Can a Court's ‘Last Resort' Fix New York City's Jails?

Alabama’s Legacy and New York City’s Jail Troubles #

In 1976, conditions in Alabama’s prison system were so dire that a federal court appointed an external authority—Alabama’s governor—to implement reforms. By the time the administrator was discharged in 1989, the prison system had seen significant improvements. However, these advancements did not last, prompting federal intervention again.

This scenario is being revisited as New York City’s jail system grapples with issues reminiscent of Alabama’s past. A federal judge is considering appointing a receiver to take control of the Rikers Island jail complex. For nearly a decade, the jail has operated under federal oversight, with reports highlighting chronic violence, inmate deaths, and poor management.

“The monitor’s reports are still bad,” signaled an inevitable shift towards receivership, with the court expressing frustration over the lack of progress. Receiverships, historically used to protect constitutional rights, have been employed in 12 corrections facilities across the United States, but their success in creating lasting improvements remains uncertain.

Alabama’s prisons set the precedent, with a 2019 Justice Department lawsuit citing severe issues including violence and unsafe conditions. In California, a 2006 receivership focused on medical care continues. Hinds County, Mississippi, faces delays due to litigation over a receiver’s authority. Meanwhile, Washington D.C.’s jail, which underwent receivership from 1995 to 2003, still struggles with inadequate care.

Receiverships carry risks and rewards, dependent on the administrator’s skills and political navigation. However, the durability of reforms hinges on the entities that resume control post-receivership. Concerns linger over the persistency of change, with past instances highlighting the temporary nature of improvements once external oversight ends.

New York’s longstanding jail management issues, shaped by political appointment of commissioners and city council budget approvals, mirror Alabama’s challenges. For a successful receivership, the appointee must negotiate with multiple stakeholders, including workforce unions.

The federal law limits a receiver’s authority to addressing constitutional violations, but Rikers’ deep-rooted issues may necessitate granting expansive powers, such as staffing changes and budget restructuring. Resistance is anticipated, particularly from local correctional unions, who fear staffing cuts and contract revisions.

“The receiver is not going to fix anything,” a department veteran argued, skeptical of the efficacy of such interventions elsewhere. The Rikers situation could escalate to the Supreme Court if appeals arise, with its conservative justices showing skepticism toward judicial oversight in prison management.

The potential receivership’s impact on the planned closure of Rikers Island and a shift to borough-based housing remains uncertain. Advocacy groups stress that receivership might temporarily mitigate politics but highlight that permanently emptying Rikers is crucial for resolving systemic issues.

“Emptying jails and closing Rikers is the only direct path,” one organization noted, questioning whether a receiver would prioritize such long-term goals.