Memorandum

To: J.R. DeShazo

From: Kevin Barry
Date: May 21, 2008
Re: Reforming the Los Angeles County Jail System

1. Introduction
The purpose of this memo is to explore how the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department

(LASD) can more effectively manage the Los Angeles County jail system and make conditions

better for the inmate population. My client, the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern

California (ACLU), believes that the LASD has failed to provide inmates, the majority of whom

are pretrial detainees,1 with suitable conditions of detention and an adequate standard of care.

This memo will discuss agency dynamics surrounding the management of the jail system and

suggest ways that the LASD can improve the situation, such that the ACLU can more effectively

exert its influence over the LASD and other principals in bringing about such badly-needed

reforms.

2. Background and Role of the ACLU

In the mid 1970s, the ACLU sued the County of Los Angeles in federal court (Rutherford

v. Block2) over what it believed to be unconstitutional conditions at Men’s Central Jail (MCJ) in

downtown Los Angeles. The court ruled in the ACLU’s favor, and its judgment was upheld on

1
Or “presentenced felons” according to at least one LASD official. The LA County jail system also houses inmates
with short sentences (generally six months or less) for minor felonies and parole/probation violations. Sentenced
inmates routinely complain to the ACLU about not being transferred to a state prison facility, where many would
rather be.
2
Sherman Block was the Los Angeles County Sheriff at the time. The name of the litigation has since changed
along with changes in sheriffs. When a decision was made on this litigation, it was Rutherford v. Pitchess. The
ongoing litigation is Rutherford v. Baca. For purposes of this memo, I will simply refer to this as the Rutherford
litigation, as is common in practice.
appeal in 1983. In addition to issuing several orders mandating improvements relating to jail

policies and conditions, the court also appointed the ACLU as a monitor of conditions

throughout the entire LA County jail system,3 which now consists of seven men’s facilities (three

in downtown Los Angeles and four in Castaic) and one women’s facility (in Lynwood). The

ACLU is entitled to unannounced jail visits (“walk-throughs”), which are typically escorted by a

lieutenant or deputy, and its representatives are generally allowed to visit any area of the facility

they wish and speak to whichever inmates they would like. In its role as court-appointed

monitor, the ACLU also actively advocates for the well-being of the inmate population. The

goal of the ACLU is to preserve the constitutional and statutory rights of inmates while seeking

to bring about longer-term, systemic change with respect to conditions within the county jail

system.4

In recent years, as the watchdog role of the ACLU has become more formalized, the

LASD has established an ACLU hotline (the number for which is posted on accessible signs at

each facility) which inmates can call when they have an issue or complaint they would like the

ACLU to address. Inmates can also send letters to the ACLU, or have their families call the

ACLU on their behalf. In each case, the ACLU enters the information into a tracking database

and prepares an issue/complaint form, which it sends to the LASD for processing. The LASD

investigates these matters and responds to the ACLU in writing. Examples of common inmate

complaints include the lack of access to adequate medical care and mental health services,

insufficient recreation and other out-of-cell time, and issues of poor sanitation. The ACLU

works with the LASD to resolve as many of these issues as possible; however, when it perceives

serious systemic problems that the LASD is unwilling or unable to address, it sometimes brings

3
ACLU-SC 2004-5 Annual Report, pp. 8-9. Available at www.aclu-sc.org/attach/a/annual_report_2004_5.pdf
4
http://www.aclu-sc.org/jails/, http://www.prisoncommission.org/statements/kent_jody.pdf (pp. 1-2)

2
suit in federal court as part of the ongoing Rutherford litigation. However, such litigation is

usually reserved as a measure of last resort.

3. Agency Structure, Tasks, and Oversight

The LASD has multiple divisions that together are responsible for the management of the

Los Angeles County jail system.5 The Administrative Services Division (ASD) is in charge of

construction projects and facilities maintenance, which are tasked by the division’s Facilities

Planning Bureau and Facilities Services Bureau, respectively.6 The ASD thus provides support

for the Custody Operations Division (COD) and Correctional Services Division (COSD), which

operate the jail system. The COD is primarily responsible for the custody and security of all

inmates,7 while the COSD is responsible for administering medical care, providing inmate

programs, and a variety of other services. The COSD consists of several units, among them the

Inmate Reception Center, Bureau of Offender Programs & Services, Medical Services Bureau,

Jail Mental Health Services, Transportation Bureau, and Food Services Unit.8 The County of

Los Angeles Board of Supervisors (BOS) oversees the LASD and determines its annual budget.9

4. Task Failures
The root problem with respect to the management of the Los Angeles County jail system,

which is the largest in the country, is that of overcrowding. The growth of the system has not

matched the population growth of the county in recent decades, and the current inmate

population (typically around 19,000, of which approximately 17,000 are men) has severely

strained the capacity of the system. As a result, more inmates have been placed in cells than they

5
http://www.lasd.org/aboutlasd/OrgChart/OrgChart.htm
6
http://www.lasd.org/divisions/admserv/index.html
7
http://www.lasd.org/divisions/custody/index.html
8
http://www.lasd.org/divisions/correctional/index.html
9
http://bos.co.la.ca.us/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_County_Board_of_Supervisors,
http://www.lasd.org/divisions/admserv/financial_programs.htm

3
are designed to hold, and overflow/makeshift housing units are used when the supply of

available cells has been exhausted.10 Additionally, medical and mental health services staffing

are at levels ill-equipped to deal with the needs of the inmate population, and the deputy-inmate

ratio is not sufficient enough to provide the inmates with sufficient out-of-cell time. Other basic

programs and services cannot be provided at suitable levels because there are simply too many

inmates, too few custody staff, and too little available space. Furthermore, the LASD has had to

resort to a policy of releasing inmates early in order to keep the jails from overflowing with

inmates.11

The LASD’s operation of the county jail system is regulated under Title 15 of the

California Code of Regulations, which mandates minimum standards for detention facilities.12

Title 15 includes provisions for such jail management responsibilities as the classification and

segregation of inmates, inmate programs and services, discipline, medical and mental health

services, food, clothing and hygiene, sanitation, safety, and maintenance.13 However, while the

LASD may generally be in compliance with Title 15 regulations, it has, according to the federal

judge overseeing the Rutherford litigation, “defaulted to the lowest permissible standard of

care.”14 Additionally, after a May 2006 tour of MCJ, the judge stated that what he observed was

“inconsistent with basic human values.”15

10
In the past, inmates were often forced to sleep on the floor, although a court injunction has now banned this
practice. Additionally, much of the in-cell crowding has also been reduced, though it has sometimes reoccurred.
See footnote 15 for more details.
11
Typically, inmates serve only 10% of their sentences.
12
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Divisions_Boards/CSA/FSO/Docs/2005_Adult_Title_15_Regulations_FINAL.pdf
13
The ACLU has also prepared a brochure, which is now included in the “fish kit” given to all new inmates, that
explains many of inmates’ basic rights under Title 15. http://www.aclu-sc.org/jails/file_download/2
14
IRC Ruling (Rutherford litigation, Case No. CV 75-04111 DDP, filed October 27, 2006), p. 6. Available at
http://www.aclu-sc.org/attach/i/ircruling.pdf
15
Ibid., p. 2. The specific problem the judge referred to here relates to MCJ, the oldest facility in the jail system, in
which six inmates were being housed in four-person cells, and four inmates in two-person cells. The inmates were
confined to these cells almost 24/7. The judge stated that “overcrowding, per se, may not be a constitutional
violation. However, several examples of what the Court observed consisted of overcrowding to such a degree that a
finding of a constitutional violation would be warranted.” This specific problem was alleviated in large part due to a
court order to reduce these cells to four inmates and two inmates, respectively; however, since the total number of

4
5. Determinants of Task Performance

(i) Quality and Culture of LASD Management and Staff

The problems in the Los Angeles County jails do not appear to be primarily the result of

weak public management. U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson has stated that “the Court has

been continually impressed by the dedication of the employees of the LASD who are daily faced

with the daunting task of managing this overburdened system…individuals with whom the Court

has encountered working for the LASD are creative, talented, and uniformly have a sincere

desire to administer the jail system in the most humane and efficient manner possible. The

systemic deficiencies of the present jail system, however, seem more and more to exceed the

ability of management to work around these deficiencies.”16 Still, the ACLU has noted several

instances of poor decision making on the part of LASD management; for example, its decision to

close several beds at the Pitchess Detention Center (Pitchess) in Castaic resulted in significant

backups at the Inmate Reception Center (IRC) in downtown Los Angeles, which severely

worsened the overall problem of overcrowding. Shortly after the ACLU filed a motion for a

temporary restraining order against such IRC overcrowding, however, the LASD reopened the

beds in Castaic and the IRC problem was to a significant extent alleviated.17

The ACLU has also noted several instances of poor relations between inmates and

custody staff. Based on the large number of complaints the ACLU receives,18 there appears to be

a culture of mistrust and hostility towards inmates on the part of the staff. In addition, the ACLU

has observed from its walk-throughs and the inmate complaint process that management and

inmates in the county jail system has remained essentially the same, this has only spread the problem of
overcrowding to other facilities.
16
Ibid., pp. 6-7.
17
The LASD’s quick reopening of the beds at Pitchess suggests that there was probably not a strong reason for
closing them in the first place.
18
Frequent examples include reports of medical staff routinely denying inmates necessary treatment and medication,
and allegations of deputy misconduct and their refusal to address inmates’ complaints

5
staff at times appear reactionary in addressing problems, rather than seeking to handle them

proactively. The LASD often follows up on inmate complaints to the ACLU in cursory fashion,

with inmates frequently calling the ACLU again to say their problem was not resolved in a

satisfactory manner. Nevertheless, it is not clear that such failings are the result of poor agency

performance. Rather, while performance has certainly not been optimal, it may simply be that

the LASD is just far too overwhelmed with the excessive inmate levels to manage the jails

effectively, as Judge Pregerson clearly believes.

(ii) External Influences

The LASD has several external influences paying attention to its operation of the LA

County jail system. First and foremost is the BOS, to which it is directly accountable. In 2001,

the BOS established the County of Los Angeles Office of Independent Review (OIR) to provide

independent civilian oversight of the LASD.19 The OIR investigates allegations of officer

misconduct and other incidents, such as inmate deaths, and it issues quarterly and annual reports

with its findings and associated recommendations.20 The BOS has also contracted with the

Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC) to provide monitoring of the LASD.21 Currently,

PARC is preparing a report on conditions in the Century Regional Detention Facility (CRDF) in

Lynwood. However, both OIR and PARC are small organizations with relatively small roles

relating to jail oversight, so their oversight alone is insufficient for the necessary accountability

and transparency of the LASD’s overall management of the jail system.

The role of the federal court and the ACLU as its appointed monitor has also been

effective in holding the LASD accountable. Because the ACLU has such free access to the jails

19
http://laoir.com/mission.html.
20
See, for example, Part One of the OIR’s 2007 Sixth Annual Report, issued in December 2007, available at
http://laoir.com/reports/SixthAnnualRept.pdf
21
http://parc.info/los_angeles_county_sheriffs_department.chtml. Similar to OIR, PARC monitors a wide variety of
aspects of LASD performance, not simply those relating to its operation of the jail system.

6
and the inmate population, it is difficult for the LASD to conceal any serious issues for any

significant period of time. Additionally, the prospect of ACLU litigation and further

involvement of the court is incentive for the LASD to work collaboratively with the ACLU in

attempting to resolve existing and emerging problems.22 Still, the ACLU has to choose its

battles carefully with respect to bringing litigation, as doing so excessively and for anything but

very strong reasons could jeopardize its working relationship with the LASD as well as its

standing before the court.

Furthermore, with only two employees dedicated to its “Jails Project,” the ACLU does

not have the capacity to undertake extensive monitoring of the jail system. Its ability to keep up

with the steady flow of inmate complaints is also dependent on an unsteady stream of volunteer

interns. Moreover, while it has at times issued orders prohibiting the LASD from engaging in

certain egregious practices, the federal court has been reluctant to overstep its bounds with

respect to the Rutherford litigation. In the IRC Ruling, Judge Pregerson stated that “the Court

has no desire to inject itself in the management of the jail. If the present circumstances are not

corrected, the Court foresees itself as constantly being asked by litigants to formulate the

minimum standards for incarceration…courts do not have the expertise or time to administer

complex enterprises.”23 Taken together, these factors give the federal court and ACLU

significant leverage over the operation of the county jails, though their combined impact is

bounded by the ACLU’s limited monitoring abilities and the court’s hesitation to engage in a

more expansive role.

The final external influence is that of the media. Articles about high-profile incidents and

poor general conditions in the county jails have often appeared in newspapers such as the Los

22
Rutherford litigation is not the LASD’s only concern. It can also face civil suits from inmates or their families
when incidents occur in jail. Such penalties or settlements can be especially expensive when inmates die in jail, if it
can be established that the LASD was negligent in its custody.
23
IRC Ruling, p. 6.

7
Angeles Times. Since the LASD has a natural desire to avoid bad publicity, it has further

incentive to manage the jail system as soundly and responsibly as possible. The combined effect

of the media and the other influences noted above appears to be that the LASD does what it must

to avoid the most acute problems from arising, or to address them whenever they do.

Nevertheless, these influences are not enough to compel the LASD to provide an adequate level

of care for its inmate population. Further, the lack of comprehensive and constant oversight

allows the LASD to sometimes operate in ways that it otherwise might not if an outside party

were watching its every action. Increased pressure from the outside, however, is still unlikely to

bring about lasting reform in this area, as—once again—the nature and magnitude of the jails’

systemic problems are likely too much for such efforts to overcome.

6. Strategies for Altering Task Performance

(i) Measures to Reduce the Inmate Population

Such a strategy is better known as “population management planning,”24 and has three

basic elements. The first element involves providing alternatives to incarceration. Other jail

systems around the country have provided such alternatives as a means of managing their inmate

populations. For example, the LASD should explore how certain special populations, such as the

homeless, mentally ill, and those with substance abuse problems (who comprise large numbers

of inmates in the jails) 25 may be better served by outside diversion programs. It is possible that

funding for such opportunities may be available from a wide range of federal, state, and local

24
An excellent resource for learning more about this type of approach is “A Second Look at Alleviating Jail
Crowding: A Systems Perspective,” Bureau of Justice Assistance, October 2000, available at
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/182507.pdf
25
At least, the nonviolent offenders among them, who do not constitute a significant safety risk.

8
sources.26 Other alternatives to incarceration include electronic monitoring and work

furlough/release programs.27

The second element of population management planning involves remedying court

inefficiencies. Of course, this is not something that the LASD can unilaterally implement, as it

necessitates working with the courts, criminal justice and police departments, and other local

agencies to “streamline the pretrial process and reduce presentence detention periods and jail

populations.”28 Nevertheless, the LASD should begin the task of collaborating with these other

departments to develop such an approach.

The final element of this strategy is the development of better discharge planning.

Effective discharge planning is critical in reducing recidivism rates, which keeps inmates from

returning to jail after they have been released. Often, inmates are released without any kind of

support system, making them more likely to resort to criminal activity and once again ending up

behind bars. This also occurs because rehabilitative programs in jail, such as substance abuse

programs and workforce training, are not offered to enough inmates. The COSD’s Bureau of

Offender Programs & Services has several units (such as Inmate Services and Jail Enterprises)

that manage such programs, but they need to be made more accessible to inmates in need.

Additionally, the Bureau’s Community Transition Unit should play a greater role and develop

stronger partnerships with community organizations to ensure that released inmates’ needs are

provided for more effectively.

26
“Outline of an Illustrative Plan for Remedial Measures for the Los Angeles County Men’s Central Jail” (p. 8),
Exhibit One to the Stipulation Re Parties; Settlement )egotiations (Rutherford litigation, Case No. CV 75-04111
DDP, filed June 16, 2006).
27
County of Los Angeles Chief Executive Office, “Revised Jail Facilities Plan,” March 18, 2008, p. 8. Available at
http://lacounty.info/omd/q1%5F2008/cms1_085195.pdf
28
Ibid.

9
(ii) Measures to Expand Capacity of the Jail System

Though not as attractive a solution to the ACLU as policies aimed at reducing the inmate

population, expanding the capacity of the LA County jail system will clearly benefit inmates as

well. The County of Los Angeles Chief Executive Office (CEO) recently developed a $672

million, four-year facilities plan that will increase the system’s bed capacity by more than 1,000,

the majority of which will be high-security beds.29 This plan includes both upgrades to existing

facilities (consisting primarily of design and structural enhancements) and new construction. As

part of the plan, the LASD would refurbish and reopen the Sybil Brand Institute (SBI) in

Monterey Park, expand Pitchess, and construct a new facility at the Mira Loma Detention Center

in Lancaster.30 This would allow the LASD to close the old building at MCJ while expanding its

newer building.31 While it is not clear how cost-effective such a plan may be, nor to what extent

it could ultimately reduce overcrowding, it would undoubtedly provide some level of benefit.

(iii) Increased Civilian Oversight of the LASD

As noted above, a greater degree of oversight is unlikely to bring about systemic change

to the Los Angeles County jail system’s management and conditions. Still, it may yield notable

improvements in the way that the LASD treats its inmates. While the LASD works to reduce the

core problem of overcrowding through broader measures, increased oversight could be an

effective tool for alleviating its ongoing symptoms. Such oversight could consist of case

managers who address inmate complaints, assist them in accessing important information, and

attend disciplinary proceedings to help ensure a fair outcome. Jail systems in New York, Boston,

29
Ibid.
30
Currently, the Mira Loma facility is used primarily to hold immigration detainees for the U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.
31
MCJ consists of a 1960 building and a 1970 building. While neither building incorporates modern designs for
housing inmates, the 1960 building is severely deficient in this regard and clearly not suitable as a jail facility.

10
and Chicago have effectively implemented such oversight processes, and their examples could

be used as models.32

7. Conclusion
No solution that does not first address overcrowding in the Los Angeles County jail

system will be sufficient to bring about the meaningful reform that the ACLU seeks. Therefore,

I recommend that the ACLU advocate for the implementation of the measures suggested above,

which are aimed at both reducing the population of inmates and expanding the capacity of the

jail system to house them. While neither set of measures will provide an immediate fix to the

problem, both appear to be feasible,33 and actions taken soon may yield significant benefits

within the next few years.

32
http://www.prisoncommission.org/statements/kent_jody.pdf (pp. 2-3)
33
Provided that there is a clear commitment from public officials to remedying the problem. Such a commitment
would be reflected in the willingness of public agencies to work cooperatively in developing creative solution and
the allocation of sufficient budgetary appropriations from the BOS.

11