A recent analysis shows flaws in the county’s assessment of needing a new jail.
The Prison Policy Initiative (PPI) released findings regarding a new jail in Shelby County. The group was contacted by “community members” in the county about plans for a facility to replace the jail at 201 Poplar and Jail East.
PPI reviewed the 2025 Shelby County Jail Needs Assessment from the University of Tennessee’s County Technical Assistance Service.
“Our research has repeatedly shown that building a newer, bigger jail is rarely the solution that advocates for jail expansion claim,” PPI said.
The group went on to say that existing issues will not be remedied by the construction of a new facility.
According to the University of Tennessee, a new jail is not only recommended but it should be 50 percent larger than the “combined average daily populations at both 201 Poplar and Jail East.” PPI said in examining this claim they found several “glaring issues.”
These issues included data sources, contradictions, and capacity contradictions.
“The report handpicks data sources and exaggerates capacity issues to support building a new, bigger jail,” PPI said.
PPI went on to say that jail assessments usually pull from county population trends, average daily jail population (ADP) trends, average length of stay (ALOS), and bookings and admissions. The University of Tennessee chose to include information from the U.S. Census Bureau, daily inmate population history, classification needs, and “special inmate needs.”
These data points “presuppose” the recommendation and need for a larger jail, according to PPI. They added that these choices create capacity issues at Jail East by minimizing the county’s reduction of bookings and admissions.
The assessment said an average of 34,428 bookings occurred between 2013 and 2024. However, PPI noted that the analysis is based heavily on the period ranging from 2018 to 2024 — which they said ignores a “long-term trend” not reflected in the county’s assessment.
“We raise these problems because the report’s future booking projections are part of the larger picture of forecasting jail bedspace needs, and it appears that the author may be overestimating future bookings,” PPI said. “The primary driver of the jail population in Shelby County appears not to be the number of bookings, but rather the incredibly long time it takes to complete the booking and release processes — keeping people at the jail longer than necessary.”
While PPI noted cosmetic concerns at 201 Poplar, they said these cannot be the source of problems such as in-custody deaths. They said these are more so the result of a “breakdown of processes, procedures, and staff culture.”
“While the physical conditions of the jail at 201 Poplar may well warrant new construction or even a new building, many issues associated with the jail have far more to do with the culture of those operating the jail,” PPI said. “A larger jail will not resolve these issues, but will only relocate them and see them impacting a larger population.”
The initiative found problems with longer booking times, which contributed to a “massive” backlog. It also brought attention to the number of deaths that occurred under the watch of jail employees — including at least 12 suicides.
Jail staff also has a “pervasive and well-documented history of unprofessional and even illegal activity.” To remedy this, PPI recommended an increase in “professional and cultural training” for jail staff.
PPI recommends that the county address staff culture and other processing problems before moving forward with a new jail. They said these current issues have contributed to concerns of the current facilities.
The analysis also encourages the county to reduce dependency on pretrial detention by looking at ways to assess bail affordability.
PPI concluded that while the county’s report identifies “serious issues,” they won’t all be solved by a new facility.
“The new jail will diminish public safety rather than improve it,” PPI said. “Ultimately, we find that many of Shelby County’s capacity issues can be resolved by improving processes and staff culture, and by making better use of existing diversionary methods.”
