Under Alabama law, Sheriffs are provided $1.75 per prisoner per day by the state to feed the inmates in their jails. A separate state law also allows them to "keep and retain" for personal use any unused money allocated for feeding prisoners, except in the instances where the county creates a resolution directing the allowances to be paid into the general fund.

These laws date back to a time when most Sheriffs did not receive a salary and derived most of their compensation from fees. Over the years, many changes in the law have been made for individual counties, adopted in local acts of the Legislature. These laws essentially allow state legislators from a local area and local officials to create their own methods for handling the prisoner-feeding issue.

In our search of PARCA's compiled Local Acts of Alabama, we found over 80 local acts that govern the feeding of prisoners. Some of these laws require the state funds for feeding prisoners to be deposited in the county general fund, creating some oversight over their use and ending the practice of the sheriff retaining funds for personal use. In a majority of cases, however, the local acts retain the practice of allowing the sheriff to keep unused funds intended for feeding prisoners.

Madison County, for example, has a local act which allows the county to control prisoner food allowances: 

The Sheriff of Madison County shall be entitled to receive as compensation a salary...which shall be payable in equal monthly installments by...the General Fund of the County. Such salary shall be in lieu of all other compensation, remuneration or repayment of expenses heretofore provided by law, including...allowances authorized for feeding prisoners.

Butler County has one example of a local act which reinforces old patterns:

The Sheriff of Butler County shall be entitled to keep and retain the allowances payable

by the state for feeding prisoners.

A key question asked by almost no one is: Why should there be local discretion in handling the critical issue of feeding prisoners in county jails? Shouldn't there be standards of accountability that apply across the state for matters such as this? Perhaps no local acts of the Legislature should be allowed on this subject at all.

Those in favor of allowing sheriffs to keep and retain unused prisoner-feeding funds argue that sheriffs are personally responsible for feeding inmates, and there is often money lost due to the low per diem given by the state. On the other hand, many opponents argue that the law gives sheriffs an incentive to skimp on inmates' meals for their own profit, and this arrangement lacks accountability and invites corruption. Until a few years ago, there was no evidence to support that corruption had occurred.

In 2009, Morgan County's Sheriff was jailed overnight in a federal prison after the judge ruled he purposely fed prisoners inadequately to maximize his personal profits. The Sheriff testified that he had deposited over $200,000 of state and federal funds allocated for feeding prisoners into his personal account. Due to the general and local acts governing his actions, this was not illegal; but under state law, sheriffs are required to provide food that is "nutritious, clean, wholesome and of sufficient quantity" and the food being served in the Morgan County jail was "woefully insufficient" according to the court ruling. The Sheriff was released the next day and pledged to use all state and federal funds for feeding inmates in the future. In a similar case in 2006, the Mobile County Sheriff pleaded guilty to perjury and an ethics offense, agreeing to repay $13,000 he had moved from a jail "food fund" to his personal retirement account.  

Many attempts have been made over the years to repeal the original law giving sheriffs the ability to "keep and retain" the prisoner food allowances. After the incident in Morgan County, some legislators tried to pass a bill providing that the allowance for feeding prisoners must be deposited in a special fund in the county treasury and used only for feeding prisoners. However, the legislation failed.