How Reform Came to "Most Dangerous" Jail

• NCJ Number: 191585
• Journal: CTM-Corrections Technology & Management Volume: 5 Issue: 4 Dated: July/August 2001 Pages: 55-57
• Author(s): David Wilkening
• Date Published: 2001
• Length: 3 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Case Study
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article focused on the security at the Harrison County jail in Gulfport, Mississippi.

Abstract

The Harrison County jail was not just overcrowded and understaffed but in such bad shape that Federal investigators termed it “one of the most dangerous facilities” they’d ever seen. At least 17 inmates had escaped in less than 2 years, according to the local newspaper. The exact number was disputed because the former sheriff said some escapes involved inmates who walked away from custody and were not considered true escapees. The United States Justice Department, citing an inadequate number of guards as only one problem within the maximum-security jail, issued only the first of numerous reports in 1993. Eventually, the Federal Government sued the county to fix lingering management and security problems. Problems cited in the security of the jail included inadequate security practices, inmate access to highly unusual areas and tools, inmate possession of security keys, nonfunctional security panels, and poorly monitored inmate and correctional officer traffic. The Harrison County Board of Supervisors awarded $3.5 million more to the existing $8 million budget to pay for a new electronic security system as well as a new fence. The added money is also being invested in personnel. Standards were raised for correctional officer qualifications. Each applicant, after being interviewed, was screened by a peer panel of correctional officers. Applicants had to pass a polygraph test, have a clean criminal history, and pass physical and psychological evaluation as well as drug testing. Even a physical agility test was added. Other reformations included free correctional training and reimbursement for college tuition, hiring a new director of corrections, shopping for best food service prices, and having an independent consultant review general operations yearly at the facility.