Defender Testimony: Prison Oversight

On October 29, Director of Prison Advocacy Tom Innes testified on behalf of the Defender Association in support of Ordinance #240817 and Resolution #240834. These proposals aim to amend the city charter to establish an Office of Prison Oversight and a companion Prison Oversight Board.

 

Read the full testimony below, or click here to download a printable version.

Watch Video of Tom Innes's Testimony:

Full Testimony (as submitted for the record)

 

Good afternoon. My name is Thomas Innes, and I serve as the Director of Prison Advocacy at the Defender Association of Philadelphia. On behalf of the Defender Association, I would like to thank Majority Leader Gilmore Richardson, bill sponsors Majority Whip Thomas, Minority Whip O’Rourke, and all members of City Council, for inviting the Defender Association to share our testimony in support of Ordinance #240817 and Resolution #240834. These proposals aim to amend the city charter to establish an Office of Prison Oversight and a companion Prison Oversight Board.

 

This charter change, which creates an independent Prison Oversight Board and Office of Prison Oversight, is about our past, our present, and the future we hope to create. Before discussing the current situation or the future this legislation envisions, I want to share some historical context—one I am uniquely positioned to provide.

 

In addition to my role as Director of Prison Advocacy, I hold the unofficial title of the Defender Association’s longest-serving attorney. I joined in 1978 as a trial attorney and have been with the organization ever since. In 2000, I formed the Prison Services Unit in response to the conditions my clients were facing in jail. Since then, I’ve been the primary point of contact for our attorneys, clients, and their families as they navigate the county jail system.

 

Over the past 24 years, I’ve witnessed every change within the jail—from times when the population was close to 10,000 to moments when it dropped to 3,400. I’ve been there through the HIV/AIDS epidemic, COVID-19, changes in staffing levels, and the introduction of privatized medical care. With every shift, I’ve been on the ground, on State Road, solving problems both big and small.

 

The Problem: Persistent Opacity
One constant remains: the county jail is a persistently opaque institution. This lack of transparency fosters an environment where abuses can occur unchecked. It has also hindered meaningful dialogue between policymakers, corrections staff, and the community about how our city should treat incarcerated individuals.

 

The physical location of the jail is telling. It sits in a remote corner of the city, difficult to reach by public transit. Public access to the buildings is limited, and information is often tightly controlled. I’m one of the few non-incarcerated individuals who can speak directly to what goes on inside, having seen it firsthand for decades.

 

The Current Remedy: Litigation
In the absence of independent oversight, the only avenue for addressing conditions in the jail has been systemic litigation—a reactive measure, not a preventative one. I brought an exhibit [Fig. 1] today to show the long history of lawsuits against the city, each ending in a consent decree because there was no defense against the conditions people were forced to endure.

 

(Fig. 1) SYSTEMIC LAWSUITS AGAINST THE PHILADELPHIA JAILS AND CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

Commonwealth ex rel. Bryant v. Hendrick          1971 Consent Decrees*
Jackson v. Hendrick 1971-2003 Consent Decrees
Warrington v. City of Philadelphia 1998 Consent Decree
Harris v. City of Philadelphia 1982 - 2003 Consent Decrees
Bowers v. City of Philadelphia          2006 - 2008 Court Orders & Consent Decrees
Williams v. City of Philadelphia           2008 - 2016 Consent Decrees
Remick v. City of Philadelphia          2020 - 2024 Consent Decree
*Consent decrees are settlements reached because the conditions were indefensible.

 

Despite the federal oversight, problems persist. In fact, Philadelphia has been under federal consent decrees for 32 of the last 43 years—including the past three years. If litigation alone could have solved these issues, we would not be here today.

 

A History of Failed Attempts at Oversight
Past efforts at oversight have been largely ineffective. The Board of Trustees, formed years ago, was toothless and powerless, mainly serving to rubber-stamp budget requests from the prison administration. Meetings were mostly conducted in private, with limited public notice or participation. I was a non-voting member on this board and witnessed firsthand the lack of true oversight.

 

In 2014, the creation of the Philadelphia Department of Prisons as a separate city department brought another attempt at oversight—a Prison Advisory Board. Unfortunately, it was no different. It lacked authority and continued to operate with minimal transparency. Meetings were often inaccessible and limited to those within the administration. Despite–or maybe because of–my extensive knowledge and experience, I was excluded from serving as a Defender representative on that board, and what little oversight existed quickly dissipated.

 

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the situation worsened as the jails moved from mere opacity to almost complete secrecy. The public and even advocates kept out of the loop. In 2023, the Prison Advisory Board dissolved after growing frustration over its ineffectiveness.

 

Present-Day Challenges
Today, the situation remains dire. The ongoing federal lawsuit, Remick v. Philadelphia, is still unresolved, with the city under a $25 million contempt order for failing to meet agreed-upon conditions.

 

[Philadelphia Department of Prisons] Commissioner Michael Resnick, whom I have known for 20 years, is a good man and an extremely capable leader trying admirably to make changes. However, no single person, no matter how competent, can replace the need for a structured, independent oversight body.

 

The urgent need for independent oversight is underscored by recent events:

 

Over the past 20 months, more than 20 people have died in Philadelphia’s county jail. These deaths are reviewed internally, and families must hire attorneys to access information. Even then, they often face restrictions on sharing what they’ve learned.

 

From May 2023 to May 2024, an average of 106 individuals per month were transported from the jail to emergency rooms—over three per day—with no public explanation.

 

In the same timeframe, 420 incidents of pepper spray use were reported, sometimes occurring multiple times per day, with no external review or justification.

 

Recent events—a stabbing of a corrections officer just last week and two deaths within the last two months—only add to the urgency for oversight. The community deserves transparency about what happens behind the prison walls.

 

Commissioner Resnick’s Proposed Alternatives
Commissioner Resnick has suggested alternatives to an independent board, including expanding roles for the Pennsylvania Prison Society and the Defender Association. Obviously, both organizations are excellent choices to take part in oversight. However, neither has the authority or resources required to enact and ensure permanent and meaningful reforms. The Prison Society, for instance, cannot speak to staff or demand records, and it oversees every jail in the state, not just Philadelphia’s. Similarly, the Defender Association lacks the power to require documentation and relies on requests that the jail can simply refuse.

 

Conclusion
True oversight requires a constant presence inside the jail, with full access to records and the ability to engage directly with staff. The proposed charter change would create an entity capable of this, with the authority and resources to bring genuine accountability.

 

We must never forget that incarcerated people are, in fact, people. Almost all are citizens of Philadelphia who will be returning to communities, families and loved ones. We can’t simply lock them away and forget about them. As citizens we must do all we can to preserve their health and safety, along with the prison employees who are placed in jeopardy every day due to lack of staffing and resources.

 

The jails are a public institution, and the public needs and deserves a clearer view of what happens behind their walls. This charter change would shine a bright and steady light where darkness has reigned for far too long.

 

Thank you for your anticipated support of this initiative.

 

Click here to download a printable version

Policy Statement: Prison Population Reduction Post-Remick

Introduction

District Court Judge Gerald A. McHugh’s ruling holding Philadelphia’s prisons in contempt for for the City’s inability to provide a safe, secure, and civilized environment for our incarcerated citizens is completely justified. However, it’s a grim reminder that the Philadelphia Department of Prison’s (PDP), currently understaffed by 800 Correctional Officers, cannot ensure the safety of our citizens awaiting trial or serving sentences.

 

PDP is required to receive and hold people who have been remanded to their custody by the courts, whether they’re awaiting trial, being held on detainers for minor infractions, or serving a sentence. It is incredibly naive to think that the PDP will hire 800 corrections officers any time soon. Therefore, it is crucial that other system stakeholders, including the First Judicial District (FJD), the Department of Probation, and the District Attorney’s Office (DAO) work with us to address this humanitarian crisis.

Defender Association's Policy Recommendations

As stakeholders, we must commit to reducing the jail population. We recommend strategies to decrease reliance on county incarceration for public safety, starting with reducing or eliminating ‘short-term’ admissions to county jail. These brief stays do not improve public safety and may even decrease it by destabilizing individuals and their families. 

 

By addressing the following policies, we can reduce these admissions and decrease the jail population and strain on prisons without compromising public safety [click the + to view each recommendation]: 

 

This practice subverts due process by using an unattainably high bail amount as a proxy for holding without bail. Overusing the $1 million bail recommendation diminishes its meaning, forcing bail commissioners to make detention or release decisions without a meaningful DAO recommendation. Unable to rely on this signal, commissioners set higher bail amounts, delaying the actual decision and leading to detention until a judge reviews the bail. Many people at PDP are held initially because they cannot pay bail, often released within 14 days when bail is lowered or funds are raised. This process causes unnecessary detention, discrimination against the poor, family and community destabilization, and an overburdened prison system.

The City presented evidence that in May 2024, 49 people were admitted to jail and released the same day another 114 were released within 24 hours; 138 within two to four days; and 234 within five to fourteen days. These numbers demonstrate that these individuals are making bail quickly, resulting in unnecessary strain on the jail's limited staff and clogging the  jail admission system. The first five days in jail are the most expensive ones for the jail’s medical and other systems and research demonstrates that even periods of detention of 3 days are correlated with increased short and long term rates of re-arrest.

There are currently over 100 people sitting in jail because of a technical violation. 

Empowering bail commissioners to impose non-financial conditions of release, such as house arrest or GPS monitoring, at preliminary arraignment can prevent unnecessary detention. Although use of these tools raise other concerns, earlier access can streamline reviews and reduce detention. Currently, such conditions cannot be set until a judge reviews the initial bail. Providing these alternatives before jailing the arrestee will decrease the jail population and reduce the use of prison resources.

Many of those incarcerated people  65 or older pose no threat to public safety. They can–and should–be released safely. 

Incarcerating drug-addicted people poses significant risks to their health and safety. Providing access to these programs is crucial to reducing their incarceration. The lack of proper treatment, access to medications, and support for withdrawal symptoms and other medical issues related to substance use can lead to severe complications and death. Investment in comprehensive, community-oriented programs will ultimately reduce the cycle of addiction and incarceration.

 

Download a printable version of the policy here

 

A Shift in Mindset

Overlooking the Philly jails, an electronic billboard on I-95 advertising Eastern State Penitentiary flashes the message: “Old Prison/New Ideas.” We need to embody the spirit of this slogan if we’re going to make these and other needed changes. We also need to understand that these changes will  require a significant investment of time and resources beyond what city funds and the PDP alone can accomplish. Meaningful and lasting reform also requires a shift in mindset by other system stakeholders. We can’t continue to behave as if this is solely PDP’s crisis to solve. We need cooperation from every judicial system stakeholder to ensure we’re protecting public safety while keeping many of our citizens from ever hitting the admissions door of the jail. 

 

We need to recognize the humanity of incarcerated people, and stop treating incarcerated people like “units” to be locked away indefinitely. These are men and women with families and communities that they will eventually return to. We should ask ourselves, how will what they experience behind prison walls impact the kind of citizens they are when they go home? We must also remember that the horrible conditions in the jails don’t just impact the incarcerated. Every day that conditions don’t improve is another day of needless health and safety risks for prison employees, most of whom are Black and Brown Philadelphians. 

 

As we did during the COVID-19 emergency, the Defender Association is again ready to collaborate with our fellow stakeholders to come up with bold and creative solutions that protect the rights and lives of those in our city's custody.

 

Download a printable version of the policy here

Join Our Youth Action Board!

Are you 18-23, currently system involved, or have you transitioned out of the system? Do you have something to say? Apply to join our Youth Action Board!

 

The Youth Action Board (YAB), is a youth-led collective that aims to amplify the voices of older youth (ages 18-23) who have experienced the foster system. Together, our mission is to evoke change and bring awareness to the issues older youth face as they transition out of the system.

 

The YAB advocates for:

 

-Raising awareness for youth and connecting them with important services;

-Dismantling systemic injustice and improving legal representation;

-Encouraging services that are culturally aware, trauma informed, and courteous;

-Conflict resolution and effective communication; and

-Promoting leadership, story telling, and uplifting

 

The YAB will campaign, organize, and advise on issues strictly impacting Older Youth in child-serving systems. This group will guide how to better serve and represent youth in ways that respect their agency.

 

This is an opportunity for you to be heard and to be at the forefront of making a difference! Apply to be a part of the Youth Action Board!

 

Fill out the Youth Action Board application here

 

Download and share the Youth Action Board Flyer

 

 

2024 Father’s Day Bailout

This Father's Day, the Defender is working with Frontline Dads to bring home as many Father's as possible!

 

If your loved one's bail is under $50,000 and they have NO other detainers, they may qualify to be freed through the Father's Day Bailout program!

 

To apply for the Father's Day Bailout, please fill out the form below:

 

Keisha Hudson on Court’s Dismissal of Irizarry Shooting Case

PHILADELPHIA—“Our (mostly Black and Brown) clients never get to present or argue a justification defense at a preliminary hearing. And they certainly do not get their cases dismissed based on a judge’s determination that there was a justification defense.

 

“Instead, our clients—all of whom are poor and almost exclusively Black and Brown people—have their cases held for trial, and they sit in jail for months awaiting their day in court. Going forward, certainly before this forum, Defender Association attorneys will be making the same arguments and demanding the same results.”

 

# # #

 

Follow us: @PhillyDefenders