Building and Financing Jails in Tennessee (2006) e

March 2006

Report No. R-05-06

Offices of Research and Education Accountability

OREA

BUILDING AND

FINANCING JAILS IN

TENNESSEE

Comptroller of the Treasury

JOHN G. MORGAN

STATE OF TENNESSEE

John G. Morgan COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY

Comptroller

STATE CAPITOL

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37243-0264

PHONE (615) 741-2501

March 22, 2006

The Honorable John S. Wilder

Speaker of the Senate

The Honorable Jimmy Naifeh

Speaker of the House of Representatives

and

Members of the General Assembly

State Capitol

Nashville, Tennessee 37243

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Transmitted herewith is a study requested in Senate Bill 2171 / House Bill 2000 (2005) regarding

the construction and financing of county jails. The Office of Research report examines

mechanisms for funding county jail construction, and points out ways that counties can ensure

new jail construction meets long-term needs for safely housing prisoners. The report also

compares Tennessee jail construction standards with those of other states and a national

organization, and makes recommendations to improve the oversight of county jail construction in

the state. The report also addresses the potential for establishing regional jails in Tennessee, and

describes successful regional jail systems in other states. It includes recommendations

policymakers should find useful to address state issues related to local jail construction and

financing.

Sincerely,

John G. Morgan

Comptroller of the Treasury

BUILDING AND FINANCING JAILS IN

N TENNESSEE

Above: The Scott County Jail, built in 1907, was added to the

“National Register of Historic Places” in 1974. After sitting vacant

several years, the county renovated and reoccupied the jail in 1977.

Greg Spradley Margaret Rose

Senior Legislative Research Analyst (Former) Senior Legislative Research Analyst

John G. Morgan

Comptroller of the Treasury

State of Tennessee

Ethel R. Detch, Director

Phillip E. Doss, Assistant Director

Douglas Wright, Assistant Director

Offices of Research and Education Accountability

505 Deaderick St., Suite 1700

Nashville, TN 37243-0268

Phone 615/401-7911

Fax 615/532-9237

www.comptroller.state.tn.us/orea/reports

March 2006

Comptroller of the Treasury, Office of Research. Authorization Number

307335, 500 copies, March 2006. This public document was promulgated at

a cost of $1.60 per copy.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Several Tennessee jails are antiquated, dilapidated, and may be unsafe for inmates, jail staff, and

the community. An August 2003 report by the Comptroller, The State of Tennessee Jails,

identified conditions in many of the state’s jails that potentially violate inmates’ constitutional

rights.

Since the report’s release, many county officials have noted their increased risk of litigation and

enhanced liability. In addition, the Tennessee Corrections Institute (TCI), the state agency

charged with setting standards and inspecting jails, began notifying counties not meeting

standards that they could lose their certification if they did not show progress toward correcting

deficiencies. As a result, several counties decided to build, enlarge, or renovate their jails to

reduce this exposure. These counties, however, have used various approaches to construction

and financing, resulting in very different bed costs and subsequent operating costs.

This report concludes:

County commissions have funded jail projects that will not meet long-term needs to safely

and efficiently house prisoners. Officials from counties that have recently built facilities

reported several concerns with those facilities. The concerns appear to arise from:

• Initial designs that exceed a county’s needs, then have to be scaled back, leading to

perceptions that the county is not receiving what it paid for;

• Cutting construction costs that increase long-term operational costs;

• Elaborate needs assessments that provide more information than necessary to make

decisions. This may lead some counties to retreat from projected needs after they find

out how much meeting those needs will cost; and

• County commissions reluctant to commit limited resources for adequate jail construction

projects, cutting construction costs on the front end to make it appear they have saved

the taxpayers money, without realizing or addressing the increase in long-term

maintenance and operating costs that result from those decisions.

Careful consideration of such issues, with sheriff’s department staff involved from the earliest

stages, could help counties better meet long-term jail needs safely and efficiently. (See pages 9-

10.)

Some county commissions and other officials do not seek expertise or technical

assistance from organizations such as CTAS or NIC’s Division of Jails. Adequate

assessments of counties’ jail needs may help decision makers ensure jails remain adequate at

least until counties pay off the resulting debt. Also, while there are jail consultants qualified to

conduct needs assessments for a fee, similar assistance (as well as guidance in the form of free

literature) is

available free from the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Corrections

(NIC), as well as the University of Tennessee’s County Technical Assistance Service (CTAS).

(See pages 10-11.)

County officials outside the sheriff’s department often hire architects under professional

services contracts. Unless those officials specifically grant the sheriff’s department some

authority over design decisions, the architect answers primarily to those officials. Six out of twenty

survey respondents that built jails

since 2002 reported that the county commission or county

mayor, or both, chose the architect. Several reported that sheriffs played only an advisory role

during jail planning. In such cases, officials making decisions may focus on cutting initial

construction costs with little concern for long-term maintenance and operational costs, about

which sheriffs’ department personnel may have more knowledge. (See page 11.)

Rule 1400-1-.04(24) requires counties constructing new jails to submit plans to TCI and the

State Fire Marshall’s Office for review and approval. However, the rule specifies neither the

elements required in jail construction plans, nor when counties should submit them. The

rule requires counties constructing new jails to submit plans to TCI and the State Fire Marshal’s

office for review and approval. However, TCI has limited oversight authority of the jail construction

process. Instead, rules allow counties great flexibility through construction, only to hold them

accountable for meeting construction standards, for certification purposes, once construction is

complete.

Because of the lack of a standard plans review process, some counties have submitted plans in

late stages of construction or not at all, only to have the plans disapproved or have constructed

facilities that do not meet square footage or other physical plant standards. This has forced the

counties to appropriate additional funds to complete projects to comply with TCI standards.

TCI in fact lacks authority to force counties to comply with standards, but has the statutory

authority to certify county jails that meet standards. Counties can use such certification to defend

themselves against lawsuits filed by prisoners based on conditions of confinement. (See pages

11-13.)

The TCI board and staff lack expertise to assist counties in designing, constructing, and

opening jails, and inspectors receive little training on reviewing plans. Additionally, TCI’s

Executive Director allows inspectors to interpret standards as they understand them, as long as

they can defend their decisions in court. The Executive Director requested five additional

positions in the 2006-07 Fiscal Year Budget to increase professional staff to better perform its

duties, including providing better jail construction oversight. The administration, however,

declined to fund those positions. According to a correctional consultant, of the 22 states that have

jail regulatory agencies, many hire staff with expertise or they contract with professionals to assist

their local communities in designing, constructing, and opening jails. Other states report sending

inspectors to blueprint reading classes through local vocational schools, as well as taking

advantage of courses offered free of charge (excluding travel expenses in some cases) by the

National Institute of Corrections, such as a course on “Managing Jail Design and Construction.”

Five of TCI’s six inspectors have attended an NIC Class such as “Detention Facility Inspectors

Training,” and “Jail Administration.”

Because of TCI staff’s lack of expertise, counties must rely on architects for direction. Some

architects follow nationally regarded American Correctional Association standards rather than TCI

standards, leading to costly changes or non-certification of the jail. (See pages 13-14.)

Some TCI construction standards (as well as those from other states) differ from court-

tested ACA standards, which architects often consult when designing jails. The differences

between TCI Standards and ACA Standards cause confusion when architects design jails to meet

nationally regarded ACA standards and discover later that the design does not meet TCI

standards. These inconsistencies have caused unnecessary expenditures in some cases when

counties had to alter plans or redesign structures after construction had begun. (See pages

14-15.)

No Tennessee counties have chosen to operate a jail jointly, although state law permits it.

One group of counties, however, is currently discussing the possibility of a regional jail. Regional

jails may offer some counties the opportunity to save funds and to lower liability risks. Any

attempt to establish a regional jail calls for an examination of several issues, including:

• a perceived loss of authority by some county officials;

• a perception that not all counties are contributing equally;

iii

• differing management styles;

• an increase in transportation costs;

• attorney complaints; and

• disagreements over the location of the facility.

Counties without regional jails may also miss opportunities to potentially provide programming to

prisoners that may reduce recidivism. Virginia and West Virginia have successfully established

regional jails. (See pages 15-16.)

Recommendations

Legislative (See page 17.)

The General Assembly may wish to consider restructuring TCI’s Board, designating

persons with expertise in areas such as jail construction and operation, architecture, and

engineering. Including persons with such expertise on the board may improve TCI’s plan review

process, prevent some costly design changes, and help to ensure jails operate as efficiently as

possible.

The General Assembly may wish to amend TCA §41-4-140, which requires TCI standards

to approximate, as closely as possible, those standards established by the inspector of

jails, federal bureau of prisons, and the American Correctional Association. Lawmakers

may wish to adopt ACA standards for Tennessee to prevent confusion among architects, sheriffs,

and other county officials with regard to jail design.

The General Assembly may wish to consider creating financial incentives for counties to

establish regional jails. Benefits of regional jails include cost savings through economies of

scale; fewer county jails for TCI to inspect; and better opportunities to attract professional

correctional administrators and social service providers. Potential revenue from housing state and

federal prisoners also may offset some operational costs.

Administrative (See pages 17-18.)

TCI should amend Rule 1400-1-.04(24) to specify the documents counties should submit

during the four phases of design, establishing an organized system of plan review and

approval. Such amendments should include a timeline and authority to halt the design process if

counties do not submit proper documents, or prohibition against moving forward until TCI

approves each step.

TCI should request free technical assistance from the National Institute of Corrections

(NIC) to evaluate its operations and send its chief jail inspector to the free annual training

offered by NIC. Professional training and educational opportunities offered by the NIC may

improve the quality of TCI’s jail inspection program and improve the ability of TCI staff to review

jail construction plans.

TCI should hire staff or outsource services that require expertise in architecture and

engineering. Technical aspects of design documents sometimes require that highly skilled

professionals review them to accurately interpret elements of the design.

TCI standards should not be open to individual interpretation by jail inspectors. TCI

management should train all inspectors consistently on jail standards, leaving little room for

individual interpretation.

Some Tennessee counties should consider the feasibility of establishing regional jails.

While exploring the possibility of establishing a regional jail, the counties involved should fully

examine the potential benefits of regional jails.

County commission members should acknowledge that jails are facilities with special

architectural, building material and fixture needs when approving a building budget. While

keeping county taxpayers in mind, they should also ensure adequate funding for jail construction

projects to enhance the safety of the community, staff, and inmates and to lower operational

costs.

County decision makers should construct jails or additions based on valid needs

assessments, keeping in mind that cutting construction costs may result in poor design

and quality. In some cases, spending more on initial construction may lead to greater long-term

savings through reduced maintenance and staffing costs.

Sheriffs and other county officials should contact NIC and CTAS for technical assistance

and advice about planning for and building jails. These agencies can offer expertise, free of

charge, to help county officials make wise jail design decisions that may save public money over

the life of the buildings.

County commissions and county executives should hire architects who are

knowledgeable about jail operations and who will consider jail security needs and

destructive inmate behavior, as well as designing less labor-intensive facilities. While

technical assistance can help counties make wise design decisions, architects experienced in jail

design can reduce difficulties for all parties.

Sheriffs and other county officials should consider using or establishing Public Building

Authorities (PBAs) as an independent funding/project management mechanism for

constructing jails. A PBA can save money and provide quality project management if persons

with relevant expertise work for and serve on the PBA boards.

See Appendix C for the official response to this report from the Executive Director,

Tennessee Corrections Institut

CONTENTS

NTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................1

ETHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................1

ACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................................2

Legal Framework for Jail Financing ....................................................................................2

Public Building Authorities ...................................................................................................3

Legal Framework for Jail Construction................................................................................4

Current Practices.................................................................................................................4

Conflict and Inefficiency.......................................................................................................4

Regional Jails ......................................................................................................................5

County Sheriff Survey..........................................................................................................8

NALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................................9

Some projects will not meet long-term needs .....................................................................9

Some county officials do not use available technical assistance ......................................10

County officials sometimes hire architects without competitive bidding............................11

Rules lack specifics on submitting construction plans to TCI............................................11

The TCI board members and staff lack construction expertise, inspectors receive

little plans review training, inspectors allowed to interpret standards ...............................13

Some TCI construction standards differ from ACA standards ..........................................14

No Tennessee counties have established regional jails ...................................................15

ECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................................................................17

Legislative..........................................................................................................................17

Administrative ....................................................................................................................17

XHIBITS

Exhibit 1: Counties’ Use of Available Technical Assistance for Jail Construction..........................11

Exhibit 2: Jail Cell Square Footage Standards Comparison ..........................................................14

IDEBARS

Blount County Public Building Authority ...........................................................................................3

Upper East Tennessee Regional Juvenile Detention Center.........................................................16

PPENDICES

Appendix A: County Jail Construction Projects Since July 2002 ...................................................19

Appendix B: Persons Interviewed...................................................................................................20

Appendix C: Response Letter From Executive Director, Tennessee Corrections Institute............22

INTRODUCTION

An August 2003 report by the Comptroller, The State of Tennessee Jails, identified conditions in

many of the state’s jails that potentially violate inmates’ constitutional rights. Several Tennessee

jails are antiquated, dilapidated, and unsafe for inmates, jail staff, and the community.

Since the report’s release, many county officials have noted their increased risk of litigation and

enhanced liability. In addition, the Tennessee Corrections Institute (TCI), the state agency

charged with setting standards and inspecting jails, began notifying counties not meeting

standards that they could lose certification if they did not show progress toward correcting

deficiencies. As a result, several counties decided to build, enlarge, or renovate their jails to

reduce this exposure. However, these counties have used various approaches to construction

and financing, resulting in highly differing bed costs and subsequent operating costs.

Senate Bill 2171 / House Bill 2000 of 2005 requested the Comptroller to address the following

objectives:

1. What is the current legal framework for financing jail construction in Tennessee?

2. What is the current legal framework for the construction of jails in Tennessee, including

the hiring of architects, engineers, construction managers, and contractors, as well as the

purchase of materials, supplies, and equipment?

3. What are current practices in Tennessee and in other states for financing and

construction of jails, including needs assessment, determination of appropriate debt load,

site selection, design process, and construction process?

4. What leads to conflict and inefficiency?

5. What are models of best practices?

6. What is the involvement of third party authorities such as public building authorities?

Methodology

Office of Research staff:

• Reviewed state statutes and rules related to county jails, state purchasing and bidding

requirements, and financing,

• Reviewed TCI, other states’, and American Correctional Association standards,

• Interviewed state officials, including legislators, staff of the Tennessee Corrections

Institute, the Select Oversight Committee on Corrections, and the Tennessee County

Technical Assistance Service (CTAS),

• Surveyed sheriffs,

• Interviewed selected sheriffs, jail administrators, and county mayors,

• Interviewed officials in other states knowledgeable about jail construction and financing,

• Interviewed officials in other states with regional jails,

• Reviewed Tennessee Corrections Institute’s process for approving jail blueprints/plans,

• Visited selected jails, and

• Reviewed various journals and newspaper articles.

BACKGROUND

Legal Framework for Jail Financing

Counties can borrow money from banks, the Tennessee County Services Association Loan Pool

or another public building authority, or they can directly issue debt through bonds or notes.

Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 9, Chapter 21 authorizes issuance of debt, and specifies for

what purposes counties may issue debt and how they may use borrowed funds.

Additionally, the County Correctional Incentives Act authorizes the State Funding Board to issue

bonds and notes to provide money to assist approved applicant counties to finance capital

improvements of jails. The State Funding Board may make loans or grants to counties

participating in the County Correctional Incentive Program. Counties receiving loans or grants

must submit financing agreements, which include provisions for the payment of constructing,

acquiring, reconstructing, improving, equipping, or furnishing county jails as well as repayment

terms. The agreements may include payment for engineering, fiscal, architectural, and legal

expenses incurred in connection with the facilities.

The last county to use such state funding

assistance was Davidson County in 1991.

The General Assembly has not appropriated

additional funds for these grants or loans.

Bonds

Because jails are not an enterprise through which counties expect to earn sufficient

revenue to retire the debt issued to build them, counties that choose to finance

construction by issuing bonds most often issue general obligation bonds, backed by the

full faith and credit of the county, rather than revenue bonds. Statute requires local

governments to sell bonds at competitive public sale. Local governments must give public

notice within 20 days of passing a resolution to issue bonds so that citizens may petition

for a referendum if they object to the bond issuance. Twenty years is a common

repayment term for most bonds.

In the past, citizens have sometimes succeeded in

gathering the signatures of the required 10 percent of registered voters calling for a

referendum on bond issues. The most notable such referendum involved bonds issued to

help build the Tennessee Titans Stadium in Davidson County. Voters agreed that they

wanted the stadium and did not mind if their taxes increased in the future to retire the

debt. If a county were to finance jail construction with general obligation bonds, its

citizens would have the same right to call for a referendum before the county issues the

debt.

Notes

Counties may also issue debt through capital outlay notes offered by many banks. The

Comptroller’s Division of Local Finance must approve the issuance of notes, which are

limited to terms of 12 years. Statute does not allow citizens to call for a referendum on

notes. However, local governments do have authority to tax the public to repay them. The

Division of Local Finance does not consider the amount of a local government’s current

debt when approving the issuance of new debt; the Division merely approves debt based

on a standard checklist that tracks the requirements in statute. Tennessee has a long

history of local governments issuing debt without defaulting. If a county ever defaulted,

the Division of Local Finance would begin an in-depth analysis of counties’ liabilities

before approving new notes. The Division of Local Finance also must approve the budget

of any local government that has outstanding note liability. Ultimately, if a county needs a

Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 41, Chapter 8.

Interview with John Ford, Chief Deputy and Jail Administrator, Metro Nashville Sheriff’s Department, June 23, 2005.

Interview with David Bowling, Director of Local Finance, Comptroller of the Treasury, May 13, 2005; Tennessee Code

Annotated 9-21-206.

The Blount County Public Building

Authority has worked on both jail and

school construction projects in Blount

County and its municipalities, handling

both financing and project management.

County and PBA officials report that the

concept works well because the PBA

has experienced, skilled staff to handle

details of these projects that regular

county employees may not have time or

expertise to deal with. Also, because

they have a small staff and are not

allowed to make a profit, the PBA can

save money on project management for

the governments they serve. The county

mayor and county commissioners

appoint PBA board members for their

expertise, and rely on the board to

oversee day to day construction

activities. The PBA keeps all parties

informed about the project through

weekly meetings with the eventual

owner, the architect, and the contractor

throughout construction.

new jail or additional beds because of legal action or decertification, the amount of debt

the county carries at the time does not alter that need.

Public Building Authorities

Authorized in Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 12, Chapter 10, Part 1, public building authorities

(PBAs) provide an additional alternative to counties for financing and managing jail construction

projects. Statute authorizes PBAs to borrow and loan money without some of the restrictions

placed on local governments. For example, PBAs may borrow money for terms of up to 40 years,

and do not have to pledge a government’s authority to tax its citizens when borrowing. They may

also leverage resources from several local governments to negotiate better interest rates.

However, local governments that borrow through PBAs must still pledge the full faith and credit of

that local government to pay back the debt, and citizens retain the right to call for a referendum

on issuing the debt.

Interest rates are typically less than debt issued directly, but are variable.

Rates may be reset monthly or weekly depending on the source from which the PBA borrows, but

have typically remained well below rates on traditional general obligation debt issued directly by

local governments.

However, there is a risk that interest rates will rise, similar to adjustable rate

mortgages available to home buyers.

While some PBAs are local, such as the Blount County PBA, there are other “loan pools” which

operate under the same laws as local PBAs. One such pool is the Tennessee County Services

Association Loan Pool, which loans money to local governments from bonds the loan pool issues.

Such loans also carry a general obligation pledge to

the loan pool, and are subject to similar protest rules

as debt issued directly.

Tennessee has 19 public building authorities.

least three persons who are qualified electors in the

county or city to be covered must apply with the

governing body, which may determine by resolution

that it is wise, expedient, necessary, or advisable to

establish a PBA. The persons establishing the PBA

must file certificates of incorporation with the

Secretary of State.

Every PBA must have a board of directors

comprised of qualified electors of the city or county

where the PBA is established. The board of

directors must include at least seven members,

none of whom may be an officer or employee of the

county or city. The county or city mayor appoints the

directors, subject to confirmation by the governing

body. Actions of the board of directors take effect

immediately and need not be published or posted.

The board may also establish an executive

committee with responsibility to manage the

administration of the PBA. The executive committee

may hire and compensate employees and authorize

contracts for the operation and maintenance of projects, among other responsibilities. The board

may also employ an administrator. Some PBAs hire staff, while others use the volunteer services

of board members to perform activities such as project management.

Ibid.; Tennessee Code Annotated 9-21-401 through 9-21-403.

Tennessee Code Annotated 12-10-111(a).

Tennessee Code Annotated 12-10-115(a)(2).

Interview with David Bowling, Director of Local Finance, Comptroller of the Treasury, January 30, 2006.

http://www.tennesseeanytime.org/sosname/results.jsp;jsessionid=a7ScNBU7sKMc.

Tennessee Code Annotated 12-10-104.

Legal Framework for Jail Construction

Sheriffs must obtain approval of the county legislative body before initiating jail construction

projects. Tennessee Code Annotated 5-7-111 states that a majority of a county commission may

determine that the site of a jail is unhealthy, insecure, or inconvenient and they may order the

sale of the site and construction of a new jail. State law also requires the county commission to

appoint three to five project superintendents, “a majority of whom are competent to make such

sale and purchases, to contract for and superintend the erection of the new jail. . .”

Various purchasing laws establish purchasing procedures for the different counties to which each

law applies. However, general purchasing laws require counties to let bids for all expenditures

except professional services such as architects because most jail construction projects involve a

substantial monetary investment.

In 1989, Tennessee’s Attorney General opined that counties may contract with construction

management companies to build county jails. Such contracts are not exempt from bidding

requirements.

The Tennessee Corrections Institute has responsibility for inspecting and certifying Tennessee

jails.

Agency rules require counties engaged in jail construction projects to submit plans to TCI

for review, but do not specify when in the process counties must submit those plans.

Current Practices

Financing

Most counties have funded recent jail construction projects with bonds, although at least

a few counties used the services of a public building authority.

Construction

Counties may choose to construct jails in a number of ways. Typically, a county will hire

an architect to design the project, and then take bids for a general contractor to build the

jail. Some also hire or appoint some sort of project manager to act as a liaison among the

architect, the contractor, and local officials during construction. Some companies offer all

the necessary services to complete a jail construction project, from design to

construction. Counties choosing this route must make that decision early in the process.

Some counties prefer to spend money locally when possible, so they look to contract

architectural services within the county, then bid out the construction to the best/lowest

bidder. This practice might result in counties hiring architects and contractors with little

experience designing or building jails that are inadequate and/or do not meet the needs

of the community.

Conflict and Inefficiency

Various people interviewed for this report cited concerns with the way counties have handled jail

construction projects. First, some did not conduct a needs assessment before consulting

architects or full-service contractors. Some states, such as California, require that counties

conduct a needs assessment, with specific requirements, before contracting for plans and

Tennessee Code Annotated 12-10-108 and 109.

Interview with Art Alexander, Director, Division of County Audit, Comptroller of the Treasury, May 12, 2005; Tennessee

Code Annotated, 5-14-108 (a) (2), 5-14-108(c)(1), and 5-14-205.

State of Tennessee, Office of the Attorney General, Opinion 89-14, February 7, 1989.

Tennessee Code Annotated 41-4-140 and 41-7-103.

Rules and Regulations of the State of Tennessee, Minimum Standards for Local Correctional Facilities, Rule 1400-1-

.04(24).

OREA survey of county sheriffs in Tennessee, July, 2005; Interview with Dana Lamson, Blount County Assistant

Finance Director, and Ron Ogle, Executive Director, Blount County Public Building Authority, August 10, 2005.

Interview with Terry Hazard, Criminal Justice Specialist, County Technical Assistance Service, May 5, 2005.

specifications.

Other counties have paid for needs assessments, only to disregard their results

because they lacked sufficient funding to follow recommendations. Interviewees report that many

times jail needs reach a crisis level before counties take action, so they only address immediate

needs. Others report that some counties have not hired a project manager to act as a liaison

among architect, contractor, and county officials, resulting in problems when construction is

complete. Still other reports indicate that local officials have failed to consider staffing needs for

new facilities and whether they require direct or indirect supervision of inmates.

Inefficiencies sometimes arise from attempting to meet state standards for jail construction. New

jails must meet Tennessee Corrections Institute standards as described in the Rules of the State

of Tennessee 1400-1. To ensure jails meet the standards, TCI requires [by rule, 1400-1-.04(24)]

that counties submit plans for the new construction for review and approval by TCI staff.

However, no guidelines apparently establish at what point of the process plans must be

submitted; or specify the types of documents, drawings, etc. that must be submitted. TCI officials

report that they do not approve plans, but simply review them. However, they also report that they

check to ensure that the plans meet TCI standards, and then send an approval letter to the

submitting county. Approval letters specify that it is the architect’s responsibility to ensure that the

facility meets TCI standards. In some cases, construction is well underway when the county

learns that the facility will not meet physical plant standards.

Other instances of conflict and inefficiency arise when county governments select a site that is

not well-suited for a jail, the jail is not well-designed for the county, counties do not use available

technical assistance when planning a project, or when county commissions are unwilling to spend

what is necessary to meet the county’s needs. Some county sheriffs have reported little material

involvement in jail design, construction, and sighting decisions. Some reported that county

mayors and/or commissions have allowed them or their representatives to attend meetings in an

advisory role, but have afforded them little input into final decisions, especially those regarding

cost-saving measures.

Regional Jails

Other states, such as Virginia and West Virginia, have had success with regional jails. Regional

jails in these two states differ in several ways, but each reported problems solved by regional

jails.

Virginia’s regional jails are voluntary. County and city governments may join to form

regions, but must form a regional jail authority. The state of Virginia treats such an

authority as a government in and of itself according to state law, totally separate from the

local governments that formed it.

Regional cooperation began because most local governments did not have local lock-

ups, and could not afford to build and operate them. Officials with the Virginia Association

of Regional Jails report that local governments save money on transportation because

regional jails provide inmate transportation to and from court, the cost of which regional

authorities roll into local governments’ per diem paid to house prisoners. Most of the

regional jails also use video arraignments to save transportation costs.

Each regional authority passes an annual budget that establishes this payment, and local

governments pay for regional jail beds up front, whether they use those bed-days or not.

California Code of Regulations, Minimum Standards for Local Detention Facilities, 13-102(c)2, Title 24.

Interview with Terry Hazard, Criminal Justice Specialist, County Technical Assistance Service, May 5, 2005; OREA

survey of county sheriffs in Tennessee, July, 2005; interviews with selected sheriff’s department officials that have

recently constructed jails.

Interview with Jerry Abston, Director, and Peggy Sawyer, Assistant Director, Tennessee Corrections Institute, May 26,

2005.

OREA survey of county sheriffs in Tennessee, July, 2005; interviews with selected sheriff’s department officials that

have recently constructed jails.

Code of Virginia 53.1-95.7.

(Officials report that local governments always use their allotted bed space.) Paying in

advance saves administrative costs, because the regional jails and participating local

governments do not have to account for bed-days each month in order to determine

payments.

Other cost savings arise from economies of scale in laundry, meal preparation, and

medical care achieved through serving larger populations and buying larger quantities of

supplies. They point to lower per-prisoner medical costs achieved through regional jail

medical contracts.

Regions realize construction savings as well, reporting that it costs less per local

government to build one large facility (with one large laundry and kitchen) compared to

building several smaller units, each with its own operational infrastructure. The state

oversight agency also saves money by reducing the number of facilities that require

inspection.

Regional authorities must follow the same procurement rules as state agencies, including

those rules governing construction and architectural services. The state government

reimburses regional authorities fifty percent of the capital costs for building a regional jail.

Once the jail is completed, the regional authority submits all the construction bills to the

Department of Correction, which verifies the costs as eligible for reimbursement or not.

The state then sends one check for half of the reimbursable costs back to the regional

authority. Each regional authority decides how and where to build its own jail, rather than

using prototype designs and establishing guidelines regarding a jail’s location. All jails in

Virginia, whether local or regional, must meet the same construction and operating

standards.

The state also pays a portion of staff salaries at regional jails as an annual direct

appropriation to regional authorities. A State Compensation Board establishes the

amount of the appropriation each year.

Each regional jail handles administration (both for construction projects and day-to-day)

differently. Some use regional authority staff to manage construction projects, while most

hire project managers. Still others divide administrative duties among participating

governments, or contract with one participating government to handle those duties.

West Virginia’s regional jails differ mainly because the state runs the system, the only

regional jail system of its type. The state began examining the regional jail concept in the

1970s when several local jails in other states fought legal battles over inhumane

conditions of confinement. Federal officials took an all-encompassing look at local jails in

West Virginia in the wake of those legal battles, and determined that most of the 55

county jails in the state would not meet any of the construction standards used in court to

decide those cases. To avoid costly litigation, some local jails shut down completely,

while other county governments fought bankruptcy or near bankruptcy in attempts to

upgrade facilities or build new ones.

In 1985, state legislation established the West Virginia Regional Jail Authority (WVRJA).

The law required the state to pay to build regional jails, while counties would pay a per

diem to house local prisoners. The state would use revenue from local governments to

pay back the bonds used to build the facilities as well as their operational costs. The

legislation also called for reorganizing the structure of local courts in the state,

designating county governments as the primary judicial administrators. The law allowed

Code of Virginia 53.1-81.

Code of Virginia 53.1-83.1 and 53.1-84.

Phone interview with Sandra Thacker, Virginia Association of Regional Jails, August 16, 2005.

municipalities to establish their own courts, but as part of the county system because the

law assigned counties the sole responsibility for housing local prisoners. Therefore, upon

initial arrest, all prisoners are considered county prisoners regardless of the arresting

agency.

A board of nine members governs the activities of the WVRJA, consisting of two cabinet

members (the Commissioner of Correction, Director of the Division of Juvenile Services,

non-voting), the Secretary of the Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety, the

Secretary of the Department of Administration, three governor-appointed members from

the ranks of county officials (no more than two from the same political party), and two

citizens appointed by the governor representing the areas of law and medicine.

The Authority includes a construction division that not only manages construction of

regional jails, but also state prisons and juvenile detention facilities. The last of West

Virginia’s regional jails opened in 2004. This division employs architects, engineers, and

corrections professionals who oversee all construction projects for the Authority.

The legislation established the Authority as a corporation, with enough separation from

state government that it can sell bonds without a public vote as long as there is a

dedicated revenue source to pay them back. In addition to the per diems local

governments pay, the state also adds a $40 fee to every ticket or citation written by any

police agency in the state (these include traffic, loitering, disturbing the peace, or any

other citation a police officer can write without actually placing the recipient under arrest)

as part of the revenue dedicated to repay jail bonds. In 2004, the legislature passed a bill

adding $30 to each civil court filing in the state, and another adding $48.50 to each DUI

conviction to help offset the cost of housing state prisoners in regional jails and keep the

counties’ per diem lower. The Authority has issued more than $400 million in construction

bonds to build ten regional jails since 1991 (approximately $7.27 million per county).

When the state began transitioning to the regional jail system, the Authority guaranteed

jobs at regional facilities to local jail employees, as long as they were in good standing.

They placed these workers in regional jail jobs with similar rank, duties, and pay as they

had at their local jail. Authority staff reported that they had many more positions to fill

than necessary to employ all the former local jail workers displaced by regional jails.

The Authority has overseen the construction of West Virginia’s regional jails from a single

prototype design that can include from two to four housing pods. While most have less

than four pods, each has kitchen and laundry facilities sufficient to serve four pods.

Counties have been reluctant to expand any regional jails recently, however, as many

state prisoners reside in regional jails, and counties feel as if they are subsidizing state

prisons with their regional jail per diem payments.

West Virginia has a jail standards commission that develops construction and operating

standards for jails. The state legislature must authorize any amendments to the

standards for them to become effective

. Authority officials report that these standards

are more stringent than any national standards currently available.

Transportation can be an issue with regional jails, but the use of video for arraignments

and parole hearings helps minimize costs and complaints. The state plans to use video

for other types of court hearings in the future. Also, the regional jails provide

transportation back and forth to court for those prisoners who must appear in person.

West Virginia Code 31-20-3.

West Virginia Code 31-20-8 and 9; West Virginia Legislative Rules (95CSR1), Title 95.

County Sheriff Survey

To gather information from counties that have recently built jails, their costs, and processes,

Office of Research staff conducted a survey of all 95 county sheriffs in Tennessee. The survey

asked whether the county had engaged in major jail construction projects in the past three years,

and if so, the type of project, related planning, submission of plans to TCI, technical assistance,

cost information, site selection, selection of architects and contractors, and financing.

Seventy-six of 95 county sheriffs responded to the survey. (For a summary of survey responses,

see Appendix A.) Of those that completed the survey, twenty reported major jail construction

projects in the past three years. These projects varied from major renovations to totally new

criminal justice centers including office space and courtrooms. Because of the variety of the types

of projects reported and the fact that counties reported the cost of the total project (without

separating out the costs for bed space only), it is difficult to compare the cost of bed space from

one facility to another. Additional factors such as those listed below also affect the cost of a new

facility.

County commissions, county mayors, and sheriffs learn what other counties’ jails cost, and try to

keep their costs as low as others have. However, the results of the sheriff’s survey clearly

indicate that jail construction costs will vary from county to county depending on a number of

factors. Information from the survey and interviews with experts indicates that many factors play a

role in a jail’s capital cost per bed. Differences in what is constructed (housing only, housing plus

court space, kitchen space, laundry, offices, etc.), site preparation (type of foundation, condition

of underlying ground and type of site prep required), number of floors, type of supervision (it may

cost more initially to build a jail for indirect supervision but save staffing costs in the long run), and

other factors affect a jail’s cost per bed.

Additional factors associated with jail bed costs include architectural design, economy of scale

(number of beds), whether the facility is entirely new or an addition or renovation, whether

existing or new support facilities will be used. (See Appendix A for a summary of survey results

from counties that have engaged in significant jail construction projects Since July 2002.)

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

County commissions have funded jail projects that will not meet long-term needs to safely

and efficiently house prisoners. County officials who have recently built facilities reported

several concerns with those facilities.

One county built a new facility to house females, but did not include programming, laundry, or

kitchen facilities in the design. As a result, correctional staff must take laundry to another facility

and back, bring meals from another facility on the same property, and move inmates from the

new housing facility to another building for programming such as GED classes, substance abuse

treatment, and social services.

Another county with a new facility reported problems with inferior construction materials and

designs that do not hold up under correctional conditions including:

• Plumbing valves, sprinkler heads, and door locks that were less expensive on the front

end, but cost more to maintain in the long term.

• Windows bolted from the inside, allowing prisoners to remove them;

• Phone jacks placed in prisoner day rooms where they are easily broken;

• No floor drains in some prisoner housing areas, making it difficult to remove standing

water when prisoners break fixtures and flood housing areas; and

• Video surveillance systems that use tapes instead of digital media, requiring more

storage space and costing more to replace.

A third county reported excessive maintenance costs because the architect designed the jail with

toilets that require a nine-volt battery to operate. Jail staff must replace these batteries

approximately every three days, increasing maintenance costs both for the replacement batteries

and the manpower required to replace them. The same county had problems with computer

equipment in the new facility failing because of heat, when the room that houses the equipment

should have had its own cooling system, but did not.

Technical assistance providers and contractors report that architects will often design a building

that “makes a statement,” and may include elements that are not necessary to meet the essential

long-term needs of the county. Then, when architects draw up construction documents and

develop better cost estimates, or construction begins and materials cost more than anticipated,

counties must decide where to cut costs. Those decisions often leave county officials feeling as if

they have settled for less. A better process, some say, would be to bring design drawings along

slowly, involving the eventual owners/operators and keeping the budget in mind. That way,

county officials could see what it will take to meet the county’s essential needs, and then add in

some things that would be “nice to have” as the budget allows.

Contractors also report that most owners are not familiar enough with construction and materials

to know how cutting construction costs might affect long-term operational costs. For example, one

contractor explained that a geothermal heating and air conditioning system may cost twice as

much as a conventional system to install, but will save heating and cooling costs in the long run.

Others report that some contracted needs assessments are too elaborate, providing more

information than is necessary to make a decision on what a county needs in a jail. Most counties

simply want a jail that will meet needs until the county pays off the debt, while others want to

Interviews with selected sheriffs and sheriff’s staff members from counties that have built jails since July 2002.

Interview with Trey Lee, Senior Project Manager, Hardaway Construction Corp. of Tennessee, August 2, 2005.

Ibid.

overbuild in order to take advantage of state and federal contracts to house prisoners and

increase the savings afforded by economies of scale. Some say that counties are somewhat

shortsighted about what they really need. Population projections out to fifteen years are the least

any county should plan to address with any new jail project, according to an experienced jail

contractor.

State technical assistance personnel reported that many counties scale back the

projected needs after they find out the projected cost.

In addition to building jails that will meet needs well into the future, jails also must hold up under

conditions that most government buildings do not have to withstand. Inmates can be destructive,

and jails operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Other government buildings typically host

employees and customers for about one-third of the day five days a week. Also, employees and

citizens using government services typically treat those buildings with more respect than

prisoners treat jails. County officials need to consider these facts when planning and funding a jail

project.

However, county commissions are often reluctant to commit taxpayer dollars for adequate jail

construction projects. Most Tennessee counties have limited resources, and commission

members realize that jail construction is a lower priority to taxpayers than schools or roads.

People interviewed for this report indicate that county officials often decide to cut construction

costs on the front end to make it appear they have saved money for the taxpayers, without

realizing or addressing the increase in long-term maintenance and operating costs that result

from those decisions.

Some such decisions have led to some of the maintenance and operational problems described

earlier in this report. Careful consideration of such issues, with sheriff’s department staff or other

knowledgeable people involved from the earliest stages and empowered with actual decision-

making authority, could help counties better meet long-term jail needs safely and efficiently.

Some county commissions and other officials do not seek expertise or technical

assistance from organizations such as CTAS or NIC’s Division of Jails.

Adequate

assessments of counties’ jail needs may help decision makers ensure jails remain adequate at

least until counties pay off the resulting debt. Also, while there are jail consultants qualified to

conduct needs assessments for a fee, similar assistance (as well as guidance in the form of free

literature) is available free from the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Corrections

(NIC), as well as the University of Tennessee’s County Technical Assistance Service (CTAS).

Several counties surveyed for this report used the assistance offered by NIC and CTAS, but

others did not. Also, some conducted no needs assessments or relied on architects or private

consultants to assess jail needs.

(See Exhibit 1.)

Counties that do not receive technical assistance from knowledgeable providers may experience

costly after-the-fact expenses, including change orders during construction, inferior construction

materials that result in elevated maintenance costs, and increased operating costs resulting from

inefficient design.

Generally, sheriffs or their jail administrators are more knowledgeable about jail construction and

operation needs than county commissioners and mayors. Sheriffs or other jail personnel may

have the opportunity to review architectural drawings and may be included in meetings, but in

some cases, have little influence on where to cut expenses if the county commission orders cuts.

Interview with Jim Langford, Architect, SouthBuild Corp., August 1, 2005; and interview with Grant Tharp, Architect,

Barge, Waggoner, Sumner & Cannon, August 3, 2005.

Interview with Terry Hazard, Criminal Justice Specialist, County Technical Assistance Service, May 5, 2005.

OREA survey of county sheriffs in Tennessee, July, 2005.

Interviews with selected sheriffs and sheriff’s staff members from counties that have built jails since July 2002;

interviews with selected county executives, mayors, and other officials from counties that have built jails since July 2002.

Exhibit 1: Counties’ Use of Available Technical Assistance for Jail Construction

County Tech Assistance/Provided by

Sequatchie *Yes/CTAS

Rhea No

Sumner Yes/TCI, consultant

Davidson No

Davidson Yes/NIC

Marshall Yes/TCI

Monroe *No

Montgomery *No

Dyer Yes/TCI

Loudon Yes/TCI, CTAS

Polk *Yes/CTAS

Johnson Yes/TCI, CTAS

Jefferson Yes/TCI, CTAS, NIC

Hamblen Yes/TCI

Humphreys Yes/TCI

Morgan Yes/TCI, NIC

Bradley Yes/TCI, NIC

Wayne *Yes/CTAS

Warren Yes/TCI, CTAS

Grainger Yes/TCI

Perry Yes/TCI, CTAS

Source: OREA survey of county sheriffs, July, 2005.

*Although these counties reported receiving no technical assistance from

TCI on their jail construction projects, TCI reports indicate staff spent time

assisting these counties.

County officials outside the sheriff’s department often hire architects under professional

services contracts. Unless those officials specifically grant the sheriff’s department some

authority over design decisions, the architect answers primarily to those officials. Six out of twenty

survey respondents that built jails since 2002 reported that the county commission or county

mayor, or both, chose the architect.

Several reported that sheriffs played only an advisory role

during jail planning. In such cases, officials making decisions may focus on cutting initial

construction costs with little concern for long-term maintenance and operational costs, about

which sheriffs’ department personnel may have more knowledge.

Rule 1400-1-.04(24) requires counties constructing new jails to submit plans to TCI and the

State Fire Marshall’s Office for review and approval. However, the rule specifies neither the

elements required in jail construction plans, nor when counties should submit them. The

rule requires counties constructing new jails to submit plans to TCI and the State Fire Marshal’s

office for review and approval. However, TCI has limited oversight authority of the jail construction

process. Instead, rules allow counties great flexibility through construction, only to hold them

accountable for meeting construction standards, for certification purposes, once construction is

complete. TCI’s Executive Director told research staff that the state could not tell counties how to

build their jails.

OREA survey of county sheriffs in Tennessee, July, 2005.

Interview with Jerry Abston, Director, and Peggy Sawyer, Assistant Director, Tennessee Corrections Institute, May 26,

2005.

TCI in fact lacks authority to force counties to comply with standards, but has the statutory

authority to certify county jails that meet standards. Counties can use such certification to defend

themselves against lawsuits filed by prisoners based on conditions of confinement. TCI

management suggested that counties and architects do their homework before designing a jail,

offering help when requested by the counties.

Because Tennessee lacks a standard plans review process, some counties have submitted plans

in late stages of construction or not at all, only to have the plans disapproved or facilities under

construction that do not meet square footage or other physical plant standards. This has forced

the counties to appropriate additional funds to complete projects in compliance with TCI

standards.

Other states’ jails oversight agencies as well as other Tennessee agencies require architects to

submit plans for government buildings in several stages, with specific requirements for each

stage. For example, California’s Corrections Standards Authority requires that counties planning

jail projects follow four steps during planning. A brief description of each of these steps appears

below:

Letter of Intent

Any local government planning to build, add on to, or remodel a jail must first file a letter

of intent with the California Board of Corrections. This letter begins a working partnership

between the local government and the Board to help ensure that the construction project

conforms to state regulations and helps local authorities access Board resources and

expertise. The letter should include a description of the project, estimated timeline, and

names of key individuals responsible for the project.

Needs Assessment Study

The responsible local government must submit a copy of the needs assessment study

prior to contracting for plans and specifications. The study shall include elements of the

system, operation design and philosophy, current inmate population, classification

system, program needs (such as educational programs), analysis of local trends such as

population projections, adequacy of staffing levels, ability to provide visual supervision,

adequacy of record-keeping, history of system compliance with standards, and any

unresolved issues.

Program Study

The facility administrator must submit this statement providing the basis upon which

architectural plans are drawn. Schematic architectural plans must be submitted along

with this statement, and must include a description of the facility’s intended capacity,

security and classification of inmates, inmate movement within the facility, food

preparation and service, staffing, booking, visitation and attorney interviews, exercise,

programs, medical services, cleaning and laundry, inmate segregation, court holding and

inmate movement, facilities for administration and operations staff, mental health

services, staff to staff communications system, management of disruptive inmates, and

other operational details.

Plans and Specifications

These must be in duplicate, and include schematic design documents and construction

documents. One copy goes to the state fire marshal’s office, the other to the Board.

Board staff are to respond in writing indicating compliance or non-compliance with

regulations.

Ibid.

California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 13-102(c)1-4.

Other states require local officials to follow similar procedures with varying requirements that

specify what locals must submit for review, while some states’ have only voluntary accreditation

standards. Indiana officials report that contractors may not obtain a building permit until the

Department of Correction reviews and releases plans, which must include blueprints.

Nebraska

requires locals to submit a letter of intent and reviews plans at various stages similar to the steps

required in California, but requires Nebraska Crime Commission Board approval before the local

government can request bids.

Texas enlists a three-step process, each of which must be

approved by the Commission on Jail Standards before a county can move on to the next.

Kentucky, the inspection agency dictates the types of materials used in construction.

While not involved in county jail construction, Tennessee’s State Architect uses a step-by-step

procedure similar to California’s Corrections Standards Authority to ensure that state facilities

meet users’ needs within time and budget constraints. Like Texas’ Commission on Jail

Standards, Tennessee’s State Building Commission requires approval of each step before

proceeding to the next. The agency publishes a “Designers’ Manual” that provides details on

each step in the process.

The TCI board members and staff lack expertise to assist counties in designing,

constructing, and opening jails, and inspectors receive little training on reviewing plans..

Additionally, TCI’s Executive Director allows inspectors to interpret standards as they understand

them, as long as they can defend their decisions in court. The Executive Director requested five

additional positions in the 2006-07 Fiscal Year Budget to increase professional staff in order to

better perform its duties, including providing better jail construction oversight. The administration,

however, declined to fund those positions. According to a correctional consultant, of the 22 states

that have jail regulatory agencies, many hire staff with expertise or they contract with

professionals to assist their local communities in designing, constructing, and opening jails.

Also, TCI management report that new inspectors receive four to six hours of training from the

State Fire Marshal’s Office, plus on the job training and the experience gained by working with

experienced staff members. Other states report sending inspectors to blueprint reading classes

through local vocational schools, as well as taking advantage of courses offered free of charge

(excluding travel expenses in some cases) by the National Institute of Corrections, such as a

course on “Managing Jail Design and Construction.”

Five of TCI’s six inspectors have attended

an NIC Class such as “Detention Facility Inspectors Training,” and “Jail Administration.”

Because of TCI staff’s lack of expertise, counties must rely on architects for direction. Some

architects follow nationally regarded American Correctional Association standards rather than TCI

standards, leading to costly change orders or non-certification of the jail. Additionally, non-uniform

interpretation of standards may result in inconsistency across the state. For example, TCI staff

told one county with a new jail that they could comply with the standard requiring floor drains in

special purpose cells by making a wet-vac available, or using a squeegee to push fluids to an

area with floor drains.

However, Standard 1400-1-.04, #22 requires floor drains in special

purpose cells. Tennessee’s Attorney General has written an opinion that TCI may not waive any

Phone interview with Paul Downing, Field Audits and ACA Accreditation Director, Indiana Department of Correction;

Indiana Code 11-12-4-5; and Indiana Code 11-12-4-8.

Phone interview with Denny Macomber, Chief of Jail Standards, Nebraska Crime Commission; Nebraska Rules and

Regulations, Title 81 Chapter 15 005.03.

Phone interview with Terry Julian, Director, Texas Commission on Jail Standards; and Brandon Wood, Director of

Planning and Construction; Texas Administrative Code, Title 37, Part 9, Chapter 257, Rule 257.4.

Phone interview with Kelly White, Director, Division of Local Facilities, Kentucky Department of Corrections; Kentucky

Administrative Regulations, Jail Construction and Renovation Standards, pp. 11-23.

Interview with Mike Fitts, State Architect, Tennessee State Building Commission; Designers’ Manual, Tennessee

Department of Finance and Administration, Division of Real Property Administration, April 2005.

Interview with Don Stoughton and Jim Stivender, DSA, Inc., and Cornerstone Construction Services, LLC., on

Wednesday, July 13, 2005.

Phone interview with Greg Carlson, Director of Inspection and Enforcement, Minnesota Department of Rehabilitation

and Correction; and http://nicic.org/WebPage_236.htm

Letter to Sumner County Sheriff J.D. Vandercook from Peggy Sawyer, Assistant Director, Tennessee Corrections

Institute, March 14, 2005; interview with J.D. Vandercook, Sheriff, and Bob Barker, Chief Deputy, Sumner County Sheriff’s

Office, Wednesday, June 29, 2005.

standards for jail certification,

and TCI specifically cites this standard in a letter to another

county noting conditional approval of their plans.

Some TCI construction standards (as well as those from other states) differ from court-

tested ACA standards, which architects often consult when designing jails. The differences

between TCI Standards’ and ACA Standards cause confusion when architects design jails to

meet nationally regarded ACA standards and discover later that the design does not meet TCI

standards. These inconsistencies have resulted in unnecessary expenditures in some cases

where counties had to alter plans well into the process or redesign structures after construction

had begun.

Nationally, many judges adjudicate inmate lawsuits based on a county’s compliance with

American Correction Association Standards. However, case law indicates that judges decide

many conditions of confinement cases not based on the size of the cells, but based on damages

caused by conditions related to the size of the cells. In other words, compliance with a standard

that exceeds the ACA standard would not matter if overcrowding causes conditions to become

dangerous or unsanitary. Likewise, compliance with the ACA standard rather than a standard that

requires more cell space is not evidence of negligence by the jail owner unless the conditions

have caused damage to prisoners. The ACA recognizes its own accreditation process, and

therefore compliance with their local jail standards as “a defense against lawsuits through

documentation and the demonstration of a good faith effort to improve conditions of

confinement.”

Still, a number of states’ jail standards differ from ACA standards. (See Exhibit 2.)

TCI has testified before the Select Oversight Committee on Corrections that it established square

footage requirements exceeding ACA’s standards so that sheriffs could have the option of locking

down inmates for 23 hours a day rather than allowing the inmates access to a larger day room.

Exhibit 2: Jail Cell Square Footage Standards Comparison

Housing Type

Purveyor of

Standards

Single Occupancy Multiple Occupancy

TCI

50 sq. ft. Ceiling

Height Min of 8 ft.

2 to 16 persons 40 sq. ft. free space per

person

ACA

35 sq. ft. free space

under 10 hrs. = 70

sq. ft. over 10 hrs.

per day = 80 sq. ft.

2 to 50 persons 35 sq. ft. free space

63 sq. ft. of floor

space

40 sq. ft. per inmate

At least 60 sq. ft. of

floor space

No more than 12

inmates in a cell and at

least 35 sq. ft. of free

floor space

Complies w/ ACA Complies w/ ACA May not adopt

standards that do not

allow for 35 sq. ft. or

more of floor space for

prisoner.

State of Tennessee, Office of the Attorney General, Opinion No. 03-101, August 19, 2003.

Tennessee Corrections Institute, letter to Larry Tacchi, Architect, Barge, Waggoner, Sumner & Cannon, June 2, 2005,

RE: Jackson County Jail Project.

Performance-Based Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities, Fourth Edition, American Correctional Association,

June 2004, p. xvi.

Purveyor of

Standards

Single Occupancy Multiple Occupancy

70 sq. ft.(min) Double Occupancy: 70

sq. ft.

At least 60 sq. ft. At least 45 sq. ft. per

inmate

At least 60 sq. ft. At least 50 sq. ft. per

inmate

70 sq. ft. Double w/ stacked

bunks- 100 sq. ft.

Double w/ single bunks-

110 sq. ft.

At least 40 sq. ft. At least 60 sq. ft. for

double

At least 40 sq. ft. for

initial inmate and 20 sq.

ft. for each additional

inmate

At least 35 sq. ft. 2-56 inmates: 25 sq. ft.

per inmate

At least 40 sq. ft. Must contain 2-8

bunks. At least 40 sq.

ft. of clear space for

the first bunk and 18

sq. ft. of clear space

for each additional

bunk

54 sq. ft. Cells are only made as

single occupancy

No Tennessee counties have chosen to operate a jail jointly, although state law permits

it.

One group of counties, however, is currently discussing the possibility of establishing a

regional jail. Regional jails may offer some counties the opportunity to save county funds and to

lower liability risks. The NIC defines a regional jail as a correctional facility in which two or more

jurisdictions administer, operate, and finance the capital and operating costs of the facility.

Authorities in other states use various approaches to operate regional jails; for example, in some

areas the agreement may specify that one jurisdiction may actually operate the facility, but all

participating jurisdictions equally share policy and decision-making responsibilities. In other

jurisdictions, adjoining counties may contract with a single county to house their prisoners and

relinquish their authority regarding policy and decision-making. Another option occurs when each

participating county operates its own facility for pre-trial inmates, but joins with other jurisdictions

for post-conviction incarcerations.

Sheriffs and county executives in some Tennessee counties have discussed the possibility of

creating regional jails, but could not reach agreement. Any attempt to establish a regional jail calls

for an examination of several issues, such as:

• a perceived loss of authority by some county officials;

• a perception that not all counties are contributing equally;

• differing management styles;

• higher transportation costs;

• attorney complaints; and

• disagreements over the location of the facility.

Tennessee Code Annotated 41-4-141.

National Institute of Corrections, Briefing Paper: Regional Jails, January 1992, p.1,

http://www.nicic.org/pubs/1992/010049.pdf

(accessed October 10, 2005).

Upper East Tennessee Regional Juvenile Detention Center

While Tennessee has no regional jails for adults, the First Tennessee-Virginia Development District (an eight

county region) operates a regional juvenile detention facility in Washington County. The facility came into being

because the participating counties did not have sufficient facilities to house juvenile offenders in the area.

Participating counties financed construction through a federal grant, in addition to contributions from each county

based on the county’s population. Each county bases its ownership in the facility on this calculation, and if one

county pulls out of the agreement, the remaining counties will divide that county’s portion among them in the same

way. A committee composed of the mayors of the eight participating counties oversees the facility, operated by a

private contractor. The facility’s director serves at the pleasure of this committee, and acts as a liaison between

the committee and the contractor. The committee has no say in the facility’s daily operations, but approves the

contracted per-day costs counties pay to house juvenile offenders. Each participating county also pays a

maintenance fee (determined by the county’s total population) whether or not they have juveniles in the facility or

not. Counties are responsible for transporting juveniles to and from court, and the facility does not have video

capabilities. Counties also pay for unusual medical costs for their own juvenile offenders (unusual prescription

drugs, major medical expenses), while the contractor absorbs routine medical expenses.

Source: Phone interview with George Jaynes, Washington County Mayor, conducted on Thursday, August 4, 2005.

As described earlier in this report, Virginia and West Virginia have successful regional jail

systems, but have different approaches to regionalization. Some counties in Tennessee have

discussed establishing a regional jail, but no group has been able to reach an agreement to do

so. In the late 1990s, Overton, Pickett, Macon, Clay, Jackson, and Smith counties discussed

establishing a regional jail to address problems each county was experiencing with outdated,

undersized jails. According to county officials familiar with the discussions, many thought a

regional jail would save money and eliminate headaches associated with each county operating

its own small jail with limited manpower. Officials from Clay, Fentress, Overton, and Pickett

Counties continue to discuss establishing a regional jail.

For example, one county sheriff noted that he employs only two deputies. One staff member

watches prisoners at night and doubles as a dispatcher. When the department must transport

prisoners, it takes at least one staff member away from their regular duties, and sometimes two,

depending on the type of prisoner. The county often finds itself shorthanded, even though they

hold very few prisoners in their jail at any given time. Issues that disrupted the negotiations

included the counties’ inability to reach agreements on prisoner transportation, location, and

sharing of construction, medical, and other costs.

An Overton County Commissioner who was involved in discussions said he believes future

conditions will force counties to move toward regional jails. He reported visiting a regional facility

in Virginia and witnessing professionalism and ability to take advantage of economies of scale not

available to a single, rural Tennessee county. He pointed out that the Virginia facility had an

entire pod for special needs prisoners (sex offenders, others that must be isolated from the

general population), while his county does not have the room to separate minor offenders from

violent felons, creating potential liabilities. He also mentioned the Virginia facility’s programs,

including substance abuse treatment and GED classes, that a small county cannot afford to offer.

He recommended that if any group of counties moves forward with a regional jail, they need very

organized leadership, and should eliminate loopholes that could harm the cooperation necessary

to make a regional facility work. He believes all the counties involved could save money with a

regional facility, simply because of economies of scale.

By not taking advantage of the opportunity afforded by state law to cooperate on regional jails,

some counties miss the opportunity to save county funds and to lower their liability risks. They are

unable to take advantage of economies of scale achievable in construction costs and operations

such as food service, laundry, staffing, and medical expenses, and forego opportunities to

provide programming to prisoners that may reduce recidivism.

Telephone interview with David Dorminey, Overton County Commissioner, Tuesday, October 11, 2005.

RECOMMENDATIONS

LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS:

The General Assembly may wish to consider restructuring TCI’s Board, designating

persons with expertise in areas such as jail construction and operation, architecture, and

engineering. Including persons with such expertise on the board may improve TCI’s plan review

process, prevent some costly design changes, and help to ensure jails operate as efficiently as

possible.

The General Assembly may wish to amend TCA 41-4-140, which requires TCI standards to

approximate, as closely as possible, those standards established by the inspector of jails,

federal bureau of prisons, and the American Correctional Association. Lawmakers may wish

to adopt ACA standards for Tennessee to prevent confusion among architects, sheriffs, and other

county officials with regard to jail design.

The General Assembly may wish to consider creating financial incentives for counties to

establish regional jails. Benefits of regional jails include cost savings through economies of

scale; reduced liabilities; fewer county jails for TCI to inspect; better opportunities to attract

professional correctional administrators and social service providers. Potential revenue from

housing state and federal prisoners also may offset some operational costs.

DMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS:

TCI should amend Rule 1400-1-.04(24) to specify the documents counties should submit

during the four phases of design, establishing an organized system of plan review and

approval. Such amendments should include a timeline and authority to halt the design process if

counties do not submit proper documents, or prohibition against moving forward until TCI

approves each step.

TCI should request free technical assistance from the National Institute of Corrections

(NIC) to evaluate its operations and send its chief jail inspector to the free annual training

offered by NIC. Professional training and educational opportunities offered by the NIC may

improve the quality of TCI’s jail inspection program and improve the ability of TCI staff to review

jail construction plans.

TCI should hire staff or outsource services that require expertise in architecture and

engineering. Technical aspects of design documents sometimes require that highly skilled

professionals review them to accurately interpret elements of the design.

TCI standards should not be open to individual interpretation by jail inspectors. TCI

management should train all inspectors consistently on jail standards, leaving little room for

individual interpretation.

Some Tennessee counties should consider the feasibility of establishing regional jails.

While exploring the possibility of establishing a regional jail, the counties involved should fully

examine the potential benefits of regional jails described above.

County commission members should acknowledge that jails are facilities with special

architectural, building material and fixture needs when approving a building budget. While

keeping county taxpayers in mind, they should also ensure adequate funding for jail construction

projects to enhance the safety of the community, staff, and inmates and to lower operational

costs.

County decision makers should construct jails or additions based on valid needs

assessments, keeping in mind that cutting construction costs may result in poor design

and quality. In some cases, spending more on initial construction may lead to greater long term

savings through reduced maintenance and staffing costs.

Sheriffs and other county officials should contact NIC and CTAS for technical assistance

and advice about planning for and building jails. These agencies can offer expertise, free of

charge, to help county officials make wise jail design decisions that may save public money over

the life of the building.

County officials should cooperate to hire architects who are knowledgeable about jail

operations and who will consider jail security needs and destructive inmate behavior, as

well as designing less labor-intensive facilities. While technical assistance can help counties

make wise design decisions, architects experienced in jail design can reduce difficulties for all

parties.

County officials should consider using or establishing Public Building Authorities (PBAs)

as an independent funding/project management mechanism for constructing jails. A PBA

can save money and provide quality project management if persons with relevant expertise work

for and serve on the PBA boards.

APPENDIX A: COUNTY JAIL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS SINCE JULY 2002

OREA County Sheriff Survey Results Summary – Built or started last 3 yrs.

County Totally

New

Justice Ctr.

Or Other

Offices

Addition w/

Bed Space

Renovation Cost per Bed

Grainger X Yes $59,804

Perry X Yes* $45,058

Montgomery X Yes $42,147

Sumner X Yes X $39,931

Bradley X Yes $39,215

Marshall X Yes $34,164

Sequatchie X Yes $33,334

Jefferson X Yes Under

Construction

Polk X Yes Under

Construction

Warren No X X $55,075

Hamblen No X $43,333

Rhea X No X $11,383

Johnson X No $46,069

Dyer X No $35,502

Morgan X No $35,185

Davidson X No $26,990**

Loudon No X $68,571

Humphreys No X $25,397 ($80,000

ea. for 20 new

beds)

Monroe X*** No X $14,922

Wayne No X N/A (added no

new beds)

* Includes some office space

** Combines costs for both construction projects

*** Renovated old warehouse

Note: The following counties reported that they were in the early planning or talking stages of new jail

construction projects: Anderson, Coffee, Decatur, Fayette, Fentress, Hickman, Sevier, Union, and

Washington.

The following counties responded that they have neither completed any jail construction projects in the last

three years, nor are they planning any jail construction projects in the near future: Benton, Bledsoe, Carroll,

Cheatham, Chester, Clay, Cocke, Crockett, DeKalb, Dickson, Franklin, Giles, Greene, Grundy, Hamilton,

Hancock, Hardeman, Hardin, Haywood, Henderson, Henry, Houston, Lake, Lauderdale, Lewis, Lincoln,

Macon, Madison, Marion, Maury, McMinn, McNairy, Moore, Obion, Overton, Putnam, Robertson,

Rutherford, Shelby, Smith, Stewart, Tipton, Trousdale, Unicoi, Van Buren, Weakley, and White.

The following counties did not respond to OREA’s survey: Bedford, Blount (OREA staff interviewed Blount

officials in person), Campbell, Cannon, Carter, Claiborne, Gibson, Hawkins, Jackson, Knox, Lawrence,

Meigs, Pickett, Roane, Scott, Sullivan, Williamson, and Wilson.

One county sheriff returned a survey reporting no jail construction or planned construction, but failed to

identify the county.

APPENDIX B: PERSONS INTERVIEWED

Jerry Abston

Executive Director

Tennessee Corrections Institute

Art Alexander

Director of County Audit

Comptroller of the Treasury

Bob Barker

Chief Deputy

Sumner County Sheriff’s Department

Kenneth Bean

Sheriff

Jackson County

David Bowling

Director of Local Finance

Comptroller of the Treasury

Representative Dwayne Bunch, District 18

Tennessee House of Representatives

Greg Carlson

Director of Facilities Inspection and

Enforcement

Minnesota Department of Rehabilitation and

Correction

Fred Congdon

Executive Director

Tennessee County Mayors Association

David Dorminy

County Commissioner, Chairman, Public

Safety Committee

Overton County

Paul Downing

Field Audits and ACA Accreditation Director

Indiana Department of Corrections

Claire Drowota

Executive Director

Select Oversight Committee on Corrections

Mike Fitts

State Architect

Department of Finance and Administration

John Ford

Chief Deputy

Davidson County Sheriff’s Office

Doug Goddard

Executive Director

Tennessee County Commissioners

Association

Gary Harbin

Accreditation Manager

Marion County, Fl. Sheriff’s Office

Paula Harris

Vice President

Barge Waggoner Sumner & Cannon, Inc.

Terry Hazard

Criminal Justice Specialist

County Technical Assistance Service

Doug Holien

Director

California Corrections Standards Authority

John Hudson

Chief of Administration

Davidson County Sheriff’s Office

Senator Doug Jackson, District 25

Tennessee Senate

George Jaynes

Washington County Mayor

Rudy Johnson

Rufus Johnson Associates, Architects

Terry Julian

Director

Texas Commission on Jail Standards

John King

Chief of Operations

West Virginia Regional Jail Authority

Dana Lamson

Assistant Finance Director

Blount County Office of Accounting and

Budget

Jim Langford

Architect

SouthBuild

Trey Lee

Senior Project Manager

Hardaway Construction Corporation of

Tennessee

Norman Lewis

Sheriff

Montgomery County

Danny Macomber

Chief of Jail Standards

Nebraska Crime Commision

Diane Moore

Assistant to Acting Commissioner

Tennessee Department of Correction

Ron Ogle

Executive Director

Blount County Public Building Authority

Marty Ordinans

Director Office of Detention Facilities

Wisconsin Department of Corrections

Alan Richardson

Technical Assistance Manager

National Institute of Corrections

Jails Division

Peggy Sawyer

Assistant Director

Tennessee Corrections Institute

Jim Stivender

Partner

Cornerstone Construction Services, LLC

Don Stoughton

President

Don Stoughton & Associates

Blake Taylor

Director of Compliance, Standards and

Inspections

South Carolina Department of Corrections

Sandra Thacker

President

Virginia Association of Regional Jails

Grant Tharp

Architect

Barge Waggoner Sumner & Cannon, Inc.

J.D. Vandercook

Sumner County Sheriff

Steve Walker

County Government Consultant

County Technical Assistance Service

Kelly White

Director, Division of Local Facilities

Kentucky Department of Corrections

Senator Micheal Williams, District 4

Tennessee Senate

APPENDIX C: RESPONSE LETTER FROM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

TENNESSEE CORRECTIONS INSTITUTE

Offices of Research and

Education Accountability Staff

Director

◆Ethel Detch

Assistant Director

(Research)

◆Douglas Wright

Assistant Director

(Education Accountability)

Phil Doss

Principal Legislative Research Analyst

◆Kim Potts

Senior Legislative Research Analysts

Corey Chatis

Katie Cour

Kevin Krushenski

Susan Mattson

Russell Moore

Bonnie A. Moses

◆Margaret Rose (former analyst)

◆Greg Spradley

Associate Legislative Research Analysts

Jessica Gibson

Nneka Gordon

Erin Lyttle

◆Mike Montgomery

Tim Roberto

Executive Secretary

◆Sherrill Murrell

◆In addition, former student intern Patrick Norton assisted with this report.

◆indicates staff who assisted with this project