Texas Commission on Jail Standards House Bill 1660 Report to the Texas Legislature December 2004 Terry Julian Executive Director 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary Part I – Suicides in County Jails 1999-2003 A. Suicide Deaths in Custody - - Annual Totals B. Methods/Apparatus of Suicide Deaths C. Length of Time in Custody D. Gender, Age, and Race E. Locations of Suicide Events F. Time of Day/Night G. Status of Charges Against Defendant H. Seriousness of Charges against Defendant I. Counties with Suicide Deaths in Jail J. Jails with Multiple Incidents of Suicide K. Jails with Suicide Deaths and Staffing/Population Noncompliance Part II – Assaults and Costs of Inmate Litigation 1999-2003 A. Inmate-on-Inmate Assaults B. Officer-on-Inmate Assaults C. Inmate-on-Staff Assaults D. Inmate Litigation Costs E. Survey Response Part III – Video Surveillance Systems in County Jails A Video Surveillance Cameras Currently in Use B. Video Surveillance Monitors Currently in Use C. Recording Capabilities with Current Video Surveillance Ssytems D. Concerns Regarding Mandatory Implementation of Video Surveillance E. Attitudes Regarding Benefits of Video Surveillance Systems F. Additional Staff G. Comparisons Between Video Surveillance Systems and Officer Supervision H. Reductions in Staff I. Preferences for Funding Video Surveillance Systems J. Proposed Cameras for Video Surveillance Systems (HB 1660) K. Proposed Monitors for Video Surveillance Systems (HB 1660) L. Costs of Video Surveillance in the Jails 3 Part IV – Potential Sources of Revenue Available to Counties A. County Fiscal Health Overview B. Jail Commissary Proceeds C. Court Fees D. Inmate Telephone Records E. Grants F. State Funding and State Purchasing Power Part V - Special Considerations regarding Video Surveillance Systems in Jails A. Privacy Issues B. Effectiveness Issues C. Staffing Issues D. Technology of Jail Video Surveillance Systems Part VI - Non-Video Surveillance Systems Methods of Addressing Inmate Life Safety A. Inmate Medical Records B. Inmate Classification C. Inmate Mental Health Screening D. Individual Counseling for Inmates Part VII – Final Summary and Recommendations A. Data Collection B. Video Surveillance C. Training and Technical Assistance 4 Executive Summary This report by the Texas Commission on Jail Standards (hereinafter, the “Commission”) uses the best available data to explore the issue of video surveillance systems in county jails as a method of suicide prevention. Part I of the report seeks to provide an understanding of the phenomenon of county jail suicide, specifically during the period of 1999 to 2003, using state-mandated Custodial Death Reports filed with the Office of the Attorney General. The total number of suicides in Texas county jails for this recent 5-year period is 121 (an average of 24.2 deaths per year), occurring at 81 different jails. “Asphyxiation by hanging” is the dominant method of jail suicide, accounting for 92.5% of all suicide deaths. Although there are some notable trends in jail suicide, any attempt to create a “suicide profile” is unlikely. The data suggests that inmates in county jail should not be eliminated as suicide risks by looking solely at demographic patterns in a suicide profile. Part II of the report examines survey results pertaining to assaults in the jails during the period of 1999 to 2003. The survey addressed assaults that are committed against inmates by other inmates, assaults committed against inmates by jail staff, and assaults committed against jail staff by inmates. Part II also addresses costs of lawsuits to the jails as a result of assaults and suicides. The majority of jails that were sued did not have judgments awarded against them, and only five jails responded that they had judgments entered against them. Of those jails that reported having judgments entered against them, the average judgment was $95,992.16. In many cases, jail data provided was inadequate for conclusive results. Part III describes the results of the Commission’s survey of county jails regarding the current state of video surveillance in 157 jail facilities throughout the state. The survey data suggests that county jails are utilizing video surveillance to a limited degree; that is, primarily for facility security, not suicide prevention. Moreover, most county jails regard officer supervision as a better alternative to video surveillance for suicide prevention and inmate observation. Part II also illustrates other county attitudes toward video surveillance, as well as the potential hardware requirements at these facilities as requested by HB 1660. In general, county jail personnel have expressed concerns about relying on video surveillance to observe inmates in their facilities. Part IV discusses various options and obstacles of funding of video surveillance systems for county jails, using resources such as the Commission’s HB 1660 survey of counties and current state law. Funding of video surveillance systems cannot be accomplished by using jail commissary proceeds or court fees, absent amending state law. Counties expressed reservations about funding a potential state mandate as described in HB 1660, particularly given the current fiscal health of many counties today. 5 Part V of the report is a short series of special considerations regarding video surveillance in jails, namely, issues of inmate privacy, effectiveness of video surveillance, jail staffing, and video technology. These considerations should be given full attention before any action is taken that would mandate the use of extensive video surveillance in county jails. Part VI provides alternatives to video surveillance as means of identifying and preventing inmate suicide in county jails. Specifically, we address inmate medical records, inmate classification, mental health screening, and individual counseling for inmates as described in HB 1660. Ways to improve these programs are included in the section. Part VI identifies several potential areas of improvement, and summarizes the findings of the report. The Commission offers its services in technical assistance and training for county jails as the most cost-effective way to assist county jails with suicide prevention. 6 Part I. Suicides in County Jails The data used in this section was collected exclusively from Custodial Death Reports1 (CDRs) provided by the Office of the Texas Attorney General, and spans the most recent 5-year period (1999 to 2003). A. Suicide Deaths in Custody – Annual Totals From January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2003, there were 121 deaths due to suicide in Texas county jails. The yearly totals for this period are as follows: 1999 = 20 suicide deaths 2000 = 27 suicide deaths 2001 = 20 suicide deaths 2002 = 29 suicide deaths 2003 = 25 suicide deaths B. Methods/Apparatus of Suicide Deaths The data suggests that the method of suicide used almost exclusively in county jails is “asphyxiation by hanging”. In some cases, “asphyxiation by ligature compression” was determined to be the method employed, although the nature of the suicide act closely resembled hanging. Out of the 121 suicides in the 1999-2003 period, all but 9 were committed by hanging or ligature compression. Suicide by hanging or ligature compression, therefore, accounts for 92.5 % of all suicides that occur in county jails. Of the nine suicides that were not a result of hanging or ligature compression, five incidents did not list a method of suicide in the CDR, two “jumped to death from balcony”, one occurred as a result of “incised wounds to wrists”, and one suicide resulted from wounds by “stabbing his own neck”. Asphyxiation by hanging or other ligature compression suicides can occur using a variety of apparatus. The arrestee or inmate may use whatever material is available to fashion a ligature or hanging device. More often than not, the apparatus an inmate uses to commit suicide is not contraband; rather, the apparatus is either legitimate inmate property or 1 A Custodial Death Report is a statutorily-required document submitted by correctional facilities to the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas within 30 days of an inmate’s death in custody. The CDR contains the relevant information of the confinement and death of the inmate, including date/time of death and cause of death (if determined). Custodial Death Reports required per Texas statutes: Article 39.05 Penal Code, Article 49.18(b)(c) Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 501.055(b) Government Code. See Appendix. 7 county property and the inmate is authorized to possess it. The apparatus is used by the inmate for purposes not originally intended, and serves as the means for the inmate to carry out the suicide event. C. Suicide Deaths and Length of Time in Custody Suicide attempts have occurred as soon as 14 minutes after custody and as long as 349 days in custody2. There has been a misconception that most jail suicides occur within the first 48 hours of custody, but the data from 1999-2003 suggests that jail suicide is an action of opportunity, and may occur at any time during custody. Attempts to commit suicide may be more closely linked to events that transpire outside the moment of arrest and initial custody of the actor. Such events might include indictment on charges, conviction, revocation of parole/probation, relationship/family problems, loss of employment, emotional/mental health issues, growing sense of depression and despondency, etc. More information concerning each suicide case is needed to accurately assess possible “triggers” of suicide events in the correctional setting3. D. Gender, Age, and Race of Suicide Deaths Gender Predominantly, the gender of suicide actors is male. Of the 121 suicide deaths during 1999-2003: • 111 were male, or 91.7%. • Only 10, or 8.3%, were female. This is consistent with the overall jail population statistics that identify females as comprising about 8.7% of all county jail inmates during the same period. 2 When considering the data on jail suicides, particularly with regard to “length of time in custody”, it is critical to accurately identify the time the suicide attempt took place, if possible.