to 4. Respondents ranked persons with mental illness as the most disruptive group, and the one that was most likely to engage in serious misconduct in the facility. Gang-involved inmates, as well as frequent fliers were also thought to be disruptive elements in small jails. One group of offenders that is drawing more scholarly attention is inmates labeled “frequent fliers” (see Bass, 2005; Chandler Ford, 2005). These inmates were classified in the present study as having twenty or more admissions over the past five years. Bass (2005, p. 35) observed that these inmates, also called habitual misdemeanor offenders, typically were charged with minor offenses, and “they spend much of the year in jail…a few days at a time.” Chandler Ford (2005) analyzed a small sample of these offenders from Florida and found that the annual number of jail admissions tends to escalate over time. They also draw an inordinate amount of county resources—in her sample many had been arrested dozens of times, and some had over one hundred jail admissions. Of all the special needs groups in this study, the frequent fliers were reported to be the most commonly encountered, and they represented almost one-third of all inmates. Other scholars have reported that these offenders often have unstable residency patterns (Chandler Ford, 2005), are alcohol or drug addicted (Bass, 2005), and in some cases have psychiatric disorders. The prevalence of these inmates was greater than expected, and they pose a considerable challenge to local corrections (Bass, 2005; Chandler Ford, 2005). Gladwell (2006) described how one frequent flier was estimated to have cost the justice, medical, and social service systems in Reno, Nevada at least one million dollars during his short life on the streets. Berg and DeLisi's (2005) study of offenders in rural America revealed that there was a small subgroup of offenders who averaged more than twenty arrests (the
R. Ruddell, G.L. Mays / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 251–260
same number of arrests used in this study's classification of frequent fliers). Consistent with previous scholarly work, they found that most of these arrests were for relatively minor crimes, and most were alcohol-related offenses. Berg and DeLisi (2005, p. 322) found that a number of factors were significantly associated with these habitual offenders, including fewer years of education (and school failure), homelessness, earlier onset of arrests (and arrests for violent crimes), histories of alcohol and drug treatment, as well as histories of jail or prison sentences. Consistent with research about larger jails (see Mays & Ruddell, 2004), this study revealed that frequent fliers represent a significant challenge for rural jails. While many of the arrests may be consistent with the descriptor, the “town drunk,” these offenses do have an effect on the quality of life in a community, and the impact of these offenders' behaviors may be magnified in a small township due to their visibility. Florida recently introduced legislation that attempts to break the cycle of revolving door admissions for these habitual misdemeanants, but it is too early to determine whether this strategy will be effective (Bass, 2005). While these offenders don't pose a significant risk to local communities, they are a costly and problematic population, and they deserve attention from future investigators. Table 3 reveals that gang-involved inmates were rarely encountered in small jails, although they were perceived to be very disruptive. Americans tend to harbor stereotypes characterizing gang membership primarily as an urban phenomenon, but prior empirical work has addressed the prevalence of gang members in rural America and the problems that they pose for law enforcement (Weisheit & Wells, 2004). A separate series of questions in this survey (the results are not reported in the tables) asked respondents whether the gang problem was getting worse, and almost three-quarters reported that the gang problem in their jurisdiction was decreasing or less than in previous years. These findings mirrored Egley and Ritz's (2006) study of youth gangs in rural areas. Further, Howell and Egley's (2005, p. 1) research of gangs in small towns and rural counties found that, “In most cases, the gang problem is short-lived and dissipates as quickly as it develops. Most often, this is mainly because small towns and rural areas do not have the necessary population base to sustain gangs.” Elderly and seriously ill inmates pose significant financial challenges to jails. Adams (1995) estimated that costs for elderly inmates might be three times as great as their younger counterparts due to higher health care costs. Many small jails are unlikely to have fulltime health care providers, and instead they rely upon
257
less regular (or comprehensive) health care (Mays & Thompson, 1988). In some cases, health providers utilize a preventative approach by counseling elderly jail inmates about the care of chronic conditions (National Institute of Corrections, 2003). On the positive side, these aged inmates typically are not disruptive, but elderly inmates may be at higher risk of victimization (Kuhlmann & Ruddell, 2005). While limited access to health care may be feasible for short-term inmates who might only be in jail for a day or two, a series of recent studies have demonstrated that some jail inmates are detained for inordinately long periods of time prior to sentencing, and they may serve up to a year in the local jail afterwards (see James, 2004; Ruddell, 2005). In her national study of jail inmates, James (2004) found that 4.8 percent of inmates had been in jail for more than one year, and 1.4 percent had been held for more than three years. Respondents from this sample of jails reported that 13.9 percent of inmates had been held for over one year. These long periods of incarceration also may be a function of the slow case processing time (e.g., some inmates anticipating a prison sentence may delay sentencing in order to stay ‘close to home’ to facilitate visits) or sentencing on more serious offenses to longer terms of jail incarceration.2 Another possible reason for these lengthy sentences is that some inmates may be detained for several months (or longer) and then are sentenced to a term of twelve months of jail incarceration. Last, some inmates, especially in the South, may be awaiting transfer to crowded state prisons (see Harrison & Beck, 2005). In sum, these results have demonstrated that jail administrators reported funding and overcrowding were the most serious problems facing their facilities, although staff retention, recruitment, and inmate programs also were rated as serious problems. These results also revealed that while small jails held populations of mentally ill inmates at levels less than other nationallevel studies have reported, these offenders could cause considerable problems for small jails. Last, the population of frequent fliers in rural jails was much greater than expected. Altogether, much more needs to be learned about the challenges that these special needs inmates pose for jail operations. Discussion and conclusions Operating correctional facilities is a challenging proposition in the best of times. Jails may be doubly challenged given their relatively disadvantaged economic position and the fact that the majority are not part of a correctional network. Most often they are small, stand-
258
R. Ruddell, G.L. Mays / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 251–260
alone facilities that do not have the ability to transfer challenging inmates to special handling units. They also do not have specialized units that house persons with mental illness or elderly inmates (or in some cases females and juveniles). Moreover, it is difficult for jail administrators to be proactive: instead their populations are governed by the activities and priorities of the other elements of justice systems. Jails have little control over police or sheriff's operations that influence the annual number of admissions, courts that may process cases slowly, or judges who may impose lengthy jail sentences. Rural jails may be in the worst possible situation as they typically are the default mechanism for failures in other economic, social, and health systems. Since few other options exist, persons in crisis are brought to the jail. Thus, a lack of community-based mental health care results in more persons with mental illness being admitted to the local jail when these persons commit minor offenses. The problem of jails being a default mechanism for other community systems has long been recognized (Kerle, 1982; Thompson & Mays, 1991). Unfortunately, during times of fiscal crisis, there is little likelihood of increased spending for community programs that will reduce jail incarcerations (such as addictions programs, community-based mental health programs, and domestic violence shelters). Impoverished rural counties are further challenged: budget constraints were thought to be the most significant challenge facing this sample of 213 rural American jails. The number of small jails has dropped by over 1,000 facilities since 1982. Despite this fact, some 1,775 of these facilities remained in 2003 (American Jail Association, 2003). Perhaps the most significant finding in this study was that the problems identified in Cronk's (1982) study of rural crime and justice were still major challenges over two decades later. One of the most significant problems facing administrators who responded to this survey was jail overcrowding, and no simple answers exist for this problem. Expanding the capacity of a facility also creates the expectations of local law enforcers and the courts that these beds are available, and empty beds are quickly filled. Thus, some jails can get caught in a spiral of jail construction and overcrowding (Vance, 2005). Short of state-funded jail systems or regionalization (where the jail operations of several jurisdictions are consolidated into a single facility), these jails must “go it alone.” Rural jail administrators must also manage the hiring, training, and retention of jail officers, a significant problem in jails of all sizes (McCampbell, 2006). This is a difficult proposition when one considers that there is a
limited pool of possible job candidates in many rural counties. Often these small facilities are caught in a continual process of hiring and training, and deputies often move on to jobs with larger agencies. Yearwood (2003) analyzed turnover in small sheriffs' offices in North Carolina and found that rates of turnover were higher in these agencies, and deputies often went to larger agencies. Lindblom (2005) cited a sheriff from a rural California county who remarked that, “I am tired of hiring people, training them and then watching them go to other agencies.” This seems to have been a pattern throughout the nation, and one of the reasons why jail administrators in this study ranked the challenges of staff recruiting and retention as significant problems. Not only is this process disruptive to the organization and expensive, but it also reduces the cumulative staff experience. Retaining experienced jail staff is a key element in working effectively with special needs populations, another significant challenge faced by all jails, particularly rural jails (Kerle, 2005). Much of an officer's ability to handle inmates is learned on the job, and supervising persons with mental illness, gang members, or repeat offenders with long histories of jail admissions is learned over time. When facilities are staffed with officers with little experience, chaos may increase, a possible contributing factor to rates of violence in smaller jails that is higher than in larger facilities (see Mays & Thompson, 1988). This factor also may contribute to much higher suicide rates in these facilities (Mumola, 2005). There are a number of potential solutions to the problems confronting these small jails, and all involve increased funding. State-funding for these operations would be a significant step in reducing some of the challenges outlined in this study, but this option is unlikely as few states want to absorb the costs or challenges associated with local jails (Kerle, 1998). Ruddell and Mays (2006) observed that regionalization or expansion (and admitting inmates from other jurisdictions on a feefor-service basis) were two methods that some jail administrators have adopted to take advantage of economies of scale. It might also be easier to recruit and retain jail officers if these facilities were located in counties with greater populations. Nonetheless, there are few simple answers to the problems confronting administrators in small jails. It is important, however, that the study of justice systems in rural communities not be overlooked. Americans tend to hold stereotypes of rural America that don't always reflect reality. In a rush to understand the operations of criminal justice systems in the “big city,” scholars
R. Ruddell, G.L. Mays / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 251–260
often have ignored the fact that one-fifth of the U.S. population lives in rural areas, and the problems and solutions to their justice-related issues will likely be decidedly different than their urban counterparts. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the sheriffs and administrators who completed the survey. Thanks also to Brian Roy who helped administer the survey. An earlier version of this article was presented at the American Society of Criminology's Annual Meeting on November 17, 2005 in Toronto, Canada. Notes 1. Cases were selected by starting at a random point in the list of jails of less than one hundred beds, and then each fourth and then fifth case was selected until there were four hundred cases. 2. While not reported in the tables, respondents were also asked to estimate how long an offender sentenced to a period of jail incarceration for one year would serve, and the average was almost nine months.
References Adams, W. E. (1995). The incarceration of older criminals: Balancing safety, cost, and humanitarian concerns. Nova Law Review, 19, 465−486. American Jail Association. (2003). Who's who in jail management. Hagerstown, MD: Author. Anno, J. B. (2001). Correctional health care: Guidelines for the management of an adequate delivery system. Boulder, CO: National Institute of Corrections. Bass, G. (2005, Winter). Justice and the revolving door: The Jacksonville experience in recidivism intervention. Large Jails Network, 35−39. Berg, M. T., & DeLisi, M. (2005). Do career criminals exist in rural America? Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 317−325. California Corrections Standards Authority. (2006). 2005 fourth quarter survey results. Sacramento, CA: Author. Catalano, S. M. (2005). Criminal victimization, 2004. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Chandler Ford, M. (2005). Frequent fliers: The high demand user in local corrections. Californian Journal of Health Promotion, 3, 61−71. Cronk, S. D. (1982). Criminal justice in rural America. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Dennis, J. (1998, October). Cooperation works: Six Ohio jurisdictions join forces to create regional jail. Corrections Today, 128–129, 140. Ditton, P. (1999). Mental health and treatment of inmates and probationers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Duhart, D. T. (2000). Urban, suburban, and rural victimization, 1993–1998. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Edelman, M. A., & Mayer, A. J. (1997). A cost analysis of county jails by size in rural Iowa to inform state policy and community decisions. Retrieved July 22, 2006, from http://www.econ.iastate. edu/research/abstracts/NDN0050.html
259
Egley, A., & Ritz, C. (2006). Highlights of the 2004 national youth gang survey. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Falcone, D. N., Wells, E. L., & Weisheit, R. A. (2002). The small town police department. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 25, 371−384. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2005). Crime in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Gladwell, M. (2006). Million dollar Murray. Retrieved July 23, 2006, from http://www.gladwell.com/pdf/murray.pdf Harrison, P. M., & Beck, A. J. (2005). Prisoners in 2004. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Harrison, P. M., & Beck, A. J. (2006). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2005. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Howell, J. C., & Egley, A. (2005). Gangs in small towns and rural counties. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. James, D. (2004). Profile of jail inmates, 2002. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Johnson, R. M. (2000). Rural health response to domestic violence: Policy and practice issues. Retrieved July 23, 2006, from http:// ruralhealth.hrsa.gov/pub/domviol.htm Katsampes, P. A. (1982). A national strategy for change in rural jails. In S. D. Cronk (Ed.), Criminal justice in rural America (pp. 231−248). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Kellar, M. (2001). Texas county jails, 2001: A status report. Retrieved July 22, 2006, from http://www.tcjs.state.tx.us/docs/Final% 2520DraftTJSbu.pdf Kerle, K. E. (1982). The rural jail: Its people, problems and solutions. In S. D. Cronk (Ed.), Criminal justice in rural America (pp. 189−204). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Kerle, K. E. (1998). American jails: Looking to the future. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. Kerle, K. E. (2003). Exploring jail operations. Hagerstown, MD: American Jail Association. Kerle, K. E. (2004, March/April). Jail evolution: Rated capacities (RC), regional jails, city jails, the growing number of women jail administrators, and new jail construction and planning new jails. American Jails, 18, 19−29. Kerle, K. E. (2005, September/October). Jail staff turnover: What can be done about it? American Jails, 19, 89. Kimme, D. A. (1985). The nature of new small jails: Report and analysis. Longmont, CO: National Institute of Corrections. Kirkey, K., & Forsyth, A. (2001). Men in the valley: Gay male life on the suburban-rural fringe. Journal of Rural Studies, 17, 421−441. Klaus, P. (2006). Crime and the nation's households. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Kuhlmann, R., & Ruddell, R. (2005). Elderly jail inmates: Problems, prevalence, and public health. Californian Journal of Health Promotion, 3, 50−61. Lindblom, A. (2005, December 2). Sheriff's crew on the shrink. Sonora Union Democrat. Mays, G. L., & Ruddell, R. (2004). Frequent fliers, gang-bangers, and old-timers: Understanding the population characteristics of jail populations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology 2004, Nashville, TN. Mays, G. L., & Thompson, J. A. (1988). Mayberry revisited: The characteristics and operations of America's small jails. Justice Quarterly, 5, 421−440. McCampbell, S. W. (2006, May/June). Recruiting and retaining jail employees: Money isn't the long-term solution. American Jails, 6−15.
260
R. Ruddell, G.L. Mays / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 251–260
McLearen, A. M., & Ryba, N. L. (2003). Identifying severely mentally ill inmates: Can small jails comply with detection standards? Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 37, 25−40. Miller, R. (1982). A needs assessment for small jails in the United States. In S. D. Cronk (Ed.), Criminal justice in rural America (pp. 205−229). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Mumola, C. (2005). Suicide and homicide in state prisons and local jails. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. National Institute of Corrections. (2003). Corrections agency collaborations with public health. Longmont, CO: Author. Office of the Inspector General. (2004). Neither safe nor secure: An assessment of Indian detention facilities. Washington, DC: Author. Panelli, R. (2002). Young rural lives: Strategies beyond diversity. Journal of Rural Studies, 18, 113−122. Payne, B. K., Berg, B. L., & Sun, I. Y. (2005). Policing in small town America: Dogs, drunks, disorder, and dysfunction. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 31−41. Ruddell, R. (2005, March/April). Long-term jail populations: A national assessment. American Jails, 22−27. Ruddell, R., & Mays, G. L. (2006). Expand or expire: Jails in rural America. Corrections Compendium, 31, 1–5, 20–21, 27. Stephan, J. J. (2001). Census of jails, 1999. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Tarmann, A. (2003). Fifty years of demographic change in rural America. Retrieved July 22, 2006, from http://www.prb.org/ rfdcenter/50yearsofchange.htm Thompson, J. A. (1986). The American jail: Problems, politics, and prospects. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 10, 205−221.
Thompson, J. A., & Mays, G. L. (1991). American jails: Public policy issues. Chicago: Nelson Hall. Thorngren, J. M. (2003). Rural mental health: A qualitative inquiry. Journal of Rural Community Psychology, 6. Retrieved July 23, 2006, from http://www.marshall.edu/jrcp/JRCP_E6_2_Thorngren.htm Vance, N. (2005). Real reductions in jail populations require comprehensive actions. American Jails, 19, 71−72. Vias, A. C. (2004). Bigger stores, more stores, or no stores: Paths of retain restructuring in rural America. Journal of Rural Studies, 20, 303−318. Weisheit, R. A., & Donnermeyer, J. F. (2000). Change and continuity in crime in rural America. Retrieved July 22, 2006, from http:// www.ncjrs.gov/criminal_justice2000/vol_1/02g.pdf Weisheit, R. A., Falcone, D. N., & Wells, L. E. (1994). Rural crime and rural policing. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Weisheit, R. A., & Fuller, J. (2004). Methamphetamine in the heartland: A review and initial exploration. Journal of Crime and Justice, 27, 131−151. Weisheit, R. A., & Wells, L. E. (2004). Youth gangs in rural America. National Institute of Justice Journal, 251, 2−7. Weisheit, R. A., & Wells, L. E. (2005). Deadly violence in the heartland. Homicide Studies, 9, 55−80. Yearwood, D. L. (2003). Recruitment and retention study series: Sworn sheriff's personnel. Raleigh: North Carolina Criminal Justice Analysis Center.
Rural jails: Problematic inmates, overcrowded cells, and cash-strapped counties Rick Ruddell a,⁎, G. Larry Mays b a
Correctional and Juvenile Justice Studies, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY 40475, United States b Department of Criminal Justice, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, United States
Abstract In the United States there were some 1,775 jails with one hundred beds or less, but there had been little empirical examination of these facilities, or the challenges that they confront. This survey of 213 jail administrators from these small facilities found that underfunding, overcrowding, and retention and recruitment of officers were the most significant challenges. By contrast, suicide and violence were perceived to be less serious problems. The small jails sampled also held relatively high percentages of special needs inmates, and this places further demands on these agencies. These challenges are very similar to problems identified several decades ago, suggesting that few structural or operational changes had been made in rural justice systems. In many places, rural jails acted as a default mechanism for failures in other social, health, or community systems and they become the place that “just can't say no.” © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Criminological research historically focused upon the distribution and patterns of crime in urban or suburban areas, and the manner in which justice systems responded to such offenses. Yet, criminologists recently had directed their interests toward crimes that occur in the countryside (Duhart, 2000; Weisheit & Donnermeyer, 2000), rural criminals'activities (Berg & DeLisi, 2005), and the challenges of responding to such offenses (Falcone, Wells, & Weisheit, 2002; Payne, Berg, & Sun, 2005; Weisheit, Falcone, & Wells, 1994). Some of this attention results from victimization data that found that rates of rural property crime are less than suburban or urban rates (Catalano, 2005; Duhart, 2000). Nonethe⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 859 622 1155; fax: +1 859 662 6650. E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Ruddell). 0047-2352/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.03.002
less, overlooking the crimes that occur in rural areas, and the justice system responses, seems shortsighted given that some fifty-nine million Americans lived in these places (Tarmann, 2003). Jail development within the United States was modeled on early English justice systems that specified that a jail (or gaol) had to be located in every county. Transportation of inmates to local courts was a key factor in these decisions, and this had a common-sense appeal in the United States, where transporting arrestees or detainees long distances was inefficient. Additionally, long-distance transportation increased the risk of interference from bystanders or escape. The ability to transport inmates quickly and efficiently today overcomes these barriers, but the tradition continues that jails are located in each county, and in some cases, small towns and cities as well. Today, there are about 1,775 jails of less than one hundred beds (see American Jail Association, 2003), but this number is down considerably from the 2,821 jails of
252
R. Ruddell, G.L. Mays / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 251–260
less than one hundred beds documented by the National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) two decades ago (see Mays & Thompson, 1988). Kerle (2004) also reported that between 1991 and 2003 there were 600 fewer jails in the United States, and most of these were smaller facilities. The decline in the number of these small jails can be attributed to closures, regionalization (where several entities pool their resources to operate a single jail-see Dennis, 1998), and the expansion of smaller jail operations due to overcrowding (Kerle, 2003). Problems identified several decades ago, such as poor staff training, antiquated facilities, and nonexistent rehabilitative programs (see Katsampes, 1982; Kerle, 1982; Kimme, 1985; Miller, 1982) are present today (see Kerle, 2003). Moreover, inmates in these facilities were perceived to be at higher risk of violence (Mays & Thompson, 1988). A recent national-level study revealed that inmates in small jails were up to five times greater risk of suicide than their counterparts in the largest jails (Mumola, 2005), and mortality rates of inmates within Indian Country jails, which are generally under one hundred beds, were also very high (Office of the Inspector General, 2004). While small or rural jails generally confront the same sets of challenges as larger facilities, they are further challenged by their location in communities that are often economically disadvantaged. Despite the programmatic and economic challenges that these 1,775 facilities face, there was very little recent empirical knowledge of jail operations, or small jails. This study responded to this gap in the literature by reporting the results from a survey of 213 sheriffs, jail administrators, and jail commanders about the biggest challenges facing their institutions. Small jails: complex challenges There had been comparatively little scholarship about small jail operations, the populations that they housed, or the challenges they confronted, and most of the information about these facilities was published in the early 1980s. Jails within the United States ranged in size from only four or five beds, to the Los Angeles jail system that housed an average of 18,693 inmates from October to December 2005 (California Corrections Standards Authority, 2006). There was little consensus, however, about what constitutes the descriptors small or rural. Mays and Thompson (1988), for instance, defined small as ten beds or less in their study, but Kerle (1998) observed that jails of fifty or fewer beds were small, and he expanded this definition to one hundred beds in 2004 (Kerle, 2004). The National Institute of Corrections, by
contrast, now defines small jails as being less than 150 beds. Consistent with Kerle's (2004) analysis of disappearing small jails, however, the present study used the midpoint of one hundred beds to classify small jails. Small jails are most often located in rural areas, although there is some debate about the definitions of rural (Weisheit & Donnermeyer, 2000). Most definitions of rural towns or communities define them as having a population of less than 10,000 residents. Increasing the complexity of these definitions are sparsely populated counties that are geographically close to urban areas, or resort communities that have a low population for most of the year, but increase dramatically when out-of-towners come for recreation (the so-called ‘summer-people,’ but these population surges also affect winter recreation communities). Some scholars had also included economic, geographic, or cultural factors in their definitions of rural life, further complicating such definitions. Throughout this study, the descriptors small and rural are used interchangeably as most of these small facilities are located in rural communities. One limitation of this study was the lack of an accurate count of the actual number of jails in rural areas, other than the total of 1,775 small jails that existed in 2003. There are a number of factors that differentiate rural and urban areas. First, many people tend to think of rural counties and towns as a homogenous (typically ‘White’) with agricultural- or resource-based economies, and with a slow pace of life. Populations in rural America, however, are shifting as retirees seek small-town life, and there has been an exodus of young people to the urban areas (Panelli, 2002). In addition, there is a greater degree of racial, cultural, and ethnic diversity (Kirkey & Forsyth, 2001; Tarmann, 2003). The economic landscape has also transformed as agricultural incomes have dropped and service industries (such as tourism) have increased. Scholars have observed that the economic, political, and social landscape of rural America has changed, and that some counties were thriving, while others were in decline (see Vias, 2004). Perhaps the biggest difference between urban and rural areas is the fact that the social environment of rural communities is distinctively different. It is difficult to remain anonymous in small towns and there are higher levels of social interaction, interest in local affairs, and community engagement. Such factors enhance levels of informal social control (Berg & DeLisi, 2005). High levels of familiarity, however, may also contribute to lower levels of reporting crime due to fear, shame, or embarrassment, especially when crimes are committed by family members, neighbors, or friends. Weisheit and Donnermeyer (2000, p. 330) reported that rural residents
R. Ruddell, G.L. Mays / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 251–260
were reluctant to rely on outside assistance, and saw crime as a private matter. Most people hold stereotypes that rural areas are quiet, safe, and pastoral, but rural justice systems have always had to contend with crime, and some counties have comparatively high rates of serious violent crimes (Weisheit & Wells, 2005). A review of the 2004 statistics of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (2005) revealed that the number of murders increased by 23 percent between 2003 and 2004 in nonmetropolitan counties (with less than 10,000 residents). In addition, while rates of violent crime (murder and non-negligent manslaughter, robbery, rape, and aggravated assault) were lower in these nonmetropolitan counties (averaging 215.6 offenses per 100,000 residents), the differences were less than expected once compared to suburban (312.6 offenses per 100,000 residents) or metropolitan counties (331.1 offenses per 100,000 residents). One factor that was seldom considered in such comparisons was that rates of unreported crime might be higher in rural America, especially for domestic violence (Johnson, 2000). Klaus (2006, p. 3) reported findings from the National Crime Victimization Survey that rural intimate partner violence occurs at higher rates than suburban places, and at levels equal to urban areas. As a result of such findings, there had been increasing attention directed toward rural justice systems, although most of these studies had examined the operations of police or sheriff's departments (see Payne et al., 2005; Weisheit et al., 1994). There had been comparatively little scholarship of the characteristics of small or rural jails. An extensive literature review found fewer than ten articles, and three of these early pieces were chapters in a single work on rural crime (Cronk, 1982). The one consistent theme in all of these studies was that small jails face considerable challenges. Kerle (1982, p. 196) found that “insufficient staff, low pay and a lack of training are common problems” and that “the jail job is viewed as a dead-end job taking care of dead-end people.” Similar to later work (see Thompson & Mays, 1991), Kerle maintained that rural jails often act as a default agency for a lack of mental health or other services, and that persons were admitted because there were no viable community-based alternatives. Kerle (1982) reported that basic inmate care in many communities could not be met because counties were impoverished. The solutions to providing humanitarian care for these inmates were thought to be regional jails (where a number of jurisdictions send arrestees to a single jail facility) or jail operations that fall under the auspices of the state department of corrections (jails in six states are operated by the state).
253
Miller (1982) reported the results of a survey of 257 jail managers from facilities of twenty-five beds or less. When asked about the major challenges confronting small jails at that time, Miller (1982, p. 217) found that jail managers cited problems with the physical plant, operations (such as safety and security or classification), and a lack of inmate programs or services. By contrast, jail inspectors reported that jail administrators and staff were the major problems. Using data collected during a 1978 National Institute of Corrections conference of small jail administrators, Katsampes (1982, pp. 232–233) contended that the major problems confronting small jails were a lack of comprehensive criminal justice planning, written policies or procedures, alternatives to incarceration, staff development, and jail standards. Moreover, rural jail administrators were thought to be somewhat isolated from current practice, and their job responsibilities often extended beyond the jail. Kimme (1985, p. 4) reported the results of a survey of 255 jail administrators from facilities of fifty beds or less, and similar to the findings reported previously, found that “operational problems (damage to property, suicides, untrained staff, contraband passage and law suits), staff shortages, and overcrowding” were these facilities' most common challenges. While many of the changes recommended for these problems were architectural in nature, Kimme (1985) placed some of the blame on jail administrators who ran their facilities without regard for standards, accreditation, and the failure to take advantage of resources such as the National Institute of Corrections. It is plausible that the isolation of rural administrators noted in the Katsampes (1982) study was a barrier to accessing such resources. This isolation may be present today: Kellar (2001, p. 92) found that almost half of Texas jail administrators surveyed in 2000 did not have an official email work address. Mays and Thompson (1988, p. 426) conducted an examination involving jails of ten or fewer beds, and found that most were located in the midwestern or western states, were typically older than their larger counterparts, had less space than newer jails, and were less likely to have sight and sound separation of juveniles from adults (or females from males), medical facilities, or an infirmary. Consistent with Kerle (1982), Mays and Thompson (1988) argued that alternatives to incarceration in small jails should be examined, that regional jails be considered, and that state-operated jail systems offered operational advantages to locally-run jails in some jurisdictions, but that the downside might include increased incarceration. Kellar's (2001) analysis of survey data from Texas county jail administrators provided considerable insight
254
R. Ruddell, G.L. Mays / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 251–260
into some problems with small facilities. At the time of this survey, there were 139 institutions of less than fifty beds in Texas. Administrators reported that the most significant problems facing their facilities were retaining officers due to low salaries, a lack of rehabilitative programs, as well as providing medical and mental health care for inmates. Medical care has emerged as a considerable challenge for administrators of all juvenile justice and adult correctional facilities (Anno, 2001). Delivering health care in small jails is more challenging as it may be harder to recruit nurses in small communities, and physicians were unlikely to regularly visit these facilities, making it necessary to transport inmates. A number of suggestions had been offered to increase the professionalism in local corrections, such as accreditation by such bodies as the American Correctional Association, certification through the American Jail Association, adopting state jail standards, and civil litigation. It may be the case that these activities have had a greater impact on large jail operations located primarily in urban areas, than small facilities that are more isolated. In fact, the twelve states that did not have formal standards are likely to be in western or midwestern states, the jurisdictions with the greatest number of small jails (American Jail Association, 2003). In order to better understand the challenges that these rural facilities face, the results from a survey of small jails are reported in the following pages. Characteristics of the national jail sample Four hundred jails with a rated capacity of less than one hundred beds were randomly selected from the American Jail Association's Who's Who in Jail Management (American Jail Association, 2003) in January 2005.1 Each of these facilities was called by members of the survey team to confirm mailing addresses and contact persons. In most cases, the investigators got the opportunity to speak with a jail administrator, shift supervisor, or jail commander, and their participation was encouraged. Of the original sample of four hundred jails, a number of cases were rejected as the facility had grown beyond the parameters of the study (one facility that had a rated capacity of less than one hundred beds in 2003 had grown to over seven hundred beds by 2005). In other cases, respondents refused to participate in the study, and some surveys were returned unopened. In approximately half the cases, the survey instrument was faxed directly to the respondent (usually within a few minutes of the call) and the response rate for these surveys was substantially higher than surveys that were mailed. A second mail-out
was conducted two months later, and a total of 213 surveys were returned (a response rate of 59 percent). Despite the fact that the sample size of 213 jails was reasonably large, the entire rated capacity of these facilities was only 9,172 inmates, which was less than one-half of the average daily population at the Los Angeles County Jail in 2005 (California Corrections Standards Authority, 2006). Within this sample of jails, there was a diverse mix of facilities, including responses from forty-three states, although data about four cases were missing. Table 1 reveals that two regions of the nation, the Midwest and South, were overrepresented in the sample. There were some methodological reasons for this finding, as jails in the Northeast and West tend to be larger. In New Jersey, for instance, there was only one jail of less than one hundred beds, and this one jail was excluded in the random sample. Using data from the 2000 U.S. Census, the mean county size was found to be 21,684 persons, and the average daily jail population was used to determine the average jail incarceration rate of 212 per 100,000 county residents (based on the average daily population of the jail), which was somewhat less than the national jail incarceration rate of 252 inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents at midyear 2005 (Harrison & Beck, 2006). Table 1 displays the characteristics of the jails, as reported by the respondents. The average size of the Table 1 Rural jail characteristics: survey of small jails, 2005 N (s.d.) Jails States⁎ Average population (county or place) Incarceration rate
Facility characteristics Facility age (years) Mean rated capacity (beds) Average daily population Mean rated capacity Mean daily cost (dollars) Mean annual admissions Total rated capacity (beds)
213 43 21,684 (18,929) 212 (169) Mean (s.d.)
Range
40.0 (31.7) 43.1 (25.3) 39.9 (27.0) 85.1 (36.1) 49.1 (29.2) 1101.0 (986.0) 9172.0
4 to 202 4 to 99 1 to 134 12 to 240 10 to 176 25 to 5,200
N Region Northeast Midwest South West ⁎ Four jails had no identifying state (or regional) data.
13 85 77 36
R. Ruddell, G.L. Mays / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 251–260
facility was 43.1 beds with a range of four to ninety-nine beds. Jails tend to be enduring facilities and this sample was no exception, with a mean age of forty years and one facility over two centuries old. One statistic, the daily cost to house an inmate (often called the per diem rate), illustrates the diversity of these facilities: the mean per diem rate was $49.10, but the range was from $10.00 to $176.00. Although it is often difficult to accurately classify the mean cost across a large sample due to definitional differences (see Edelman & Mayer, 1997; Kellar, 2001), the higher costs were typically in places with higher costs of living, such as Alaska, California, or New York. Challenges confronting small jails These results are presented in Table 2, and show that funding was cited as the most important problem. Respondents were given a list of operational problems or challenges and were asked to provide a response that ranged from “not a problem at all” to “a very serious problem” using a five-point Likert-type scale. Funding overwhelmingly was cited as the most important problem. In fact, only a small percentage of jails did not report that this was the most significant problem (mean = 4.24 of a possible 5.0). Jail overcrowding was perceived to be a slightly smaller problem, with a mean of 3.45. While the most recent national jail census suggested that small jails are more likely to operate at less than their rated capacity compared with larger facilities (see Stephan, 2001), there is the possibility that during the week crowding is not as problematic as during weekends, what Thompson (1986) labeled short-term population surges. Thus, the average daily population might not tell the entire story when it comes to jail overcrowding in these places. Providing space for special needs inmates is a challenge for many smaller facilities, as some inmates require single rooms and can't be placed with others. Some of these special needs populations include persons with mental illness, females, and juveniles. Thus, a jail could Table 2 Self-reported problems facing rural jails: survey of small jails, 2005 Problems
Mean (1 to 5; 5 = most serious)
Funding Programs for offenders Recruit jail officers Retain jail officers Jail overcrowding Jail suicide Jail violence
4.24 3.32 3.30 3.26 3.45 1.96 2.27
255
be operating at fewer inmates than its rated capacity, yet be overcrowded. Respondents ranked providing rehabilitative programs for offenders, as well as recruitment and retention of jail officers at approximately the same level of seriousness, in the 3.26 to 3.30 range. The last set of challenges was jail suicides and violence, and respondents ranked these problems at less than half as serious as funding shortfalls (means were 1.96 and 2.27 respectively). These results were unexpected, as it was hypothesized that these issues would be more problematic given the fact that Mumola (2005) reported high rates of small jail suicides. One limitation of this study was that responses about the problems of delivering health or medical care for inmates were not solicited. Respondents in Texas jails for instance, overwhelmingly reported that this was their most serious problem (Kellar, 2001). It was hypothesized that respondents would report overcrowding, jail violence, and suicides as significant problems. Upon review, however, the results closely paralleled those of Kimme (1985, p. 19) who found that staff shortages, overcrowding, and untrained staff were the greatest problems in his survey of administrators working in facilities with fewer than fifty beds. Like the results in this study, suicides (or attempts) and violence were lesser concerns. Again, these results were consistent with Kellar's (2001) survey of Texas jailers. Thus, while jail violence and suicides are disruptive events, they rarely occurred in Texas, and respondents in recent studies perceived these tragedies in the same manner that they did two decades ago. Many respondents felt that offering adequate inmate programs was a concern, and there was a tremendous variation in the programs offered in American jails. Critics have argued that idleness continues to be a significant problem for jail inmates (see Kerle, 1998). One low-cost option is to offer Alcoholics or Narcotics Anonymous programs, which are important interventions given the increased use of drugs in rural America (see Weisheit & Fuller, 2004). This survey solicited responses about the prevalence of such programs and found that 59.2 percent of jails offered Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) programs, while only slightly more than one-third (38.9 percent) offered Narcotics Anonymous (NA) programs. These results were similar to those reported in the 1999 national jail census: Stephan (2001, p. 10) reported that 61 percent of jails provided alcohol counseling programs, while 54 percent offered drug programs. As these twelve-step programs rely on the voluntary assistance of community members, it is unfortunate that these cost-effective interventions are not available to more jail inmates.
256
R. Ruddell, G.L. Mays / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 251–260
Special needs inmates The survey also solicited information about the prevalence of special needs inmates, including persons with mental illness, frequent fliers (inmates with over twenty jail admissions-see Chandler Ford, 2005), ganginvolved inmates, persons with serious illnesses or communicable diseases, elderly inmates, and inmates who had been in jail for longer than one year. Each of these groups poses special challenges for jail officers and other inmates alike, either for the resources that they require, or the interpersonal and security problems that they create. Table 3 outlines the percentages of each special needs group, and how disruptive they are thought to be. Persons with mental illness pose special challenges for all jails, but smaller jails have a more difficult time with these inmates. Ditton (1999) found that approximately 16 percent of jail and prison inmates nationwide suffered from severe mental illness, and other scholars report similar results. Unlike Ditton's (1999) study, the respondents in the present research reported that this group represented only 8.6 percent of the inmates in this sample of small jails. Some scholars have suggested that small jails are less likely to detect these inmates (see McLearen & Ryba, 2003). It is also plausible that there is a greater stigma attached to persons with mental illness in rural America (Thorngren, 2003), and therefore, this population is underreported or these persons migrate to larger cities to live more anonymous lives. Table 3 also reports the perceptions of jail administrators regarding the likelihood of problem behaviors in Table 3 Estimates of special needs jail populations and their conduct: survey of small jails, 2005 Special needs group Persons with mental illness Frequent fliers Gang-involved inmates Elderly inmates Seriously ill Long-term inmates (over one year)
Mean (s.d.)
Disruption index 1⁎
Disruption index 2⁎⁎
8.6% (16.1)
4.4
2.4
31.5% (29.8) 3.7% (8.5)
2.1 2.3
1.8 2.2
1.8% (3.2) 4.4% (9.5) 13.9% (20.3)
.8 – 1.9
.2 – 1.5
⁎ Disruption index 1: mean of undesirable behaviors (self-harm or suicidal behavior, rates of victimization, involvement in assaults on inmates or officers, involvement in other criminal conduct, escapes/ attempts, and disruptive behavior). Highest possible value = 7.0. ⁎⁎Disruption index 2: mean of aggressive or criminal behaviors (assaults, involvement in disruptive behavior, escapes/attempts, and criminal conduct). Highest possible value = 4.0.
special needs jail populations. These problem behaviors included suicide, incidents of self-harm, victimization, assault (either inmates or staff), disruptive behavior within the facility, escapes (or attempts), and other criminal conduct. Two disruption indices were created. First, a disruption index was calculated where one point was counted each time a respondent checked that a special needs group was likely to be involved in any of the disruptive behaviors listed above; the means for each group are reported, and the possible mean ranged from 0 to 7. The second index collected perceptions about undesirable (acting out) and illegal behaviors (such as escapes/attempts and assaults on inmates or staff). The means for each group are also reported, and the possible mean ranged from 0 to 4. Respondents ranked persons with mental illness as the most disruptive group, and the one that was most likely to engage in serious misconduct in the facility. Gang-involved inmates, as well as frequent fliers were also thought to be disruptive elements in small jails. One group of offenders that is drawing more scholarly attention is inmates labeled “frequent fliers” (see Bass, 2005; Chandler Ford, 2005). These inmates were classified in the present study as having twenty or more admissions over the past five years. Bass (2005, p. 35) observed that these inmates, also called habitual misdemeanor offenders, typically were charged with minor offenses, and “they spend much of the year in jail…a few days at a time.” Chandler Ford (2005) analyzed a small sample of these offenders from Florida and found that the annual number of jail admissions tends to escalate over time. They also draw an inordinate amount of county resources—in her sample many had been arrested dozens of times, and some had over one hundred jail admissions. Of all the special needs groups in this study, the frequent fliers were reported to be the most commonly encountered, and they represented almost one-third of all inmates. Other scholars have reported that these offenders often have unstable residency patterns (Chandler Ford, 2005), are alcohol or drug addicted (Bass, 2005), and in some cases have psychiatric disorders. The prevalence of these inmates was greater than expected, and they pose a considerable challenge to local corrections (Bass, 2005; Chandler Ford, 2005). Gladwell (2006) described how one frequent flier was estimated to have cost the justice, medical, and social service systems in Reno, Nevada at least one million dollars during his short life on the streets. Berg and DeLisi's (2005) study of offenders in rural America revealed that there was a small subgroup of offenders who averaged more than twenty arrests (the
R. Ruddell, G.L. Mays / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 251–260
same number of arrests used in this study's classification of frequent fliers). Consistent with previous scholarly work, they found that most of these arrests were for relatively minor crimes, and most were alcohol-related offenses. Berg and DeLisi (2005, p. 322) found that a number of factors were significantly associated with these habitual offenders, including fewer years of education (and school failure), homelessness, earlier onset of arrests (and arrests for violent crimes), histories of alcohol and drug treatment, as well as histories of jail or prison sentences. Consistent with research about larger jails (see Mays & Ruddell, 2004), this study revealed that frequent fliers represent a significant challenge for rural jails. While many of the arrests may be consistent with the descriptor, the “town drunk,” these offenses do have an effect on the quality of life in a community, and the impact of these offenders' behaviors may be magnified in a small township due to their visibility. Florida recently introduced legislation that attempts to break the cycle of revolving door admissions for these habitual misdemeanants, but it is too early to determine whether this strategy will be effective (Bass, 2005). While these offenders don't pose a significant risk to local communities, they are a costly and problematic population, and they deserve attention from future investigators. Table 3 reveals that gang-involved inmates were rarely encountered in small jails, although they were perceived to be very disruptive. Americans tend to harbor stereotypes characterizing gang membership primarily as an urban phenomenon, but prior empirical work has addressed the prevalence of gang members in rural America and the problems that they pose for law enforcement (Weisheit & Wells, 2004). A separate series of questions in this survey (the results are not reported in the tables) asked respondents whether the gang problem was getting worse, and almost three-quarters reported that the gang problem in their jurisdiction was decreasing or less than in previous years. These findings mirrored Egley and Ritz's (2006) study of youth gangs in rural areas. Further, Howell and Egley's (2005, p. 1) research of gangs in small towns and rural counties found that, “In most cases, the gang problem is short-lived and dissipates as quickly as it develops. Most often, this is mainly because small towns and rural areas do not have the necessary population base to sustain gangs.” Elderly and seriously ill inmates pose significant financial challenges to jails. Adams (1995) estimated that costs for elderly inmates might be three times as great as their younger counterparts due to higher health care costs. Many small jails are unlikely to have fulltime health care providers, and instead they rely upon
257
less regular (or comprehensive) health care (Mays & Thompson, 1988). In some cases, health providers utilize a preventative approach by counseling elderly jail inmates about the care of chronic conditions (National Institute of Corrections, 2003). On the positive side, these aged inmates typically are not disruptive, but elderly inmates may be at higher risk of victimization (Kuhlmann & Ruddell, 2005). While limited access to health care may be feasible for short-term inmates who might only be in jail for a day or two, a series of recent studies have demonstrated that some jail inmates are detained for inordinately long periods of time prior to sentencing, and they may serve up to a year in the local jail afterwards (see James, 2004; Ruddell, 2005). In her national study of jail inmates, James (2004) found that 4.8 percent of inmates had been in jail for more than one year, and 1.4 percent had been held for more than three years. Respondents from this sample of jails reported that 13.9 percent of inmates had been held for over one year. These long periods of incarceration also may be a function of the slow case processing time (e.g., some inmates anticipating a prison sentence may delay sentencing in order to stay ‘close to home’ to facilitate visits) or sentencing on more serious offenses to longer terms of jail incarceration.2 Another possible reason for these lengthy sentences is that some inmates may be detained for several months (or longer) and then are sentenced to a term of twelve months of jail incarceration. Last, some inmates, especially in the South, may be awaiting transfer to crowded state prisons (see Harrison & Beck, 2005). In sum, these results have demonstrated that jail administrators reported funding and overcrowding were the most serious problems facing their facilities, although staff retention, recruitment, and inmate programs also were rated as serious problems. These results also revealed that while small jails held populations of mentally ill inmates at levels less than other nationallevel studies have reported, these offenders could cause considerable problems for small jails. Last, the population of frequent fliers in rural jails was much greater than expected. Altogether, much more needs to be learned about the challenges that these special needs inmates pose for jail operations. Discussion and conclusions Operating correctional facilities is a challenging proposition in the best of times. Jails may be doubly challenged given their relatively disadvantaged economic position and the fact that the majority are not part of a correctional network. Most often they are small, stand-
258
R. Ruddell, G.L. Mays / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 251–260
alone facilities that do not have the ability to transfer challenging inmates to special handling units. They also do not have specialized units that house persons with mental illness or elderly inmates (or in some cases females and juveniles). Moreover, it is difficult for jail administrators to be proactive: instead their populations are governed by the activities and priorities of the other elements of justice systems. Jails have little control over police or sheriff's operations that influence the annual number of admissions, courts that may process cases slowly, or judges who may impose lengthy jail sentences. Rural jails may be in the worst possible situation as they typically are the default mechanism for failures in other economic, social, and health systems. Since few other options exist, persons in crisis are brought to the jail. Thus, a lack of community-based mental health care results in more persons with mental illness being admitted to the local jail when these persons commit minor offenses. The problem of jails being a default mechanism for other community systems has long been recognized (Kerle, 1982; Thompson & Mays, 1991). Unfortunately, during times of fiscal crisis, there is little likelihood of increased spending for community programs that will reduce jail incarcerations (such as addictions programs, community-based mental health programs, and domestic violence shelters). Impoverished rural counties are further challenged: budget constraints were thought to be the most significant challenge facing this sample of 213 rural American jails. The number of small jails has dropped by over 1,000 facilities since 1982. Despite this fact, some 1,775 of these facilities remained in 2003 (American Jail Association, 2003). Perhaps the most significant finding in this study was that the problems identified in Cronk's (1982) study of rural crime and justice were still major challenges over two decades later. One of the most significant problems facing administrators who responded to this survey was jail overcrowding, and no simple answers exist for this problem. Expanding the capacity of a facility also creates the expectations of local law enforcers and the courts that these beds are available, and empty beds are quickly filled. Thus, some jails can get caught in a spiral of jail construction and overcrowding (Vance, 2005). Short of state-funded jail systems or regionalization (where the jail operations of several jurisdictions are consolidated into a single facility), these jails must “go it alone.” Rural jail administrators must also manage the hiring, training, and retention of jail officers, a significant problem in jails of all sizes (McCampbell, 2006). This is a difficult proposition when one considers that there is a
limited pool of possible job candidates in many rural counties. Often these small facilities are caught in a continual process of hiring and training, and deputies often move on to jobs with larger agencies. Yearwood (2003) analyzed turnover in small sheriffs' offices in North Carolina and found that rates of turnover were higher in these agencies, and deputies often went to larger agencies. Lindblom (2005) cited a sheriff from a rural California county who remarked that, “I am tired of hiring people, training them and then watching them go to other agencies.” This seems to have been a pattern throughout the nation, and one of the reasons why jail administrators in this study ranked the challenges of staff recruiting and retention as significant problems. Not only is this process disruptive to the organization and expensive, but it also reduces the cumulative staff experience. Retaining experienced jail staff is a key element in working effectively with special needs populations, another significant challenge faced by all jails, particularly rural jails (Kerle, 2005). Much of an officer's ability to handle inmates is learned on the job, and supervising persons with mental illness, gang members, or repeat offenders with long histories of jail admissions is learned over time. When facilities are staffed with officers with little experience, chaos may increase, a possible contributing factor to rates of violence in smaller jails that is higher than in larger facilities (see Mays & Thompson, 1988). This factor also may contribute to much higher suicide rates in these facilities (Mumola, 2005). There are a number of potential solutions to the problems confronting these small jails, and all involve increased funding. State-funding for these operations would be a significant step in reducing some of the challenges outlined in this study, but this option is unlikely as few states want to absorb the costs or challenges associated with local jails (Kerle, 1998). Ruddell and Mays (2006) observed that regionalization or expansion (and admitting inmates from other jurisdictions on a feefor-service basis) were two methods that some jail administrators have adopted to take advantage of economies of scale. It might also be easier to recruit and retain jail officers if these facilities were located in counties with greater populations. Nonetheless, there are few simple answers to the problems confronting administrators in small jails. It is important, however, that the study of justice systems in rural communities not be overlooked. Americans tend to hold stereotypes of rural America that don't always reflect reality. In a rush to understand the operations of criminal justice systems in the “big city,” scholars
R. Ruddell, G.L. Mays / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 251–260
often have ignored the fact that one-fifth of the U.S. population lives in rural areas, and the problems and solutions to their justice-related issues will likely be decidedly different than their urban counterparts. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the sheriffs and administrators who completed the survey. Thanks also to Brian Roy who helped administer the survey. An earlier version of this article was presented at the American Society of Criminology's Annual Meeting on November 17, 2005 in Toronto, Canada. Notes 1. Cases were selected by starting at a random point in the list of jails of less than one hundred beds, and then each fourth and then fifth case was selected until there were four hundred cases. 2. While not reported in the tables, respondents were also asked to estimate how long an offender sentenced to a period of jail incarceration for one year would serve, and the average was almost nine months.
References Adams, W. E. (1995). The incarceration of older criminals: Balancing safety, cost, and humanitarian concerns. Nova Law Review, 19, 465−486. American Jail Association. (2003). Who's who in jail management. Hagerstown, MD: Author. Anno, J. B. (2001). Correctional health care: Guidelines for the management of an adequate delivery system. Boulder, CO: National Institute of Corrections. Bass, G. (2005, Winter). Justice and the revolving door: The Jacksonville experience in recidivism intervention. Large Jails Network, 35−39. Berg, M. T., & DeLisi, M. (2005). Do career criminals exist in rural America? Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 317−325. California Corrections Standards Authority. (2006). 2005 fourth quarter survey results. Sacramento, CA: Author. Catalano, S. M. (2005). Criminal victimization, 2004. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Chandler Ford, M. (2005). Frequent fliers: The high demand user in local corrections. Californian Journal of Health Promotion, 3, 61−71. Cronk, S. D. (1982). Criminal justice in rural America. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Dennis, J. (1998, October). Cooperation works: Six Ohio jurisdictions join forces to create regional jail. Corrections Today, 128–129, 140. Ditton, P. (1999). Mental health and treatment of inmates and probationers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Duhart, D. T. (2000). Urban, suburban, and rural victimization, 1993–1998. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Edelman, M. A., & Mayer, A. J. (1997). A cost analysis of county jails by size in rural Iowa to inform state policy and community decisions. Retrieved July 22, 2006, from http://www.econ.iastate. edu/research/abstracts/NDN0050.html
259
Egley, A., & Ritz, C. (2006). Highlights of the 2004 national youth gang survey. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Falcone, D. N., Wells, E. L., & Weisheit, R. A. (2002). The small town police department. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 25, 371−384. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2005). Crime in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Gladwell, M. (2006). Million dollar Murray. Retrieved July 23, 2006, from http://www.gladwell.com/pdf/murray.pdf Harrison, P. M., & Beck, A. J. (2005). Prisoners in 2004. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Harrison, P. M., & Beck, A. J. (2006). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2005. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Howell, J. C., & Egley, A. (2005). Gangs in small towns and rural counties. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. James, D. (2004). Profile of jail inmates, 2002. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Johnson, R. M. (2000). Rural health response to domestic violence: Policy and practice issues. Retrieved July 23, 2006, from http:// ruralhealth.hrsa.gov/pub/domviol.htm Katsampes, P. A. (1982). A national strategy for change in rural jails. In S. D. Cronk (Ed.), Criminal justice in rural America (pp. 231−248). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Kellar, M. (2001). Texas county jails, 2001: A status report. Retrieved July 22, 2006, from http://www.tcjs.state.tx.us/docs/Final% 2520DraftTJSbu.pdf Kerle, K. E. (1982). The rural jail: Its people, problems and solutions. In S. D. Cronk (Ed.), Criminal justice in rural America (pp. 189−204). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Kerle, K. E. (1998). American jails: Looking to the future. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. Kerle, K. E. (2003). Exploring jail operations. Hagerstown, MD: American Jail Association. Kerle, K. E. (2004, March/April). Jail evolution: Rated capacities (RC), regional jails, city jails, the growing number of women jail administrators, and new jail construction and planning new jails. American Jails, 18, 19−29. Kerle, K. E. (2005, September/October). Jail staff turnover: What can be done about it? American Jails, 19, 89. Kimme, D. A. (1985). The nature of new small jails: Report and analysis. Longmont, CO: National Institute of Corrections. Kirkey, K., & Forsyth, A. (2001). Men in the valley: Gay male life on the suburban-rural fringe. Journal of Rural Studies, 17, 421−441. Klaus, P. (2006). Crime and the nation's households. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Kuhlmann, R., & Ruddell, R. (2005). Elderly jail inmates: Problems, prevalence, and public health. Californian Journal of Health Promotion, 3, 50−61. Lindblom, A. (2005, December 2). Sheriff's crew on the shrink. Sonora Union Democrat. Mays, G. L., & Ruddell, R. (2004). Frequent fliers, gang-bangers, and old-timers: Understanding the population characteristics of jail populations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology 2004, Nashville, TN. Mays, G. L., & Thompson, J. A. (1988). Mayberry revisited: The characteristics and operations of America's small jails. Justice Quarterly, 5, 421−440. McCampbell, S. W. (2006, May/June). Recruiting and retaining jail employees: Money isn't the long-term solution. American Jails, 6−15.
260
R. Ruddell, G.L. Mays / Journal of Criminal Justice 35 (2007) 251–260
McLearen, A. M., & Ryba, N. L. (2003). Identifying severely mentally ill inmates: Can small jails comply with detection standards? Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 37, 25−40. Miller, R. (1982). A needs assessment for small jails in the United States. In S. D. Cronk (Ed.), Criminal justice in rural America (pp. 205−229). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Mumola, C. (2005). Suicide and homicide in state prisons and local jails. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. National Institute of Corrections. (2003). Corrections agency collaborations with public health. Longmont, CO: Author. Office of the Inspector General. (2004). Neither safe nor secure: An assessment of Indian detention facilities. Washington, DC: Author. Panelli, R. (2002). Young rural lives: Strategies beyond diversity. Journal of Rural Studies, 18, 113−122. Payne, B. K., Berg, B. L., & Sun, I. Y. (2005). Policing in small town America: Dogs, drunks, disorder, and dysfunction. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 31−41. Ruddell, R. (2005, March/April). Long-term jail populations: A national assessment. American Jails, 22−27. Ruddell, R., & Mays, G. L. (2006). Expand or expire: Jails in rural America. Corrections Compendium, 31, 1–5, 20–21, 27. Stephan, J. J. (2001). Census of jails, 1999. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Tarmann, A. (2003). Fifty years of demographic change in rural America. Retrieved July 22, 2006, from http://www.prb.org/ rfdcenter/50yearsofchange.htm Thompson, J. A. (1986). The American jail: Problems, politics, and prospects. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 10, 205−221.
Thompson, J. A., & Mays, G. L. (1991). American jails: Public policy issues. Chicago: Nelson Hall. Thorngren, J. M. (2003). Rural mental health: A qualitative inquiry. Journal of Rural Community Psychology, 6. Retrieved July 23, 2006, from http://www.marshall.edu/jrcp/JRCP_E6_2_Thorngren.htm Vance, N. (2005). Real reductions in jail populations require comprehensive actions. American Jails, 19, 71−72. Vias, A. C. (2004). Bigger stores, more stores, or no stores: Paths of retain restructuring in rural America. Journal of Rural Studies, 20, 303−318. Weisheit, R. A., & Donnermeyer, J. F. (2000). Change and continuity in crime in rural America. Retrieved July 22, 2006, from http:// www.ncjrs.gov/criminal_justice2000/vol_1/02g.pdf Weisheit, R. A., Falcone, D. N., & Wells, L. E. (1994). Rural crime and rural policing. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Weisheit, R. A., & Fuller, J. (2004). Methamphetamine in the heartland: A review and initial exploration. Journal of Crime and Justice, 27, 131−151. Weisheit, R. A., & Wells, L. E. (2004). Youth gangs in rural America. National Institute of Justice Journal, 251, 2−7. Weisheit, R. A., & Wells, L. E. (2005). Deadly violence in the heartland. Homicide Studies, 9, 55−80. Yearwood, D. L. (2003). Recruitment and retention study series: Sworn sheriff's personnel. Raleigh: North Carolina Criminal Justice Analysis Center.