Managing Movement:

Reducing Errors and Frustration with Housing Assignments

Christian Edwards

Corrections professionals know that jail housing assignments are rarely straightforward. While an inmate’s bed location may seem like a simple logistical choice, the actual process of assigning, reviewing, and modifying housing placements involves constant evaluation and frequent communication between staff. Custody officers, classification personnel, and medical teams all bring unique responsibilities and perspectives to the table. When these inputs are not coordinated properly, the result can be housing errors that lead to operational inefficiencies, staff frustration, and, more critically, safety concerns.

This article examines common pain points in inmate housing workflows and offers practical strategies for improving accuracy and coordination. While every jail has its own procedures, the goal of this discussion is to encourage consistent, documented practices that support operational integrity, reduce miscommunication, and improve outcomes for both staff and inmates.

Understanding the Challenge

Jails are dynamic environments. Classification levels shift as inmates progress through their cases. Medical conditions may require housing accommodations that differ from general population placements. Special populations, including youth housed as adults, and those under suicide watch, require extra consideration. At the same time, physical capacity constraints, lockdowns, or facility maintenance can change available housing options from shift to shift.

Amid all this activity, movement decisions are often made on the fly. A supervisor may verbally direct an officer to relocate an inmate. A nurse may ask classification to f lag a housing restriction based on a medical diagnosis. A fight may necessitate a quick separation that is only written down after the fact. Each of these actions, though often made in good faith, introduces the risk of missteps if not documented properly or shared across departments.

Housing errors can carry serious consequences. Assigning an inmate to the wrong custody level may put them or others at risk. Placing someone with known medical conditions in an inappropriate unit can create medical liabilities. Failing to keep documented separation orders updated can lead to compliance failures during audits. Most frustrating of all, these incidents are often preventable with better communication and clearer protocols.

The Limits of Informal Processes

In many facilities, housing-related instructions live in a mixture of formats: handwritten notes, whiteboards, shift briefings, and verbal reminders. While these methods may serve as quick references, they are rarely reliable as the primary system of record. When staff turnover, overlapping shifts, or conflicting interpretations arise, these informal practices fall short.

Paper logs can be misplaced or contain errors due to illegible handwriting. Verbal handoffs are easily forgotten or misunderstood, especially when they involve multiple steps.

Even well-meaning officers can make decisions without realizing that a housing restriction was entered by another department earlier that day. Without a single, centralized system for entering, reviewing, and validating this information, the risk of contradictory or outdated data remains high.

Clarifying Roles and Standardizing Procedures

Reducing housing errors starts with clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the departments involved. While every agency structures its staffing differently, a few principles tend to hold true:

Custody staff are responsible for day-to-day movement and physical supervision. They need quick access to current housing status, separation alerts, and location history.
Classification officers assign custody levels and manage overrides based on a mix of behavioral, legal, and institutional criteria. Their decisions should be clearly documented and viewable by other departments.
Medical and mental health personnel assess physical and behavioral health needs that may require placement adjustments, such as medical isolation, suicide prevention housing, or ADA compliant cells.

By defining how and when each group contributes to a housing decision (and how those decisions are logged) agencies can move toward a more consistent process. Developing a standard housing workflow document that outlines required steps for new intakes, reclassifications, or special housing requests can reduce ambiguity and improve collaboration.

The Value of a Centralized Housing Log

Whether your agency uses a digital system or a physical logbook, there should be one definitive source that tracks housing movements and decisions. This log should capture key data points:

Inmate name and booking number
Date/time of housing assignment or movement
Authorizing staff member(s)
Reason for movement (e.g., classification change, medical, safety concern)
Any special considerations or restrictions

Supervisors should review this log at least once per shift to verify that assignments align with current classification levels and that no housing notes have been overlooked. For agencies with digital systems, audit tools can highlight records that are overdue for review or missing required fields

Improving Visibility Across Departments

One of the most frequent complaints heard about detention facilities is that staff don’t have access to the same information. A classification officer may update a restriction, but line staff never receive the notification. Medical may add an alert, but it is buried in a progress note and not visible to custody.

To address this, information relevant to housing should be displayed in a shared format that is accessible to all departments involved in movement decisions. Examples include:

A shared housing board that shows all inmates with active separation orders
A dashboard that flags inmates whose classification levels have changed within the past 48 hours
A report that lists inmates in temporary housing or under review for reassignment

These tools allow staff to quickly identify high-risk situations and coordinate accordingly, rather than relying on memory or redundant requests.

Training and Accountability

Even the most well-designed workflows will fall short without training and follow-through. All staff involved in movement decisions should receive consistent training on how housing assignments are entered, modified, and reviewed. This includes not only technical instruction but also situational examples that show why documentation matters.

Supervisors should periodically audit housing records for completeness and accuracy. When errors are identified, they should be addressed constructively, with an emphasis on understanding the root cause and refining procedures, rather than assigning blame. Agencies that foster a learning oriented culture around housing workflows tend to see fewer repeated mistakes.

Preparing for Audits

Housing records are often a focus area during facility inspections and audits. Agencies that rely on informal systems may find themselves scrambling to compile reports or explain inconsistencies when auditors arrive. Instead, consider building a daily routine that keeps records up to date:

Require that all housing changes be entered within a specific time window (e.g., by the end of the shift)
Review active housing restrictions during daily briefings
Conduct weekly spot checks of housing logs to confirm accuracy

These practices reduce the burden of last-minute data gathering and help demonstrate a culture of accountability.

Conclusion

Managing inmate movement is a complex task, but one that can be greatly improved through deliberate procedures, consistent communication, and thoughtful use of tracking tools. By moving away from reliance on informal notes and verbal instructions, jails can reduce errors, improve staff coordination, and better ensure the safety of inmates and officers alike.

Agencies seeking to refine their housing processes should begin with a review of current practices, identify gaps in documentation or communication, and work toward implementing shared protocols. With clearer roles, better visibility, and regular oversight, housing assignments can become a source of stability, rather than stress.

_____________________________

Christian Edwards is a mission driven public safety and technology professional with nearly three decades of experience spanning military service, jail operations, and public safety software. He currently serves as a Solutions Architect with SmartCOP, a division of N. Harris Computer Corporation, where he helps public safety agencies implement configurable, reliable software tailored to real-world needs. Before entering the software industry, he served as Assistant Facility Administrator and Field Training Officer with the Buncombe County Sheriff’s Office, and as a Combat Engineer and Postal Operations specialist in the U.S. Army and Army Reserve. For more information, he can be contacted at christian.edwards@ smartcop.com