Reducing Jail Overcrowding in Cook County
The Cook County jail is nearly full again, jumping two seasons ahead of its usual autumn peak. On March 2nd, the Chicago Tribune reported on one reasonable means to reduce the jail population safely and cost-effectively–by tracking defendants on GPS monitors while they await trial. And there are many other approaches, which have proven– in cities across the country–to keep people safe without overcrowding the local jail. But unless the leadership of Chicago and Cook County can learn to work cooperatively, we will continue to lean on the blunt tool of incarceration, even as other cities reap the benefits of better practices.
Chicago has no comprehensive criminal justice strategy. Our city is the subject of national attention because of rising homicides. And yet, no coalition exists where police, judges, public defenders, prosecutors, and community groups sit down and talk to one another about solutions. Without such a coalition, we miss out on opportunities to cut the jail population, save money, and also remedy disturbing injustices.
In 2010 and 2011, a total of more than 20,000 defendants were jailed for an average of 25 days, only to have their cases dropped or dismissed. A Chicago Appleseed analysis of jail data indicates that as many as half of these individuals were being detained on drug charges. This bears repeating: each year thousands of people who are arrested for drug felonies sit in the Cook County jail for nearly a month before being released when their case is tossed.
Why is this happening? Put simply–delay. Once a police officer makes a drug arrest, prosecutors do not conduct meaningful review of the case until preliminary hearing, which usually takes place a few weeks after arrest. At preliminary hearing, according to the 2010 Illinois Disproportionate Justice Impact Study, 60% of felony drug possession cases are dismissed by the court or dropped by the prosecutor for lack of evidence.
Identifying these weak cases earlier ought to be a top priority. Earlier review of drug felonies would not only avoid the many harms of unnecessary detention, but also redirect scarce public safety resources to the prosecution of more serious crimes.
Other large cities already benefit from a prompt prosecutorial review of drug arrests.
After pioneering the concept three decades ago, Brooklyn today has a team experienced prosecutors reviewing every single arrest within 24 hours–nearly 100,000 each year. They set accurate charges and decline to prosecute the weakest cases. The remaining drug possession cases are referred to a centralized court, which uses tools other than incarceration to address the problems underlying defendants’ drug abuse.
In 2008, Philadelphia’s incoming District Attorney faced the highest homicide rate and one of the lowest conviction rates in the country. In response, Philadelphia prosecutors began assessing cases earlier and diverting more defendants to community-based services other than jail. They’ve already seen results. A 2011 Pew research report reviewing these efforts linked the policy changes to a 12% decrease in the daily jail population, 10% drop in jail and police costs, faster case processing times, and a dramatic increase in court appearance rates. These are improvements Cook County and Chicago sorely needs.
So why do thousands of individuals languish in jail, without meaningful resolution to their cases, when a solution is readily available? One reason is that the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office incurs all of the costs for felony review of drug arrests, while the Court, Sheriff, and others reap the benefits of lighter caseloads and lower jail population.
Only a criminal justice coordinating body can negotiate a program that improves some agencies’ bottom lines at the expense of others – in a way that is fair and effective. The legislative framework for this body already exists. In 2010 the Cook County Board passed an ordinance creating a “Jail Diversion Advisory Panel”. This panel was directed to establish “a collaborative relationship between the State, the County, local municipalities and local community based mental health and substance abuse disorder service providers with emphasis on mutual goals, shared responsibilities and benefits.” To date, the panel has not met.