My review of state inspection reports of the Jackson County Jail since 2015 identified inconsistencies in how the Department of Corrections has applied facility standards and inmate classification requirements. State legislators should investigate these inconsistencies for statutory compliance and funding needs.

I am a retired federal regulator who performed inspections for the Department of Energy, the Navy, and the U.S. Inspector General. I know well the proper role of government regulators, the application of statutes, and the importance of legislative oversight of government inspection agencies.

The role of a government inspector is to enforce statutes as written, and not impose unfunded requirements beyond code. A good inspector will share best practices, help organizations identify grants to fund process improvements, and provide feedback to lawmakers when statutes need revision.

In 2021, there was an impactful change in jail inspection criteria. This abrupt change seemed unusual considering the same state inspector has performed all jail inspections since 2017, and there was no corresponding change in state code or facility conditions. This change is illustrated in the inspector’s report summaries:

During the July 18, 2017 inspection, there were no code violations cited. The inspector’s summary stated, “the overall appearance of the jail was in satisfactory condition.” However, the inspector did document several miscellaneous administrative and process items of concern that needed improvement.

During the July 18, 2018 inspection, there were no code violations cited. The inspector’s summary stated, “the jail appeared to be clean and in good repair.”

During the July 2, 2019 inspection , there was one code violation cited for housing inmates of mixed classification in the same cell. The inspector’s summary stated, “the jail appeared to be clean and in good repair. New floors have been installed in sections of the jail with more to be replaced in the future.”

During the July 16, 2020 inspection, there were no code violations cited. The inspector’s summary stated, “the facility appeared to be clean and in good repair. The jail has had several upgrades to the facility since last year’s inspection to include new floors in some areas of the facility.”

During the July 14, 2021 inspection, there were two code violations cited. One violation for housing inmates of mixed classification in the same cell, and one violation for failing to document a mental health professional referral when placing an inmate on and off suicide watch. The inspector’s report summary was extensive and contained dramatically different comments regarding facility conditions as compared to previous inspections. Some examples include:

“The jail is old and antiquated, limiting the opportunity to provide programming and education, along with meeting safety and security expectations.”

“The facility lacks the proper space needed for booking in new inmates, providing proper classification, and housing individuals on suicide watch”

“The medical room just off the booking area is very small, making it hard for medical staff to provide treatment and examinations, while also having space for administrative duties and properly securing confidential medical records.”

‘due to the facility design, the staff lack the ability to properly quarantine inmates”

“The facility is over 30 years old and, since it opened, Corrections has changed dramatically.”

The 2021 inspection summary comments were, for the most part, repeated during the July 19, 2022 inspection and the June 13, 2023 inspection. The 2022 and 2023 inspection reports are available on the Jackson County government website.

State legislators should investigate why inspector expectations changed starting with the 2021 inspection, with no corresponding change in statute or code. The most recent change in Department of Corrections state code (DOC 350) occurred in 2014. The 2014 code revision allowed continued operation of jails by separating the code requirements for the physical environment of jails constructed before March 1, 1990. While the inspector’s comments accurately describe the Jackson facility, none of the comments reference a violation of this code. In addition, the jail requires no variances to the code be approved to continue operations. Absent actual facility code violations, what the inspection report did was create a narrative for jail replacement by comparing the Jackson jail to newly constructed facilities, which is contrary to the intent of the 2014 code change that separated the requirements. It is puzzling why the same state inspector would consider the jail satisfactory for several years and then abruptly change expectations in 2021.

During the 2021 inspection, the state inspector also directed the jail to “Transition the classification system to be more in alignment with current practices”. However, the inspection report did not provide a reference or define the inmate classification practices required.

The inmate classification system is an administrative process to assign a security risk level to each inmate to determine housing, supervision, and service requirements. Wisconsin statute 302.36 establishes the inmate classification requirements for jails. This statute was last revised in 2005. It gives the sheriff, jailer, or keeper of a jail, absolute authority over inmate classification. The Department of Corrections jail inspector has no authority to change or overrule an inmate classification.

State legislators should investigate why the Department of Corrections inspector has directed the jail to transition the classification system. This investigation should include how the Federal Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) has affected the inmate classification process in county jails. PREA added classifications for sexual assaults and expanded gender categories to include transgender individuals. The federal PREA went into effect in 2012, seven years after the latest revision to Wisconsin statute 302.36. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance website, Wisconsin has yet to come in full compliance with PREA Standards. As a result, federal grants associated with PREA may be limited.

Although not specifically required by state statute, the sheriff’s office has opted to use PREA classification categories in the Jackson jail but is having difficulty meeting the standards.

If the state Department of Corrections desires to enact higher facility standards and new classification requirements, as indicated by recent jail inspections, then the department should work with legislative oversight committees to adopt those requirements into state statute and fund their implementation. To use the annual jail inspection as the means to implement requirements not yet supported by state statue is inappropriate.

How can our County Government make sound, long-term financial decisions when a single state inspector is empowered, at will, to use an annual inspection to invoke such unfunded mandates?