Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

Transcription

CIIC: Southern Ohio Correctional Facility|1
Southern
Ohio
Correctional
Facility
February 4, 2013
February 6, 2013
February 7, 2013
February 11, 2013
Joanna E. Saul,
Report Coordinator
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION INSPECTION COMMITTEE REPORT
ON THE INSPECTION AND EVALUATION OF THE
SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Dates of Inspection:
February 4, 2013
February 6, 2013
February 7, 2013
February 11, 2013
Type of Inspection:
Unannounced
Legislators/CIIC Staff Present:
Joanna E. Saul, Director
Gregory Geisler, Corrections Analyst II
Adam Jackson, Corrections Analyst II
Carol Robison, Corrections Analyst II
Darin Furderer, Corrections Analyst I
Jamie Hooks, Corrections Analyst I
Facility Staff Present:
Warden Donald Morgan
CIIC spoke with many additional staff
throughout the course of the inspection.
Institution Overview:
The Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (SOCF) is a maximum security prison, housing
Level 4 inmates. It is located on 1,625 acres in Lucasville, Ohio, Scioto County.i The
institution’s FY 2013 budget was $51,699,871.ii The rated capacity for the Southern
Ohio Correctional Facility is 1,520. As of February 2013, the institution housed 1,365
inmatesiii (89.8 percent of capacity). The institution scored high on the most recent ACA
audit.1iv
Demographically, 57.4 percent of the inmates are classified as black, and 41.3 percent
as white.2v The average inmate age was 32 years.vi The institution employs 637 staff.vii
CIIC conducted a biennial inspection in April 2011 and a follow-up inspection in July
2012. With the DRC’s “3 Tier reorganization,” the facility has experienced significant
turnover in its population within the past year, as inmates are being more quickly
reclassified as maximum security and transferred to SOCF due to disruptive behavior
and current Level 4 inmates are being encouraged to reduce their security classification.
1
The most recent American Correctional Association (ACA) audit of the facility was conducted April 2426, 2012. The facility scored 100 percent compliant for mandatory standards and 99.5 percent compliant
on non-mandatory standards. Areas of noncompliance were due to insufficient space in the cells.
2
In addition, 1.2 percent were classified as other.
Inspection Overview:
SOCF handles the challenging task of managing both the state’s most violent inmates
and the maximum security mentally ill population, including inmates requiring intensive
treatment in the Residential Treatment Unit. SOCF receives all of the inmates that
cannot be safely managed at lower security institutions.
SOCF has had a difficult history. It is the site of Ohio’s deadliest prison riot in 1993. It
is the DRC’s leader for suicides since 2000, with three in this past year. Every year,
SOCF reports a high rate of assaults, fights, and uses of force. Tension between
inmates and staff reportedly runs high: since CIIC was created, inmates have written to
CIIC with allegations of negative staff/inmate interactions, including verbal abuse and
excessive force.
The primary issues raised by the inspection are the same as in past years: (1) the need
to address the high rates of violence in the institution, even given that it is a maximum
security institution; (2) the need to address inmate allegations of negative staff/inmate
interactions and improve perceptions of procedural fairness; and, (3) the need to
develop purposeful, meaningful activities for inmates and prepare them for reentry to
society.
However, SOCF has clearly turned a corner within the past decade, largely due to its
current and past administration. In 2012, SOCF had the lowest number of uses of force
since at least 2008 and fights were significantly reduced in comparison to 2011. The
Warden has developed and implemented initiatives in virtually all areas to improve
conditions for both inmates and staff, with additional plans for 2013. In an institution
that has a mission solely dedicated to security, the Warden has significantly reduced
costs and worked to improve staff morale. All of the basic quality of life issues – unit
conditions, healthcare, recreation – were all rated high. Medical services in particular
has made tremendous gains in the past two years.
Most importantly, many of the issues that the inspection raised were already being
addressed by the Warden and his staff. Thus, CIIC staff believe strongly that the
institution is on a positive trend for the future.
I. INSPECTION SUMMARY
SAFETY AND SECURITY:3 ACCEPTABLE
INDICATORS
Assaults
RATING
FINDINGS
In Need of
Improvement
Inmate on inmate assaults increased by 43.4 percent between 2010
and 2012.
The rate of inmate on inmate assaults in 2012 was significantly higher
than the rate for the comparator prison and more than nine times the
DRC average.
Inmate on staff assaults increased by 12.8 percent between 2010 and
2012.
The rate of inmate on staff assaults in 2012 was significantly higher
than the rate for the comparator prison and more than seven times the
DRC average.
Fights
Acceptable
Rule 19 (fight) convictions decreased 37.7 percent from 2011 through
the first 11 months of 2012.
The rate of conduct reports for rule 19 violations at SOCF was higher
than that of the comparator prison as well as the DRC average.
Disturbances
Acceptable
The number of disturbances doubled in comparison to the two reported
in 2010
The number of disturbances is higher than for the comparator prison,
but lower than the DRC average.
Use of Force
Acceptable
Total uses of force decreased by 18.9 percent between 2010 and
3
CIIC ratings are based on a four point scale: Exceptional, Good, Acceptable, and In Need of Improvement. Ratings for the overall area are
based on the balance of the indicator ratings for that area. A rating of “Exceptional” for an indicator means that there is no room for improvement
and, generally, that the facility performs above other prisons. A rating of “Good” for an indicator means that the prison more than meets the
standard, but is not significantly better than other prisons or there is still room for improvement. A rating of “Acceptable” for an indicator means
that the prison just meets the standard or meets the standard with minor exceptions. A rating of “In Need of Improvement” for an indicator means
that the prison does not meet standards, is significantly different from other prisons in a negative manner, or that CIIC staff had serious concerns.
2012. Use of chemical agents decreased by 1.7 percent between
2010 and 2012.
However, the use of force rate in 2012 was higher than the comparator
prison and four times more than the DRC average.
Every file contained the necessary documentation and there were
minimal minor documentation errors.
The majority of incidents as well as officers’ responses were
appropriate. It was noted that there were a few occurrences where
officers appeared to intervene in an inmate altercation without another
officer’s assistance or the use of OC.
A few officer statements lacked detail or failed to mention directives
issued prior to use of force. However, staff relayed they are working to
improve the quality of officer statements including, but not limited to
the specific amounts of OC utilized during an incident.
Access to Illegal
Substances
Good
During six months of drug screenings, 1.5 percent of the inmates
tested positive for the presence of an illegal substance, which is low.
Rounds
Good
Officers consistently documented requisite rounds in the requisite 30
minute, staggered intervals.
The Warden and DWO documented the most rounds. The DWSS and
the UMC generally documented only one or two rounds during the
reviewed month (the UMC was reportedly out of the institution for a
number of weeks).
With the exception of a period in which the Inspector served as the
ADO, neither Inspector was on the unit at all during the one month
period, which needs to be addressed.
Exceptional
Staff consistently documented requisite cell searches (aka
shakedowns).
CIIC’s review of cells indicated minimal concerns, with clotheslines
being the most frequent issue.
Executive staff were able to clearly demonstrate that they had
Security
Management
reviewed data pertaining to serious incidents impacting safety and
security and that they had developed initiatives in response to the
information gathered.
Significant Inmate
Survey Responses
80.9 percent of inmate respondents reported that inmates are very
safe, safe, or neutral (in terms of safety) at the institution.
HEALTH AND WELLBEING: GOOD
INDICATORS
RATING
FINDINGS
Unit Conditions
Good
The average level of cleanliness for cells was rated as good or
acceptable across all housing units. Although showers were leaking,
they were all rated as good or exceptional.
There were minimal maintenance concerns.
Medical Services
Good
Facilities were acceptable in terms of overall cleanliness.
Staff reported zero backlogs for appointments.
Staff vacancies were low and in the process of being filled.
Staff estimated that the AMA (Against Medical Advice) rate is 2-3
percent for chronic care caseload offenders, which is very low.
Mental Health
Services
Good
There were no backlogs regarding access to mental health services
reported by staff.
Staff vacancies were low.
The Residential Treatment Unit was observed to be in good condition.
However, three suicides occurred at the facility in 2012, which is the
highest in the DRC and needs to be addressed.
Recovery Services
Good
Staff prioritizes high risk level offenders for treatment programming.
The Substance Abuse Mental Illness (SAMI) program is the only one in
the state that is recovery services approved for the seriously mentally ill
population.
Food Services
Good
CIIC rated the sampled meal as acceptable.
Food service operations passed its most recent health inspection with
zero violations.
Food service staff developed an apprenticeship program.
Recreation
Good
Physical facilities were clean and in good working order.
The recreation department facilitates several unique activities that
benefit the community, such as its horticulture and quilting programs.
Only a small number of respondents to CIIC’s inmate survey reported
that the recreation schedule is rarely or never followed.
Significant Inmate
Survey Responses
The majority of all responding inmates who reported having mental or
emotional problems also stated that they had adequate access to
mental health services.
The majority of respondents to CIIC’s inmate survey indicated that they
were either neutral or satisfied with their access to recreation.
FAIR TREATMENT: IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT
INDICATORS
Staff Accountability
Inmate Discipline
RATING
In Need of
Improvement
Acceptable
FINDINGS
Inmates in focus groups relayed concerns regarding treatment by
officers, particularly regarding poor communication and the use of
group punishment.
82.8 percent of total inmate respondents indicated that most staff
conducted themselves professionally only sometimes or rarely.
61.4 percent of total respondents indicated that they had been
harassed, threatened, or abused by staff.
Staff generally follow DRC procedures for disciplinary hearings.
However, staff occasionally failed to ensure that mental health
evaluations were being conducted and that treatment team
recommendations were being considered.
Inmate Grievance
Procedure
Segregation
Significant Inmate
Survey Responses
In Need of
Improvement
Good
17.4 percent of responses to informal complaints were outside the
seven day timeframe.
4.1 percent of informal complaints did not receive a response.
Inmate survey responses regarding their perceptions of the fairness of
the grievance procedure were predominantly negative.
However, CIIC’s review of a random sample of informal complaint and
grievance responses indicated that staff were professional and
responsive to inmate’s reported concerns.
The segregation units overall appeared clean, although the cells could
use repainting and the showers in J1 were in need of improvement.
The segregation population did not include a large number of inmates
held on lengthy investigation status
63.8 percent of total respondents reported that they normally have
access to informal complaints;
64.9 percent of inmate respondents reported that they did not know
who the Inspector was;
88.7 percent of total respondents indicated that they did not feel that
informal complaints are generally dealt with fairly at the institution;
73.6 percent of total respondents indicated that they do not generally
receive a response to informal complaints within seven days or did not
receive a response at all;
88.1 percent of total respondents indicated that they do not feel that
grievances are generally dealt with fairly;
43.9 percent of total respondents reported that they had felt at some
point that they were prevented from using the grievance procedure
when they had wanted to.
REHABILITATION AND REENTRY: ACCEPTABLE
INDICATORS
RATING
FINDINGS
Access to
Purposeful Activities
In Need of
Improvement
Space on six 4B living units for unit or educational program delivery is
limited to five program cages. Space on three 4B living units is limited
to just one program cage.
Two teacher vacancies are in need of being filled so that more inmates
may be moved off the waitlists and into educational programming.
SOCF’s ratio of inmates on academic waitlists to those enrolled was
worse than the DRC average in FY 2012 and worse than the
comparator prison, although the ratio of inmates on academic waitlists
improved from 2010 to 2012.
Quality of
Educational
Programming
Exceptional
There were increases in the GED passage rate and academic
certificate of achievement in 2012.
Instructional skills and strategies used by the SOCF teacher were
varied and prompted high engagement from the students.
Library
Acceptable
The number of hours that the library is open is 99.5 percent greater
than the DRC average and 55.5 percent greater than the average hours
in the comparator prison.
The librarian has initiated and supports five inmate book clubs with
approximately 20 inmates in each club.
Based on number of materials, inmates have access to materials at a
36.5 percent lower rate per inmate than inmates across the DRC and a
80.5 percent lower per capita rate than its comparator prison.
Ohio Penal
Industries
Reentry Planning
N/A
In Need of
Improvement
SOCF does not have an OPI shop.
Surveyed inmates indicated that staff have not discussed what
programs they should be taking, have not discussed reentry plans with
them, and they do not know where to obtain post-release information
C I I C : S o u t h e r n O h i o C o r r e c t i o n a l F a c i l i t y | 10
regarding county agencies, continuing health care, housing, and
recovery services.
Inmates in focus group indicated more programs are needed to prepare
them for handling finances and employment at reentry.
Inmates in focus group reported that practical hands-on experiences
and direct and individualized staff assistance is lacking; however,
printed reentry information is supplied.
Respondents in a sample group of near-release inmates surveyed
indicated that staff have not adequately discussed programs and
reentry plans, nor are inmates aware of where to obtain post-release
information.
Security
Classification and
Privilege Levels
Significant Inmate
Survey Responses
Exceptional
There were zero overdue classification reviews pending.
86 percent of respondents (n=136) indicated staff have not discussed a
reentry plan with them.
79.1 percent of respondents (n=134) indicated they do not know where
to find reentry resources.
72.8 percent of respondents (n=136) indicated that staff have not
discussed the programs they should be taking while incarcerated.
73 percent of respondents (n=115) indicated they do not know how to
obtain county agency information relevant to their release.
79.6 percent of respondents (n=98) indicated it is difficult to get
placement into vocational training.
50 percent of respondents (n=106) indicated it is difficult to get into
academic programming.
placement into recovery services programs.
placement into unit programs.
FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY: EXCEPTIONAL
INDICATORS
Staffing
RATINGS
FINDINGS
Good
The institution was 100 percent compliant in its most recent fiscal audit
conducted.
Staff completed 673 (99 percent) of 680 required performance
evaluations on time.
None of the officers interviewed rated morale as high or very high.
However, all of the officers considered SOCF to be a well-run
institution.
The Warden relayed multiple creative efforts to reduce overtime and
improve staff morale, which were demonstrably effective.
Fiscal Responsibility
and Needs
Exceptional
Reduced natural gas costs by 44.2 percent and reduced water costs
by 10.4 percent.
Energy conservation project provides an estimated cost savings of
$396,537 annually in utilities.
In 2012, the recycling program produced $1,397.07 of revenue.
Property Loss
Exceptional
In FY 2012, SOCF reduced its property loss payout by 26 percent.
RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY
Evaluate the high rates of violence within the institution, especially the increase
of assaults since 2010, and determine contributing causes and patterns.
One or both of the Inspectors should conduct rounds through the units on a
regular (preferably weekly) basis.
Evaluate contributing causes for the high number of suicides in 2012.
Conduct an audit of first aid boxes on the housing units and cleaning chemical
inventories.
Develop additional strategies to address negative inmate/staff interactions at
SOCF, or negative perceptions that inmates may have of the interactions.
Ensure that inmates on the mental health caseload are being appropriately
screened prior to the RIB hearing and that any recommendations made by
mental health staff are considered.
Confirm the inmate’s statement at his RIB hearing with the inmate, either
verbally or through a linked monitor.
Executive staff should ensure that all staff are responding to informal complaints
in a timely manner.
The Chaplain should conduct weekly rounds through the segregation unit, in line
with DRC policy.
ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS
Consider utilizing portable cameras whenever possible, to document incidents
when it is likely force will be used (i.e. when attempting to address an inmate
who has recently assaulted an inmate or staff member from their cell).
Consider
evaluating
whether
staff
are
sufficiently
gang/unauthorized group activity through rule 17 conduct reports.
documenting
Consider surveying inmates regarding the food quality and determine whether
there are options to improve the quality of the meals without increasing costs.
Consider painting cells when funds are available.
Consider developing strategies to address negative inmate perceptions of the
grievance procedure, such as through inmate focus groups.
Consider developing strategies to improve access to programs and other
purposeful activities, both formal and informal.
Consider developing strategies to improve access to communication between
inmates and their families and communities.
Consider increasing the number of materials to raise the per capita rate of
materials in the library, such as through access to audio books.
Consider additional strategies to encourage inmate reading, such as through a
tracking system for inmate interests (as utilized at the comparator prison, OSP).
Consider adding another computer for reentry resources, as well as software
(Microsoft Office) for the development of word processing skills and resume
drafting.
Consider developing strategies to increase inmates’ knowledge of reentryrelated resources needed post-release, as well as strategies to improve
community connections.
Consider designating an additional position or person as the Reentry
Coordinator (or creating an Assistant Reentry Coordinator).
DRC ACTION PLANS IN RESPONSE
Issue Problem noted by CIIC – Assaults
Inmate on inmate assaults increased 43.4 percent between 2010 and 2012
The rate of inmate on inmate assaults in 2012 was significantly higher than the rate for the comparator prison and more
than nine times the DRC average
Inmate on staff assaults increased by 12.8 percent between 2010 and 2012
The rate of inmate on staff assaults in 2012 was significantly higher than the rate for the comparator prison and more than
seven times the DRC average
The Southern Ohio Correctional Facility has developed the below listed action plan to address the CIIC
Person Responsible
identified problem area of Assaults:
1. Warden
1. SOCF will utilize the Back-to-Basics approach, with the assistance of the Violence Oversight
2. DWO
Committee, to evaluate all violence indicators to try and identify causes and patterns dealing with
3. Major
assaults
4. STG Coordinator
2. The majority of the assaults at SOCF occurred in the 4B housing units between 2010 and 2012,
5. Unit Managers
with the majority of these assaults being classified as harassment. SOCF has implemented the
6. Custody
following strategies in an attempt to decrease violence:
Supervisors
a. Implementation of the Behavioral Modification Housing Unit (K2) that houses inmates who
7. UMC
violate Rule 6 and 7.
8. Investigator
i.
With the modification of eight cells (lexan front) and twelve cells (steel front),
there are now
twenty (20) cells available for offenders to be
placed into immediately following a violation of a Rule 6 or 7 for a period of up
to 30 days. Once the offender has completed the 30 day period and his
behavior has improved, he will be progressed through the behavioral
modification program until his return to a regular 4B housing unit. While the
offender is in this program they will have restricted property limits, restricted
commissary limits, reduced telephone privileges, and access to video
programming only (no sports incentive television programs). The Cage Your
Rage program is a part of the programming for this housing unit.
b. Implementation of the yellow lines being painted on the floors of the 4B housing units
ii.
Yellow Lines provide staff with a guide as to how far to be away from the cell
fronts to give them the best possible visual into the cells that they are
approaching to watch for a potential assault. This gives the staff member the
ability to evade an attempted assault as well as to avoid the utilization of
chemical agent.
c. Escorting procedures were implemented in all 4B housing units
iii.
Corrections Officers are required to escort all 4B offenders for all activities.
This serves as a deterrent with staff presence in the immediate area
d. SOCF continues to utilize the Cell Privilege Denial (DRC 4087) process anytime an
offender’s actions warrants a reduction of privilege(s).
1. SOCF has developed an STG database used to track all incidents of violence. These incidents are
reviewed and offender interviews are conducted. This information is used to identify problem areas and
facilitate offender maintenance moves in an attempt to avoid any future violence.
2. Since January 2012, SOCF maintenance staff and IT personnel have been working on upgrading the
existing camera system and adding cameras to areas identified as problem areas. These cameras will
give SOCF the ability to monitor and identify any offender who participates in any act of violence. This
will also give SOCF the ability to capture the video footage of any act of violence, and any subsequent
Use of Force, from the onset of the incident through its completion, to include the processing of the
offender into segregation.
3. The Warden and key supervisors are instructing in-service classes in educating staff on proactive
measures used to reduce violence at SOCF
4. The DWO conducts weekly operations meetings with departmental staff to address identified problem
areas and potential incidents of violence.
5. At the conclusion of any act of violence, the Department Head / Supervisor will conduct an After Action
Report to review all aspects of the incident in an attempt to prevent a similar act of violence.
6. STG. The STG Coordinator will continue to monitor and issue all Rule 17 conduct reports in an effort to
deter any gang/ unauthorized group activity in an effort to reduce acts of violence.
Comments:
Issue Problem noted by CIIC – Inmate Grievance Procedure
17.4 percent of responses to informal complaints were outside the seven day timeframe
4.1 percent of informal complaints did not receive a response
However, CIIC’s review of a random sample of informal complaint and grievance responses indicated that staff were
professional and responsive to inmate’s reported concerns.
Person Responsible
concern Inmate Grievances:
1. James Goodman,
INSP
Tasks
2. Linnea Mahlman, IIS
1. Continue to monitor the standard of less than 15% for untimely ICR responses.
2. Remind staff of the importance of timely ICR responses at Department Head and Executive Staff
Meetings.
3. IIS Mahlman has been instructing a block of instruction on the Inmate Grievance procedure during
annual In-Service Training.
4. The Inspector’s Office has, and will continue to, send out reminders to staff that there is an untimely or
unanswered ICR that has been sent to their department
5. SOCF will continue to educate inmates by television posting and town hall meetings of proper filing and
distribution procedures for ICRs.
6. Educate staff members on the need to quote specific policy and/or administrative regulations regarding
the issue being grieved
Comments:
Issue
Problem noted by CIIC – Access to Purposeful Activities
Space on six 4B living units for educational program delivery is limited to five program cages. Space on three 4B living
units limited to just one program cage.
Two teacher vacancies are in need of being filled so that more inmates may be moved off the waitlists and into educational
programming.
SOCF’s ratio of inmates on academic waitlists to those enrolled was worse than the DRC average in FY 2012 and worse
than the comparator prison, although the ratio of inmates on academic waitlists improved from 2010 to 2012.
Person Responsible
concern of Reentry Programming:
1. DWO William Cool
1. Space for programming in 4B is seven (7) programming booths for K-1 through K-4 and seven
2. DWSS Anthony
(7) programming booths for J1 through J-4. Programming for the 4B inmates is also ran
Cadogan
through video programming utilizing the televisions on the 4B housing ranges.
3. UMC Cynthia Davis
2. The two teacher positions have been posted and the applications are in the process of being
4. Gail Creed, RSC
screened. Once these positions are filled, the academic waitlist will diminish.
5. Dirk Prise, MHA
3. The ratio of inmates on the waitlist to those enrolled will decrease with the filling of the teacher
6. Unit Managers
positions.
4. Programs for lower functioning inmates are available in the Library: Hooked on Phonics;
Rosetta Stone (Spanish to English);
5. The establishment and improvement of the Faith Based Housing Unit, Kairos programs, and
start up of the Prison Ministry mentoring program with the Faith Based inmates.
6. A horticultural program has been ran at SOCF for several years as a community service
program where inmates raise produce from seed to a finished project, which is donated to local
pantries.
7. The Thinking for a Change program is currently being facilitated in the RTU housing unit.
8. SOCF will continue to explore additional ways to increase programming services to inmates
depending upon staffing and space availability.
9. SOCF has made additional training opportunities to non-traditional treatment staff members
(i.e., secretary) to increase programming opportunities for inmates.
10. SOCF continues to solicit and will continue all efforts for outside volunteers to assist in
programming.
11. On February 26-27, twenty-three inmates received training to become inmate tutors. Ten of
these inmates will be assigned to the Library to assist other inmates in obtaining reentry related
information.
Comments:
Issue Problem noted by CIIC – Reentry Planning
Surveyed inmates indicated that staff have not discussed what programs they should be taking, have not discussed
reentry plans with them, and they do not know where to obtain post-release information regarding county agencies,
continuing health care, housing. And recovery services.
Inmates in focus group indicated more programs are needed to prepare them for handling finances and employment at
reentry.
Inmates in focus groups reported that practical hands-on experiences and direct and individualized staff assistance is
lacking; however, printed reentry information is supplied.
Respondents in a sample group of near-release inmates surveyed indicated that staff have not adequately discussed
programs and reentry plans, nor are inmates aware of where to obtain post-release information.
Person Responsible
concern of Reentry Programming:
1. Cynthia Davis, UMC
2. Reentry Committee
1. Specific section of the Library has been designated for Reentry purposes.
2. Identification of six (6) computers located in the Library for use in Reentry activities. Resume
preparation, typing tutorial, word processing skills (MicroSoft), community contact information, and
other reentry related topics.
3. On February 26-27, twenty-three inmates received training to become inmate tutors. Ten of these
inmates will be assigned to the Library to assist other inmates in obtaining reentry related
information.
4. SOCF Warden has created a Reentry Committee which will assist the Reentry Coordinator with all
aspects of the Reentry Program. The offender’s assigned case manager is responsible for ensuring
all aspects for release and reentry back into the community. This includes providing the offender
community resources available in the offender’s release area. The SOCF Reentry Committee will
be creating a formal reentry program tailored to meet the needs of our high security offenders. This
committee will be working closely with the local JRO and the regional APA Reentry Coordinator in
the formation of this program and will be referencing the OSP reintegration model.
5. SOCF will work with the local JRO and the regional APA Reentry Coordinator in holding quarterly
reentry seminars for all inmates who are 90-120 days from release.
6. Reentry Coalition video has a DVD coming out that has been requested by SOCF and is planned to
be shown on the SOCF video channel once a month for all inmates to become familiar with.
7. Warden Morgan has advised unit staff that prior to offenders being released, all necessary attempts
will be made to contact family members/friends and/or community support groups.
Comments:
Issue
Problem noted by CIIC – Staff Accountability
Inmates in focus groups relayed concerns regarding treatment by officers, particularly regarding poor communication and
the use of group punishment.
82.8 percent of total inmate respondents indicated that most staff conducted themselves professionally only sometimes or
rarely.
61.4 percent of total respondents indicated that they had been harassed, threatened, or abused by staff.
The Southern Ohio Correctional Facility has developed the below listed action plan to address the
CIIC concern of Staff Accountability:
The Warden and executive staff has been and will continue to instruct during In-Service training
concerning the importance of open lines of communication, and the need for inmate interaction,
Inter Personal Communication Skills, as well as the benefits that result from good
communications.
2. Executive staff as well as supervisors and the Inspector’s Office following up on complaints
involving alleged inappropriate or unprofessional communications and/or actions involving staff.
1.
Person Responsible
1. DWO William Cool
2. DWSS Anthony Cadogan
4. Major David Warren
5. James Goodman, IIS
Comments:
Issue
Recommendation noted by CIIC – Develop additional strategies to address negative inmate/staff interactions at SOCF, or
negative perceptions that inmates may have of the interactions.
Tasks
The Southern Ohio Correctional Facility has developed the below listed action plan to address the
CIIC concern of Staff Accountability:
The Warden and executive staff has been and will continue to instruct during In-Service training
concerning the importance of open lines of communication, and the need for inmate interaction,
Inter Personal Communication Skills, as well as the benefits that result from good
communications.
Executive staff as well as supervisors and the Inspector’s Office following up on complaints
involving alleged inappropriate or unprofessional communications and/or actions involving staff.
Comments:
Person Responsible
1. DWO William Cool
2. DWSS Anthony Cadogan
4. Major David Warren
Issue Recommendation noted by CIIC –Conduct an audit of First Aid boxes in all housing areas and cleaning chemical inventories.
Tasks
1. On February 19, 2013, Regional Director Edwin C. Voorhies along with several staff conducted
an institutional site visit of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility and found the institution in
compliance in these areas.
2. On February 28, 2013, the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility completed its annual OSHA
inspection and received 100% compliance in all areas.
3. On February 26, 2013 the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility received its annual State Fire
Marshall inspection report with no violations noted.
Person(s) Responsible
1. William Cool, DWO
2. Greg Holdren, Health
and Safety Officer
Comments:
Issue Recommendation noted by CIIC – The Chaplain should conduct weekly rounds through the segregation unit.
Tasks
1. On February 7, 2013, DWSS Cadogan held a meeting with both Chaplains re-iterating the
importance of making rounds in the segregation unit.
2. DWSS Cadogan developed a tracking mechanism to ensure appropriate rounds are being
completed.
Comments:
Person Responsible
1. Anthony Cadogan, DWSS
Issue Recommendation noted by CIIC – Executive staff should ensure that all staff are responding to informal complaints in a timely
manner.
Tasks
Person Responsible
1. Continue to monitor the standard of less than 15% for untimely ICR responses.
2. Remind staff of the importance of timely ICR responses at Department Head and Executive Staff
Meetings.
3. Executive Staff
3. IIS Mahlman has been instructing a block of instruction on the Inmate Grievance procedure
during annual In-Service Training.
4. The Inspector’s Office has, and will continue to, send out reminders to staff that there is an
untimely or unanswered ICR that has been sent to their department SOCF will continue to
educate inmates by television posting and town hall meetings of proper filing and distribution
procedures for ICRs.
5. Educate staff members on the need to quote specific policy and/or administrative regulations
regarding the issue being grieved
Comments:
Issue Recommendation noted by CIIC – Ensure that inmates on the mental health caseload are being appropriately screened prior to
the RIB hearing and that any recommendations made by mental health staff are considered.
Tasks
Person Responsible
1. Warden Morgan met with his Administrative Assistant reiterating that the Mental Health
1. Larry Greene, Warden’s
Assessment/RIB DRC 2530 form will be accurately completed for each inmate prior to the RIB
Administrative Assistant
hearing.
2. Any mental health recommendation will be taken into consideration and the RIB chair will make
arrangements for mental health staff to be present during the RIB hearing.
3. On February 15, 2013, the RIB chair was instructed to permit all inmates to review their
testimony prior to signing. This is accomplished by giving the inmates the ability to review their
testimony on the RIB monitor before they sign.
Comments:
Issue Recommendation noted by CIIC –One or both of the Inspector’s should conduct rounds through the units on a regular (preferably
weekly) basis.
Tasks
Person Responsible
1. Warden Morgan met with both Inspectors and reiterated the importance of conducting weekly unit
1. Warden Donald R.
rounds. Additionally, his expectations for unit rounds were relayed to them.
Morgan
Comments:
Issue Recommendation noted by CIIC – Evaluate contributing causes for the high number of suicides in 2012.
Tasks
Person Responsible
The Southern Ohio Correctional Facility has taken the following steps in the area of inmate suicides:
1. Dirk Prise, MHA
1. On January 13, 2013, Director Mohr assembled a focus group of multi-disciplinary
2. Bet Goodman, MHNS
departments to identify reasons and to develop strategies related to suicide prevention.
3. David Warren, Major
2. In addition to the focus group recommendations, SOCF has implemented the following
strategies:
a) Increased rounds to be conducted by Unit Staff
b) Increased rounds on weekends/holidays by security supervisors
c) Identification of C-1 inmates being placed into segregation to ensure they are not
placed into a solid front cell (use of lexan cells)
d) Increased roll call announcements concerning inmate suicide warning signs
e) Increased suicide drills being ran in cell blocks
f) Increased rounds by Mental Health Nurses in all 4B, segregation and RTU housing
units
g) Implementation of moving high risk C-1/SMI 4B inmates to one centralized location
(K-4)
Comments:
Issue Suggestion noted by CIIC – Consider surveying inmates regarding the food quality and determine whether there are options to
improve the quality of the meals without increasing costs.
Tasks
The Southern Ohio Correctional Facility follows the 60-FSM-02 policy in regards to food service and
follows the Armed Forces Recipes and scheduling.
Person Responsible
1. Anthony Cadogan, DWSS
2. Sean Taylor, FSM 1
.
Comments:
Issue Suggestion noted by CIIC – Consider painting cells when funds are available.
Tasks
The Southern Ohio Correctional Facility makes an effort to have all cells painted
as needed depending on cell availability and painting supplies. Unit Managers
are responsible for the cells in their assigned units and identifying cells that are in
need of repainting.
.
Comments:
Person Responsible
1. Unit Managers
2. Mike Clark, Maint Sup.
II. SAFETY AND SECURITY
CIIC EXPECTATION: Prisons will provide a safe and secure environment for all
inmates.
A. ASSAULTS
In 2012, there were 347 reported inmate on inmate assaults.viii Of the total, 71.2
percent were harassment assaults and 28.8 percent were physical assaults.ix Total
inmate on inmate assaults increased by 43.4 percent from 20104 to 2012.5
The rate of inmate on inmate assaults in 2012 was significantly higher than the rate of
the comparator prison and more than nine times the DRC average.6x
The institution also reported 203 inmate on staff assaults in 2012.xi Of the total, 79.3
percent were harassment assaults, 19.7 percent were physical assaults, 0.5 percent
were inappropriate physical contact, and 0.5 percent were sexual assaults.xii Total
inmate on staff assaults increased by 12.8 percent from 2010 to 2012.
The rate of inmate on staff assaults in 2012 was significantly higher than the rate of the
comparator prison and more than seven times the DRC average.7xiii
Number of Assaults
Chart 1
Total Assaults
CY 2010 - 2012
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
-
Inmate on Staff
Inmate on Inmate
4
2010
180
242
2011
224
348
2012
203
347
2013 YTD
14
10
Updated 2010 information provided by the institution.
Staff relayed that the assault data is based on reported assaults by staff prior to the inmate being found
guilty at the Rules Infraction Board. Therefore, total substantiated assaults may be slightly lower.
6
The rate of inmate on inmate assaults in 2012 was 262.7 per 1,000 inmates. The rate of inmate on
inmate assaults in 2012 for comparator prisons was 15.6 per 1,000 inmates. The rate of inmate on
inmate assaults in 2012 for DRC was 29.05 per 1,000 inmates (projected rate based on data from
January through September 2012).
7
The rate of inmate on staff assaults in 2012 was 153.7 per 1,000 inmates. The rate of inmate on staff
assaults in 2012 for comparator prisons was 69.2 per 1,000 inmates. The rate of inmate on inmate
assaults in 2012 for DRC was 20.91 per 1,000 inmates (projected rate based on data from January
through September 2012).
5
B. FIGHTS8
Fights are documented via RIB convictions for rule 19 (fight) violations. Rule 19
convictions decreased 37.7 percent from 2011 through the first 11 months of 2012. 9 In
2012, the institution recorded a rate of 182.9 RIB fight convictions per 1,000 inmates.10
The rate of conduct reports for rule 19 violations at SOCF was higher than the average
for the comparator prison as well as the DRC average. The following provides a
comparison of the rate of documented rule 19 violations per 1,000 inmates across the
DRC.
Chart 2
Rule 19 Violation (Fights) Rates11
January – November 2012
350
300
250
182.9
200
150
100
50
Level
1/2
Level
3
Level Reception
4/5
DCI
FMC
NEPRC
ORW
CRC
LorCI
OSP
SOCF
LeCI
ManCI
RCI
TCI
ToCI
WCI
AOCI
BeCI
CCI
GCI
HCF
LAECI
LoCI
MaCI
MCI
NCCI
NCI
PCI
RICI
SCI
0
Medical/
Female
C. DISTURBANCES12
In the first eleven months of 2012, SOCF reported four disturbances. The number of
disturbances doubled in comparison to the two reported in 2010. xiv The number of
disturbances is higher for comparator prisons, but lower than the DRC average. 13
8
The total number of RIB convictions for rule 19 violations does not correlate to a total number of fights.
For example, seven inmates might have been involved in one fight – all seven inmates would have been
found guilty by the RIB for a rule 19 violation and would therefore be included in the total number.
9
In 2011, the facility reported 387 rule 19 convictions; in the first eleven months of 2012, the facility
reported 241 rule 19 violations.
10
The rate was obtained by dividing the total number of rule 19 violations for January through November
2012 by the average monthly institutional population for that same time period.
11
Rate is per 1,000 inmates.
12
Disturbances are defined as any event caused by four or more inmates that disrupts the routine and
orderly operation of the prison.
13
The average number of disturbances for comparator prisons was 2 and 4.5 for DRC system-wide.
Chart 3
Total Disturbances by Institution
January – November 2012
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Level
1/2
Level
3
Level Reception
4/5
DCI
FMC
NEPRC
ORW
CRC
LorCI
OSP
SOCF
LeCI
ManCI
RCI
TCI
ToCI
WCI
AOCI
BeCI
CCI
GCI
HCF
LAECI
LoCI
MaCI
MCI
NCCI
NCI
PCI
RICI
SCI
4
Medical/
Female
D. USE OF FORCE
In 2012, the facility reported 407 use of force14 incidents.xv Of the total, 65.4 percent
incidents involved black inmates, 33.0 percent involved white inmates, and 1.6 percent
involved inmates of another race. Compared to 2010, in which 502 uses of force were
reported, total uses of force decreased by 18.9 percent in two years. The use of force
rate in 2012 was higher than the comparator prison and four times more than the DRC
average.
In 2012, chemical agents (mace) were used 347 times.xvi This is 1.7 percent less than
chemical agents were used in 2010, in which chemical agents were used 353 times.xvii
In the six months prior to the inspection date (August 2012 – January 2013), chemical
agents were used 134 times.
CIIC’s review of use of force includes a sample of 20 randomly selected use of force
reports. Key findings include:
Every file contained the necessary documentation and there were minimal minor
documentation errors.
The majority of incidents as well as officers’ responses were appropriate. It was
noted that there were a few occurrences where officers appeared to intervene in
an inmate altercation without another officer’s assistance or the use of OC.
A few officer statements lacked detail or failed to mention directives issued prior
to use of force. However, staff relayed they are working to improve the quality of
14
Further information regarding use of force incidents can be found in the Glossary.
officer statements including, but not limited to the specific amounts of OC utilized
during an incident.
E. ACCESS TO ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES
During six months of drug screenings, 1.5 percent of the inmates tested positive
for the presence of an illegal substance.15 In the most recent monthly drug test,
0.8 percent of the sample were found positive for an illegal substance.16 In
comparison, 3.3 percent of inmates tested statewide in October 2012 were
positive for drug use.xviii
CIIC’s inmate survey includes questions regarding access to illegal substances.
However, a large percentage of inmates refused to answer the questions and the
findings are therefore inconclusive.
F. ROUNDS
Housing unit officers are required to conduct security check rounds at least every
30 minutes at staggered intervals. Officers consistently documented requisite
rounds in the requisite 30 minute, staggered intervals.
Executive staff are also required to perform rounds through each housing unit.17
A review of the employee sign-in logs18 indicated that the Warden and DWO
documented the most rounds (three or more during the one month period). The
DWSS and the UMC generally documented only one or two rounds during the
reviewed month (the UMC was reportedly out of the institution for a number of
weeks).
With the exception of a period in which the Inspector served as the ADO, neither
Inspector conducted rounds during the one month period, which needs to be
addressed.
G. SECURITY MANAGEMENT
Cell/Bunk Searches (Shakedowns)
Housing unit officers are required to search inmates’ bunks for contraband, including
illegal drugs and weapons. A review of the daily unit logs indicated that staff
consistently documented at least the requisite three cell searches per shift.
15
Each DRC institution conducts monthly urinalysis tests of a random sample of its population. The
urinalysis tests for the presence of a broad range of substances. Tests were conducted from June 2012
through November 2012. The institution randomly tested 332 inmates of which 5 tested positive. There
were no inmates tested in June 2012, August 2012, or November 2012.
16
Both inmates tested positive for alcohol.
17
Visibility of leadership is important in the correctional environment. It indicates they are aware of the
conditions within their facility, and it also serves to boost the morale of staff and inmates.
18
CIIC’s review of the employee sign-in logs generally covers the one month period prior to the date of
the inspection.
Cell Security Check
During the inspection, CIIC staff check a random selection of cells in each unit for
common cell security issues such as obstruction of windows, material in locks and
cuffports, inappropriate pictures, clotheslines, and graffiti. CIIC’s review of the cells
indicated minimal concerns with any of these issues, with clotheslines being the most
frequent issue observed.
STG Management
As of January 2, 2013, there were 630 STG-affiliated inmates, which was 46.6 percent
of the institutional population.xix The institutional percentage of STG-affiliated inmates is
lower than that of comparator prisons, but significantly higher than the DRC average. 19xx
STG activity is documented through rule 17 (unauthorized group activity) convictions.20
Rule 17 convictions increased by more than 38 percent from 2010 to 2012. 21 Despite a
46.6 percent STG-affiliated population, SOCF’s rate of rule 17 convictions was
significantly lower than the comparator prison as well as the DRC average. This could
possibly indicate an under-documentation of gang activity; however, staff relayed that
the lower rate is part of an overarching gang management strategy.
Staff Planning/Intelligence
A discussion was held with the Warden as part of the inspection. The Warden
demonstrated that he and other staff had reviewed data pertaining to serious incidents
impacting safety and security, such as assaults and fights. He clearly identified time
and location of incidents, as well as action steps that were being taken at the institution
in response to the information.
19
The percentage of STG-affiliated inmates for the comparator prison, OSP, was 55.6 and 16.6 percent
system-wide for DRC.
20
RIB convictions for rule 17 (unauthorized group activity) violations do not capture total gang activity in
an institution, as gang activity likely occurs that is not captured by staff supervision and/or documented
via a conduct report and RIB conviction.
21
In 2011, the facility reported a rate of 4.9 rule 17 convictions; in the first eleven months of 2012, the
facility reported a rate of 6.8 rule 17 violations.
SAFETY AND SECURITY RECOMMENDATIONS
Evaluate the high rates of violence within the institution, especially the increase
of assaults since 2010, and determine contributing causes and patterns.
Consider utilizing portable cameras whenever possible, to document incidents
when it is likely force will be used (i.e. when attempting to address an inmate
who has recently assaulted an inmate or staff member from their cell).
Consider
evaluating
whether
staff
are
sufficiently
documenting
gang/unauthorized group activity through rule 17 conduct reports.
One or both of the Inspectors should conduct rounds on a weekly basis.
III. HEALTH AND WELLBEING
CIIC EXPECTATION: Prisons will provide sanitary conditions and access to
adequate healthcare and wellness programming.
A. UNIT CONDITIONS
CIIC’s evaluation of unit conditions consists of direct observation of unit conditions.
Based on its observation, CIIC rated unit conditions as GOOD.
SOCF’s housing blocks consist of L side and K side, each with eight housing units. L
side units house 4A inmates. K side units house 4B inmates, special management
inmates, and the Residential Treatment Unit (K5). In addition, SOCF has J side, with
four housing units – J1 and J2 are segregation (addressed in the Fair Treatment
section) and J3 and J4 house inmates transitioning from segregation to 4B.
The average level of cleanliness for cells was rated as good or acceptable across all
housing units. The acceptable rating was generally due to minor issues with paint, as
some cells had chipped or peeling paint. Most inmates kept their areas clean and
orderly. No inmates complained of any issues with pests. CIIC noted temperatures in
units to be acceptable, with no inmate reports of temperature concerns.
Common areas at SOCF include only the unit floor, as inmates do not have access to
any dayrooms. Common areas were rated as good or exceptional and generally had
gleaming floors with minimal debris.
Each unit has four showers. The showers are stainless steel and were generally rated
as good or exceptional, with many appearing very clean and the worst having only
minor soap scum or rust issues. The primary issue with the showers appears to be that
many constantly leaking and some have begun leaking from the upper range to the
bottom range, causing peeling paint and other issues with the ceilings on the bottom
range. Inmates have access to toilets and sinks within their individual cells. Staff
reported generally reported zero maintenance concerns for toilets and sinks and where
there was a concern, no inmates were housed in the cell. Staff reported that
maintenance concerns are quickly addressed.
Two issues in need of being addressed at the facility are the first aid boxes on the
individual housing units and the chemical inventories. A number of the first aid boxes
had broken or missing ties and there was inconsistency between units and staff in the
appropriate management of cleaning chemicals.
B. MEDICAL SERVICES
CIIC’s inspection of medical services in a correctional facility focuses on cleanliness of
facilities, staffing, access to medical staff, and staff and inmate communication. The
inspection includes information collected from interviewing the health care administrator,
observations of the facilities and focus group discussions (two comprised of offenders
and one comprised of staff). CIIC does not evaluate the quality of medical care in a
facility. Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated medical services as GOOD.
Facilities
Medical facilities include seven offices, 12 exam rooms, 10 infirmary beds, one records
area, seven bathrooms, and two waiting areas. Overall, facilities were exceptionally
clean and orderly in appearance. Each of the cells in the infirmary was clean, with
adequate space for staff to observe offenders. Examination rooms were large and
organized to ensure services are provided safely and efficiently.
Staffing22
Nursing staff ratios are greater than other institutions;23
Since the 2011 inspection, the institution lost .5 physicians, one HIT, and one
Pharmacy Tech; however, the facility gained an additional nurse to solely
perform as the QIC, and one AHCA.
There were only two vacant nursing positions reported, both of which were in the
process of being filled.
Access to Medical Staff24
Average response times to kites and informal complaints were within policy;
Response times for requests for nurse and doctor appointments were within
policy;
The current backlogs for Nurse Sick Call, Doctor Sick Call, and Chronic Care
Clinics were reported to be zero; and,
Staff estimated that the AMA (Against Medical Advice)25 rate is 2-3 percent for
chronic care caseload offenders, which is significantly lower than the comparator
prison. Staff attributed the low percentage AMA rate to staff communicating with
the offenders, and being flexible with appointments.
22
The facility had one physician (who is the chief medical officer), one health care administrator, one
nurse practitioner, twelve registered nurses, five licensed practical nurses, one dentist, two dental
assistants, one hygienist, one phlebotomist, one x-ray technician, one diet tech, one assistant health care
administrator, one quality improvement coordinator nurse, and two health information technologists who
also perform scheduling.
23
The ratio of inmates to nurses at SOCF (RN and LPN) is 11.0. The DRC average (excluding
institutions with medical missions or that house females or geriatric populations) is 8.8.
24
Access to medical staff is evaluated based on several factors: (1) time period between inmate
submission of a health service request form and appointment with medical staff; (2) time period between
referral to the doctor and appointment with the doctor; (3) response times to kites and informal complaint
forms; and (4) current backlogs for Nurse Sick Call, Doctor Sick Call, and Chronic Care Clinic.
25
Per policy, an inmate can refuse services up to four times before he is brought before the doctor for
counseling.
Medical Deaths
There have only been three unexpected deaths since January 2011. All three were
reported to be from natural causes.
Staff Communication
A focus group of medical staff relayed the following:
Staff relayed that the collegial review has negatively impacted the quality of
care;26
Staff relayed concerns regarding the abuse of prescription medication;27
Concern was expressed that the doctor discontinues orders for prescriptions for
over the counter medications written at other institutions without first assessing
offenders; and,
Staff reported that the Quality Improvement Coordinator is developing meaningful
training scenarios for staff.
Inmate Communication.
CIIC staff conducted two focus groups of offenders in regard to medical care and also
includes questions pertaining to healthcare in its survey.
Inmates in both groups stated they are not receiving good medical care,28
particularly in regard to the care provided by the doctor;29
Inmates stated that there is a delayed response time to what they perceive as
medical emergencies;
Both groups expressed that the nursing staff does an excellent job;30 and,
Chronic care inmates stated that their medications are refilled in a timely
manner.31
26
The nurses relay that the reduced number of specialist visits will likely result in an incident where
needed treatment was not provided.
27
Staff reported that offenders are abusing the antidepressant venlafaxine (Effexor) in combination with
the medication carbamazepine (Tegretol), which is used to treat epilepsy. By crushing the two and
snorting it, they reportedly experience euphoric-like effect. The psychiatrist is reported reviewing this
situation for an appropriate solution. Staff also relayed concerns regarding inmates “cheeking” medication
(retaining prescription medication taken orally for later use or sale).
28
Health service requests (HSR) are supposed to be responded to within 48 hours. Of inmate survey
respondents (n=126), 43.7 percent reported that HSRs are usually addressed within this time frame, and
37.3 percent reported that this occurs sometimes. Only 19 percent stated that health service requests are
rarely were responded to within two days.
29
All of the complaints about the doctor were related to his very conservative use of prescription pain
medication and his bedside manner. Of respondents to the survey (n=119), 56.3 percent stated that they
were unsatisfied or very unsatisfied with the quality of care he provided.
30
Of respondents, (n=123), 86.2 percent stated that they are very satisfied, satisfied, or expressed a
neutral opinion of the quality of care provided by the nurses.
31
Of survey respondents who acknowledged they were on the chronic care caseload, (n=62) 69.4
percent of offenders stated that they receive timely follow-ups.
Further information regarding medical services can be found in the inspection checklist
in the Appendix.
C. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
CIIC’s inspection of mental health services in a correctional facility focuses on
cleanliness of facilities, staffing, access to mental health staff, and critical incident data.
CIIC does not evaluate the quality of care provided. Overall, the CIIC inspection team
rated mental health services as GOOD; overall, inmates appeared to have adequate
access, but the high number of suicides in 2012 needs to be addressed.
Facilities
Mental health facilities include facilities shared with the medical department. Offenders
who are on the mental health caseload that require close observation for a short period
of time are housed in the D-1 infirmary. The staff has offices dispersed throughout the
three housing blocks, which were noted to be adequate. Overall, the facilities appeared
clean and orderly.
K-5 Residential Treatment Unit
CIIC’s evaluation of Residential Treatment Unit (RTU) conditions consists of direct
observation of unit conditions. Based on its observation, CIIC rated unit conditions as
good.
On the day of the inspection, the RTU housed 62 offenders. The RTU is reserved for
offenders diagnosed as seriously mentally ill that have experienced a crisis and require
frequent interaction with mental health staff.
The average level of cleanliness for cells was rated as good. Most offenders kept their
cells clean and orderly. No offenders complained of any issues with pests. CIIC noted
temperatures in the unit to be acceptable. A review of contacts and concerns in the
CIIC database from January 2011 to the inspection indicates that there were no inmate
complaints regarding the conditions in the K-5 RTU.
The level of cleanliness for common area of the block was rated as excellent based on
the lack of garbage or debris, the lack of any foul odors, and the condition of the walls,
floors, and tables. It was reported that common areas are cleaned on a regular basis.
Staff reported that the showers are cleaned daily. CIIC rated the showers as good due
to the small amount of mildew on the walls and an odor of mildew that was noticeable in
a few of the shower stalls. On the date of the inspection there were one inoperable sink,
and no inoperable toilets on the unit. Staff reported that maintenance orders are
generally addressed within two days.
Staffing32
From 2011 to 2013, changes in mental health staffing consisted of the loss of
one RN, two social workers, and four activity therapists; however, they added
one RN supervisor, one HIT, and one Advanced Practice Nurse; and,
There were two vacancies reported.33
Access to Mental Health Staff34
32.8 percent of the total institutional population is on the mental health caseload,
which is an increase in comparison to 2011;
The majority of all offenders who responded to the survey question who
acknowledged they had mental or emotional problems stated that they had
adequate access to mental health services;
The average time period between referral to the psychologist or psychiatrist and
the appointment was reported to be 14 days or less;
There were no backlogs in any of these areas reported by staff;
Staff make regular rounds in segregation, and daily rounds in 4B housing blocks
to address any needs of offenders related to mental health services, and;
Staff is available 24 hours a day to respond to any crisis that arrive in the prison.
Suicides, Suicide Attempts, and Self-Injurious Behavior
Since January 2011, there have reportedly been three completed suicides at the facility,
all of which occurred in 2012. The total number of suicides is the highest of any DRC
institution in 2012 and a significant increase from prior years. There were seven suicide
attempts and nine incidents of self-injurious behavior.
Further information regarding mental health services can be found in the inspection
checklist in the Appendix.
D. RECOVERY SERVICES
CIIC’s evaluation of recovery services in a correctional environment focuses primarily
on access and quality (as determined by DRC staff). Overall, the CIIC inspection team
rated recovery services as GOOD.
32
Adequate staffing has a clear and direct connection to patient care. At the time of the inspection, the
facility had one psychologist, a psychiatrist, one advanced psychiatric nurse, ten psychiatric nurses and a
psychiatric nurse supervisor, a licensed social worker and a social work supervisor.
33
Vacancies included a psych assistant, a human services program administrator, and one nurse (but it
was filled with a contractor).
34
Access to mental health staff is evaluated based on several factors: (1) time period between inmate
submission of a mental health service request form and appointment with mental health staff; (2) time
period between referral and appointment with the psychologist or psychiatrist; (3) response times to kites
and informal complaint forms; and (4) current backlogs.
Access
Staff is prioritizing high risk level35 offenders in programming;36
63.1 percent of offenders have been screened for recovery services; 37
The institution offers three treatment programs: Treatment Readiness
Program/Intensive Outpatient Program (TRP/IOP), After Care/Recovery
Maintenance, and Substance Abuse Mentally Ill (SAMI);
Staff also facilitate several others programs such as self help programs like
Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings;
During 2012, 72 offenders completed all four programs, and 48 offenders
participated in self help programming;38
Currently there are 82 offenders enrolled in TRP, IOP, Recovery Maintenance,
and SAMI II programming;39
There were 48 offenders on the waiting list for the recovery services
programming and self help groups;
Based on these numbers, 15.7 percent of the total population who are identified
as eligible were involved in Recovery Services programming;
The Substance Abuse Mental Illness (SAMI) program is the only one in the state
that is recovery services approved. It consists of alcohol and other drug
education (AOD) with medication education;
Of survey respondents (n=114), 61.4 percent stated that they do not have
adequate access to recovery services;
Quality
The most recent DRC audit of the facility’s recovery service programs occurred in
March 22, 2012. The auditors reported that the Recovery Services Department
appears to be in order and running practices consistent with the department’s
mission, with only three deficiencies were reported during the audit. xxi
35
Each inmate is screened for the need for addiction services and assigned a number associated with a
recovery services level. This number indicates the degree to which offenders are in need of addiction
services. Offenders are scored from zero to three; zero indicating no need of services, to three indicating
chronic need for addiction services. This number is determined through completion of a need for services
assessment that gives an overall score resulting in the assignment to one of the recovery services levels.
Offenders who score either two or three are most in need of treatment; thus, they should be prioritized for
programming.
36
According to staff, zero risk level zero and one inmates were enrolled in formal recovery service
programming.
37
According to staff, there are 870 offenders assessed for recovery services. The remaining offenders
have not been either because they were incarcerated prior to the implementation of the screening tool or
bound over offenders.
38
Self help programs include Narcotics Anonymous, Alcoholics Anonymous, and Inner Circle.
39
SOCF has three recovery-services staff members, who can facilitate a class of 15 offenders at one time
in recovery services programming. The ratio of staff to offenders in the “self-help” programming is one
staff to 20 offenders.
E. FOOD SERVICES
CIIC’s inspection of food services includes eating the inmate meal, and observation of
the dining hall, food preparation area, and loading dock. CIIC also interviews the Food
Service Manager. Overall, food service was rated as GOOD.
Meal
The meal40 rated as acceptable based on the appropriate serving temperatures
and the seasoning of the potatoes and vegetables. However, the hamburger
patty lacked seasoning and was difficult to eat.41
Inmates considered the meal to be in need of improvement based on the lack of
season, poor quality of the hamburgers, and small portions. A review of the food
service kite log42 confirmed many of the same concerns. Further, 71.1 percent of
survey respondents (n=135) indicated that they were either unsatisfied or very
unsatisfied with the quality of the food served.
The most recent staff evaluation of the inmate meal was rated as good.43
Dining Hall
The dining hall contained only a small amount of food particles on the floor near
the exit door. There were no signs of debris on the table or under the serving
lines.
Food Preparation Area
The food preparation area was clean and clear of debris including the areas
around the inmate workers who were preparing the dinner meal.
The institution passed its most recent health inspection44 on December 27, 2012
with zero violations, which is better than most DRC institutions.
Staff Communication
Food service staff relayed that an apprenticeship program was implemented on
February 1, 2013.45
40
The meal consisted of the following: hamburger, oven brown potatoes, broccoli, two slices of white
bread, and an apple.
41
SOCF staff relayed that that inmates have voiced concern regarding the quality of the meat as well.
42
Per DRC Policy 50-PAM-02 (“Inmate Communication/Weekly Rounds”), the inmate kite system is a
means of two-way communication between all levels of staff and inmates. All kites are required to be
answered within seven calendar days and logged on the Kite Log.
43
Each DRC institution assigns one staff member, the Administrative Duty Officer (ADO), to taste and
evaluate the quality of the inmate meal. The most recent evaluation of the inmate lunch meal was
February 5, 2013. The meal consisted of the following: hot dogs, green beans, macaroni and cheese,
veggie nuggets, pineapple, and bread.
44
DRC institutions are inspected twice per year by their local county health inspector.
Staff relayed concerns regarding morale due to the recent announcement of the
privatization of DRC food service operations.
More information regarding CIIC’s inspection of food services can be found in the
checklist in the Appendix.
F. RECREATION
Engagement in recreational activities promotes positive physical and mental health.
CIIC’s evaluation of recreational facilities is based on three factors: facilities, activities,
and access. Overall, recreation was rated as GOOD, given the institution’s high security
level.
Facilities
Physical facilities46 appeared clean and in good condition. Only one maintenance
concern was reported regarding a broken scoreboard, but staff relayed that replacement
parts were ordered.
Activities
SOCF offenders are offered a range of activities for recreation,47 particularly given the
institution’s high security level. The recreation department offers most of the activities
permitted for Level 4 offenders.
The recreation department also facilitates several unique activities, many of which
benefit the local community. These activities include a quilting program, a horticulture
program, and displaying and donating inmate artwork. 48
45
A two-year program that teaches inmates how to prepare family-style meals for crews, residents, and
institution employees. The program requires 4,000 hours of on-the-job training for inmates to successfully
complete. As of February 6, 2013, three inmates were enrolled. There were six inmates at the start of the
program. However, three inmates have been transferred to other institutions.
46
Indoor recreation facilities at SOCF consist of two gymnasiums (one serving L-side and one serving Kside) with a full basketball court, cement bleachers, a multi-purpose room, and stage. Outdoor recreation
facilities include a basketball court, handball courts, a track, and a football/soccer field. There are also 36
indoor and 36 outdoor recreation cages for offenders that are not permitted to recreate in the gym due to
their security level or placement in segregation. Recreation cages are equipped with a decline/dip bar
and outside recreation cages also include a basketball hoop.
47
The recreation department operates several intramural sports leagues every season, including
basketball, flag football, handball, wiffle ball, kickball, dodge ball, rubberized bowling, volleyball, and
track/field. In addition, the recreation department facilitates various board game/card tournaments, free
throw tournaments, trivia contests, and a 40 and over walking program.
48
Offenders produce 50 quilts annually that are given to veterans in local nursing homes from donated
materials. The horticulture program utilizes RTU offenders to plant seeds in portable growing tables.
These plants are later moved to an outside garden where they are monitored by staff and honor offenders
from CCI. Staff reported that 28,000 pounds of produce were donated to homeless shelters in 2012.
Offenders also create greeting cards that are given to veterans, have had their artwork displayed in a
local art museum, and have created art for community events.
Access
Offenders are scheduled to receive at least 1.5 hours of recreation daily, for an average
of 10.5 hours each week.49 However, offenders assigned to J-block or K-block units 1-4
receive less recreation50 due to their disciplinary status or security level. Staff relayed
that the recreation schedule is generally followed, but that outdoor recreation periods
are canceled during inclement weather. A majority of respondents to CIIC’s inmate
survey reported that the recreation schedule is sometimes followed.51
Offenders were also surveyed regarding their satisfaction with access to recreation.
Respondents were equally divided regarding their satisfaction level, with the largest
percentage of offenders rating their satisfaction with access as neutral.52
HEALTH AND WELLBEING RECOMMENDATIONS
Conduct an audit of first aid boxes on the housing units and cleaning chemical
inventories.
Consider painting cells when funds are available.
Evaluate contributing causes for the high number of suicides in 2012.
Consider surveying inmates regarding the food quality and determine whether
there are options to improve the quality of the meals without increasing costs.
49
The L-block recreation schedule includes two outdoor recreation periods each week. These recreation
periods are canceled if there is inclement weather, therefore providing offenders with 1.5 hours of
recreation, five days per week.
50
Offenders assigned to these units are in segregation or are Level 4B and receive one hour of
recreation, five days per week in the recreation cages.
51
CIIC’s survey of offenders found that 53.7 percent of respondents (n=134) reported that the recreation
schedule is sometimes followed, 31.3 percent reported that it is usually or always followed, and 14.9
percent reported that it is rarely or never followed.
52
CIIC’s survey of offenders found that 7.5 percent of respondents (n=134) were very satisfied, 20.1
percent were satisfied, 32.1 percent were neutral, 20.9 percent were unsatisfied, and 19.4 percent were
very unsatisfied with access to recreation.
IV. FAIR TREATMENT
CIIC EXPECTATION: Prisons will provide fair and professional treatment of
inmates.
CIIC’s evaluation of fair treatment within a correctional setting focuses on the following
areas: staff accountability, inmate discipline, the inmate grievance procedure, and
segregation.
Overall, CIIC rates fair treatment at SOCF as IN NEED OF
IMPROVEMENT.
A. STAFF ACCOUNTABILITY
CIIC’s evaluation of staff accountability is based on its survey of inmates, inmate focus
groups, and analysis of grievance data. Overall, CIIC rates staff accountability as IN
NEED OF IMPROVEMENT.
Inmates in focus groups relayed concerns regarding treatment by officers,
particularly regarding poor communication and the use of group punishment;53
Inmates in focus groups also reported that officers are often quick to use OC
spray, particularly on younger inmates, in instances where if the officer had
utilized better verbal communication, the use of force could have been avoided
entirely.
Historically, allegations of negative staff/inmate interactions at SOCF – abusive
language, unprofessional conduct, excessive force – have been consistently
reported to CIIC by inmates.
82.8 percent of total respondents to CIIC’s survey (n=134) indicated that most
staff conducted themselves professionally only sometimes or rarely;
In response to the open-ended questions at the end of CIIC’s survey, most
inmates responded that there was nothing positive about the institution or that
single-celling and time alone was the only positive aspect. In response to the
one aspect that they would like to change at the facility, 38 inmates reported
concerns regarding abuse, harassment, excessive force, or racism by SOCF
staff;
61.4 percent of total respondents (n=132) indicated that they had been harassed,
threatened, or abused by staff, with the most common responses indicating that
the incident had involved insulting remarks, feeling threatened or intimidated, or
having their commissary/property taken;54
Approximately half of the respondents indicated that they did not feel that their
Case Manager or Unit Manager was helpful, with 11 inmates indicating that they
did not know who these people were.
53
For example, inmates relayed instances in which a select few inmates caused an issue and, in
response, an officer turned off electricity for the entire housing unit, shut down phones, or would not pass
ice. Inmates relayed that some officers are very disrespectful, that they intentionally instigate inmates,
and that they lack necessary verbal communication skills.
54
In comparison, only 40.8 percent of inmates at the comparator prison indicated that they had been
harassed, threatened, or abused by staff at the prison.
The rate of grievances against staff actions55 was double the DRC average,
although half the rate of the comparator prison; in addition, in comparison to CY
2011, the rate of grievances against staff actions decreased, indicating that this
may be trending positive.56
Positively, the Warden relayed that he personally conducts in-service training on
interpersonal communication skills to improve officers’ interactions with
inmates.57 In addition, the Warden relayed that he initiated a challenge to first
and second shift to improve communications with inmates, which has yielded
positive results.58
B. INMATE DISCIPLINE
CIIC’s evaluation of inmate discipline59 includes observation of Rules Infraction Board
(RIB) hearings and a review of a random sample of closed RIB cases. Overall, CIIC
rates inmate discipline as ACCEPTABLE, with a need for targeted attention to be given
to mental health screenings.
CIIC’s observation of RIB hearings at SOCF indicated that staff conduct fair
hearings that follow DRC procedures.60
However, staff did not confirm the
inmate’s statement with the inmate.
CIIC staff conducted a review of 20 closed RIB cases. CIIC staff found that staff
generally followed appropriate procedures61 and that there was a noted
improvement in comparison to the two prior evaluations that CIIC had performed
in 2011 and 2012. However, a primary concern raised by the review was staff’s
55
Grievances against staff actions are categorized into the following: supervision, discrimination, force,
and staff accountability.
56
The rate of grievances against staff was 87 per 1,000 inmates in 2011 and 72.7 per 1,000 inmates in
2012.
57
CIIC staff believe that negative staff/inmate interactions are part of the SOCF institutional history and
culture for both inmates and staff. It will take significant work and time to overcome both the practice and
the attitudes. However, CIIC also applauds the Warden for confronting the issue head-on and believes
that the Warden’s trainings and his actions as a role model for staff will create positive change over time.
58
The Warden measured interpersonal communication through (1) inmates placed in segregation; (2)
number of conduct reports, and (3) planned uses of force. The winning shift received pizza personally
delivered by the Warden and staff on the shift were entered into a lottery, the prize being a set of good
days.
59
Inmates charged with a rule infraction are given a conduct report (also known as a ticket). All conduct
reports are first heard by a hearing officer; if the offense is a minor offense, the hearing officer may
dispose of it himself. More serious offenses must be referred to the RIB, which is a two-person panel that
conducts a formal hearing, including witness testimony and evidence.
60
CIIC found that the RIB panel spoke clearly and communicated professionally with the inmate,
confirmed that the inmate had received a copy of the conduct report prior to the hearing, reviewed the
inmate rights form at the start of the hearing, sought and consulted evidence where applicable; and,
engaged in meaningful deliberation of both the evidence and the sanctions.
61
CIIC found that all hearings were held within the seven day timeframe; conduct reports listed the
appropriate rule violations and included a detailed statement of the inmate behavior constituting a rule
violation; and, all inmate rights forms were completed.
occasional failure to ensure that mental health evaluations were being conducted
and that treatment team recommendations were being considered.62
CIIC’s review indicated that inmates were given sanctions appropriate for the rule
violations and in line with other institutions.
C. INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (IGP)
CIIC’s evaluation of the inmate grievance procedure63 includes a review of a random
sample of informal complaints and grievances, observation of the Inspector, and data
analysis. Overall, CIIC rates the inmate grievance procedure as IN NEED OF
IMPROVEMENT.
In 2012, the Inspector documented receiving 2,611 informal complaints
resolutions (ICRs). Of the total, 4.1 percent did not receive a response. Of those
that did receive a response, 17.4 percent were outside of the seven day
timeframe mandated by DRC administrative rule. Both the rate of non-response
and the rate of untimely responses were above the DRC average.64
Chart 4
Untimely Response Rates to Informal Complaints by DRC Institution
CY 2012
50.0
40.0
30.0
17.4
20.0
10.0
62
WCI
LECI
SCI
BECI
GCC
LAECI
RICI
NCI
MACI
OSP
CRC
LOCI
TOCI
AOCI
NEPRC
NCCC
RCI
LORCI
TCI
MCI
SOCF
MANCI
HCF
CCI
ORW
PCI
DCI
FMC
0.0
For example, in one case, the inmate was on the mental health caseload, but his case was not
forwarded for screening by the mental health treatment team. In another case, mental health staff
marked that mental health staff should be present for the RIB hearing, but the recording of the hearing
indicated that no mental health staff were present. On a third case in which the inmate was on the mental
health caseload, the inmate rights form was not signed, the audio of the hearing indicated that the inmate
was not fully comprehending his rights, and the RIB chairperson documented that he did not consider the
mental health treatment team’s recommendation (this is likely due simply to the chairperson checking the
wrong box, but it is still a concern).
63
Pursuant to Section 103.73 of the Ohio Revised Code, the CIIC is required to evaluate the inmate
grievance procedure at each state correctional institution. The inmate grievance procedure is a threestep process by which inmates can document and report concerns to multiple levels of DRC staff. For
more information on the inmate grievance procedure, please see the Glossary at the back of the report.
64
The average rate of non-response to ICRs in the DRC was three percent in 2012. The average rate of
untimely responses to ICRs in the DRC was 14.4 percent in 2012.
CIIC’s review of a random sample of 20 ICR responses indicated that all were
professional and generally provided information and attempted to address inmate
concerns. CIIC’s review of a random sample of ten grievance dispositions
indicated that all disposition responses were professional and that the Inspector
always consulted evidence, including conducting staff interviews, when
investigating grievances. However, grievance dispositions did not cite DRC
policy or administrative regulation, which is mandated in DRC policy.
In 2012, there were 422 grievances filed at SOCF.
Of the 417 grievance
dispositions completed, 92.3 percent were denied and 7.7 percent were
granted.65 The granted rate is half both the DRC average rate66 and the
comparator prison. The top three categories with the most grievances were
Personal Property with 92, Healthcare with 86, and Supervision with 73.
Inspectors are expected to dispose of grievances within fourteen days to ensure
timely response to inmates’ concerns. Only 1.4 percent of grievances were
responded to beyond the fourteen day timeframe.
Chart 5
Percent of Grievance Dispositions Requiring Extensions by Institution
CY 2012
1.4
NEPRC
MCI
RCI
ORW
OSP
CRC
GCC
SCI
BECI
FMC
TOCI
NCI
AOCI
NCCC
MACI
MANCI
CCI
HCF
LORCI
DCI
PCI
RICI
SOCF
LAECI
LECI
LOCI
TCI
WCI
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Despite CIIC’s positive review of the inmate grievance procedure, inmate responses to
CIIC’s survey67 were predominantly negative regarding the grievance procedure. The
following are the responses received:
63.8 percent of total respondents (n=130) reported that they normally have
access to informal complaints;
64.9 percent of total respondents (n=134) reported that they did not know who
the Inspector was;
65
One grievance was withdrawn by the inmate.
Excluding grievances that were withdrawn by the inmate or pending disposition at the close of the
calendar year, 16.1 percent of grievances were granted across the DRC.
67
The CIIC inmate survey results are available in the Appendix.
66
88.7 percent of total respondents (n=97) indicated that they did not feel that
informal complaints are generally dealt with fairly at the institution;68
73.6 percent of total respondents (n=87) indicated that they do not generally
receive a response to informal complaints within seven days or did not receive a
response at all;69
88.1 percent of total respondents (n=84) indicated that they do not feel that
grievances are generally dealt with fairly;70
43.9 percent of total respondents (n=132) reported that they had felt at some
point that they were prevented from using the grievance procedure when they
had wanted to; and,
For inmates who had never used the grievance procedure, the primary reasons
were a belief that the grievance procedure does not work and staff retaliation.
D. SEGREGATION
CIIC’s evaluation of segregation consists of an observation of the unit and evaluation of
the population. CIIC rates segregation as GOOD.
Facility Conditions
SOCF has two segregation units: J1 for the Local Control population and J2 for inmates
on Disciplinary Control, Security Control, and 4BP status (transitioning from disciplinary
to 4B placement).
The segregation units overall appeared clean, although the cells could use
repainting. The showers were rated as in need of improvement in J1 due to the
floor chipping and rust, and as acceptable in J2.
There were no current maintenance issues and staff stated that maintenance
concerns were taken care of within the same day.
Staff kept excellent records of the individual inmate log sheets, indicating that
inmates were being provided the requisite privileges.
Executive staff had documented numerous rounds through the unit. However,
the one concern noted is that the Chaplain (of which there are three at SOCF),
who is required by policy to conduct weekly rounds through the segregation
units, did not document rounds in the sign-in logs.71
Inmates reported few concerns, none related to the segregation unit itself.
No cells were triple-bunked.
68
An additional 35 respondents indicated that they had never filed an ICR.
An additional 44 inmates responded “N/A.” One inmate responded that he had “just filed.”
70
An additional 49 respondents indicated that they had never filed a grievance.
71
Staff relayed that the Chaplain only comes to the segregation units by inmate request through kites.
69
Segregation Population
SOCF’s LC population (J1) was composed of nine inmates. In J2, there were 57
inmates, including only 18 inmates on Security Control status, almost all of whom
had been placed on SC status within the prior seven days, with the earliest
placement date 20 days prior. There were 25 inmates on Disciplinary Control
status; only one inmate was over the 15 day timeframe and it was by one day
only. There were 14 inmates on “Adjustment/C” or probationary status (moving
from disciplinary control to 4B placement),72 with the longest time period on this
status being 24 days.
FAIR TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Develop additional strategies to address negative inmate/staff interactions at
SOCF.
Confirm the inmate’s statement in his RIB hearing with the inmate, either
verbally or through a linked monitor.
Ensure that inmates on the mental health caseload are being appropriately
screened prior to the RIB hearing and that any recommendations made by
mental health staff are considered.
Executive staff should ensure that all staff are responding to informal
complaints in a timely manner.
Consider developing strategies to address negative inmate perceptions of the
grievance procedure.
The Chaplain should conduct weekly rounds through the segregation unit, in
line with DRC policy.
72
As will also be discussed under the Reentry/Rehabilitation section, staff have created various privilege
levels for inmates to be encouraged to engage in positive behavior and to move them towards lower
security classifications. Inmates move from Disciplinary Control to 4BP status to 4B to 4AT to 4A, with
the hope of eventually being decreased to Level 3. In comparison to SOCF’s history, in which inmates
were perceived to be “caught” at Level 4, resulting in reduced maximum security bedspace and inmates
being held longterm in a maximum security prison, inmates now progress through the system.
V. REHABILITATION AND REENTRY
CIIC EXPECTATION: Prisons will provide access to quality programming and
purposeful activities that will ultimately aid reentry.
CIIC’s evaluation of rehabilitation and reentry includes a review of data, direct
observations of educational programming, inmate and staff focus groups, administrative
interviews and inmate survey responses. Overall, CIIC rates rehabilitation and reentry
at SOCF as ACCEPTABLE.
A. ACCESS TO PURPOSEFUL ACTIVITIES
CIIC’s evaluation of access to purposeful activities includes a review of data, an
analysis of inmate idleness, staff interviews, and inmate surveys. Overall, CIIC rates
access to purposeful activities as IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT.
Inmates’ high security status limits their ability to go to programming and
activities;73
Programming space for inmates at Level 4B is limited to a single programming
cage for one-on-one programming;
Two teacher vacancies have reduced access to educational programming for
inmates at Level 4A;74
Inmates do not have access to networked programming in their cells;75
50 percent of inmate survey respondents (n=106) reported that it is difficult to get
into academic educational programming, such as ABLE, GED, etc.;
44.5 percent of inmate survey respondents (n=119) reported that it is difficult to
get into unit programs, such as Thinking for a Change, Victim Awareness, etc.;
and,
The ratio of inmates on waitlists for academic programs compared to inmates
enrolled was worse than the DRC average in FY 2012,76 worse than the
comparator prison’s average, 77 but better than the institution’s rate in FY 2010.78
73
Inmates in a maximum security facility are held in locked-down cells and given restricted time out of cell
for recreation and programming privileges per DRC Policy 53-CLS-01 and 53-CLS-02.
74
Staff relayed that they are in the process of filling the teacher vacancies.
75
Due to the age and architecture of the facility, it is not feasible to equip the buildings with technical
upgrades to allow televisions in each inmate cell.
76
There are more inmates on waitlist per enrollee at SOCF than the number of inmates on waitlist to each
enrollee in the DRC average. For FY 2012, there were 283 inmates enrolled at SOCF in academic
programs and 150 inmates on the academic waitlist, a ratio of one enrollee to 0.53 waitlisted inmates. In
comparison, across the DRC institutions, there were 15,975 inmates enrolled in academic programs and
7,340 inmates on the waitlist for a ratio of one enrollee to 0.45 academic waitlisted inmates.
77
For FY 2012, there was an average of 53 percent of SOCF academic students on academic waitlists
and there was an average of 41.7 percent of academic students at the comparator prison, OSP, on
academic waitlists.
78
For FY 2012, there was an average of 53 percent of SOCF academic students on academic waitlists;
and for FY 2010, there was an average of 78.9 percent of SOCF academic students on academic
waitlists.
B. QUALITY OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING
CIIC’s evaluation of the quality of educational programming in a correctional institution
focuses on data analysis, a document review, direct observation of at least one
program, and inmate survey responses. Overall, CIIC rated the quality of programming
as EXCEPTIONAL, with notable gains in the GED passage rate and academic
certificate achievement in 2012.
Outcome Measures for FY 2012
The total number of GEDs passed significantly increased between FY 2010 and
FY 2012.79
The passage rate of GED completions was better than the passage rate across
the DRC80 and better than SOCF’s reported rate in FY 2010,81 although it was
less than the passage rate at the comparator prison.82
The rate of academic certificate achievement when compared to academic
enrollment was 34.6 percent higher in FY 2012 than the DRC average, 83 29.8
percent higher than the comparator prison,84 and 28.5 percent higher than the
SOCF reported rate in FY 2010.85
On-Site Observation
CIIC staff observed one educational program, deemed as an exceptional example of
teaching and use of instructional strategies. The following observations were noted:
Students displayed full attentiveness and interactive engagement, and behavior was
completely positive and compliant;
Instructional communication was highly engaging and designed to lead students to
think independently;
Teaching strategies included a variety of instructional techniques;86 and,
79
In FY 2010, 63 inmates achieved a GED; in FY 2012, 95 inmates achieved a GED.
In FY 2012, there were 95 inmates at SOCF who completed the GED program and passed the GED
test, for a passage rate of 70.9 percent (n=134). The DRC FY 2012 average passage rate for GED tests
was 63.3 percent (n=2,078).
81
64.3 percent of SOCF GED students passed the GED in FY 2010, and 70.9 percent of SOCF GED
students passed the GED in FY 2012.
82
At the comparator DRC institution, OSP, there were 38 inmates who received the GED, for a passage
rate of 76 percent (n=50). The passage rate at SOCF was 70.9 percent.
83
In FY 2012, SOCF enrolled 283 inmates in academic programs, with 199 inmates receiving certificates,
for a success rate of 70.3 percent. In FY 2012, the DRC enrolled 15,975 inmates in academic programs,
and 5,698 inmates received certificates, for a 35.7 percent success rate.
84
In FY 2012, in the comparator prison, there were 304 inmates enrolled and 123 inmates who received a
certificate, for a 40.4 percent success rate, while the academic success rate at SOCF was 70.3 percent.
85
In FY 2010, the academic certificate rate at SOCF was 41.8 percent, while the FY 2012 academic
certificate rate was 70.3 percent of enrollees.
86
Specific verbal strategies included lecture, question/answer discussions, vocabulary development,
demonstration of examples, clarifying statements, reframing concepts, and much use of visual
representations or diagrams to illustrate concepts. Instruction also included literacy-based strategies as
80
Students had access to appropriate materials to complete the class activity. 87
Inmate survey responses regarding satisfaction with educational and unit
programs were inconclusive.88
C. LIBRARY
CIIC’s evaluation of the library includes an observation of the physical facility, an
evaluation of data, and inmate survey responses.
CIIC rates the library as
ACCEPTABLE.
Facilities
The library was visibly clean and organized, with an exceptionally large, open, and
inviting space for current library materials and inmate use. The library features a
separate quiet computer center designed for legal work.
Access
The total hours of library operation at SOCF are 99.5 percent greater than the
DRC average89 and 55.5 percent greater than the average hours in the
comparator prison, OSP.90
Access to legal materials and legal research in the law library is supported
through the availability of five computers dedicated for legal research, which is
higher than the DRC and the comparator prison average during the 2011-2012
biennium.91
The librarian provides library materials to inmates in restricted housing units per
kite requests once per week.
Negatively, inmates have access to materials at a lower rate than the DRC
average and a significantly lower rate than its comparator prison, OSP.92 As one
the think-aloud’ and references to higher level thinking processes as analytical and reflective thinking. No
defined peer tutoring was observed.
87
Individual student seatwork was completed using paper, pencils, and calculators.
88
There were 57 inmates (n=99) who indicated they were either unsatisfied or very unsatisfied with
educational programs. There were 26 inmates (n=97) who indicated they were unsatisfied with unit
programs, and an additional 15 inmates who indicated they were very unsatisfied with unit programs.
89
SOCF hours of library operation for the period July through December 2012 were reported to be 360.3
hours per month, while the DRC average hours of library operation per month was reported to be
approximately half at 180.6 hours.
90
SOCF hours of library operation for the period July through December 2012 were reported to be 360.3
hours per month, while the comparator institution, OSP, reported an average of 231.7 hours of operation
per month.
91
CIIC inspections of DRC institutions during the 2011-2012 biennium revealed an average of 4.6
computers in institution libraries for inmate legal research, and an average of 3.5 computers at the
comparator prison.
92
SOCF had a per capita rate of materials of 6 items available to the inmate population for the period July
through December 2012. The SOCF per capita rate was 36.5 percent lower than the DRC average per
capita rate of 9.5 for the period. The SOCF library also showed a significant 80.5 percent lower per
suggestion, 70 percent of inmates indicated on the current Library Needs
Assessment Survey that they would use audio-book materials if available.93
Quality
The library employs 20 inmates as library and legal aides to assist other inmates;
The facility employs a full-time paralegal, one of only four within the DRC; and,
The librarian demonstrated encouragement of inmate reading through five inmate
book clubs with approximately 20 inmates each. The book clubs have reportedly
increased inmate use of the library.
Reentry Resources
The SOCF reentry section includes books and hand-outs as resources,94 but
does not include any innovative resources to promote inmates’ reentry success.
The library has only one computer for inmates to use in gathering reentry-related
information by county and to assist inmates in the preparation of cover letters,
applications, and resumes.
The need for additional software95 was identified by inmates in the most recent
needs assessment.96
The library maintains four shelves of vocational books, and a variety college
catalogs and college-level textbooks in areas such as marketing, algebra, and
accounting.
D. OHIO PENAL INDUSTRIES
SOCF does not operate any shops under Ohio Penal Industries.
E. REENTRY PLANNING
CIIC’s evaluation of reentry planning97 includes interviews of staff,98 a focus group of
inmates,99 an observation of inmate idleness,100 a document review,101 and inmate
capita rate of materials compared to its comparator prison, OSP, which averaged a per capita rate of 30.8
materials for the period.
93
Library Needs Assessment Report. January 4, 2013. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.
94
A reentry section should include self-help materials to impact social skills and behavior modification, job
resources for resume writing and interviewing, and county-by-county resources with contact information
relevant to medical and mental health services, housing, clothing, food, educational services, and contact
information for Job and Family Services representatives.
95
38 percent of inmate respondents (n=122) would like to have Microsoft Office installed on library
computers.
96
The DRC annual needs assessment is conducted in January per DRC policy DRC 71-SOC-10, Annual
Needs and Staffing Assessment for Social Services Programs.
97
Reentry planning requires pervasive attention to specific details from the first day of incarceration
through the post-release period. Effective reentry planning is crucial for a successful reintegration into
society. The inspection includes considerations of the degree and types of inmate access to purposeful
activities, inmate contact with community, and staff accountability related to reentry processes and
programs.
survey responses. Overall, CIIC rates SOCF reentry provisions IN NEED OF
IMPROVEMENT, due to the need for more reentry assistance.
Institutional Initiatives
Inmates in multiple focus groups and through the institutional needs assessment
relayed that they need more programs of all types;102
Inmates in the reentry focus group relayed that they need more individual
assistance, training, and hands-on experiences in preparing for their reentry.
Inmates relayed they currently receive a lot of paperwork, but lack practical help
to know what to do with the information that is provided;
A large majority of inmates responding to CIIC’s survey, including the seven
responding inmates within one month of release, indicated that they do not know
how to obtain post-release information regarding county agencies, continuing
heath care, housing, and recovery services;103 and,
The designated institutional reentry coordinator is the Unit Management Chief, a
position that by itself requires the performance of many tasks within the
institution.
Positively, staff indicated there are two reentry-oriented workshops held within
the library on personal finance and basic keyboarding, to assist inmates in
handling their finances and in preparing for employment at reentry.
Community Connections
48.1 percent of surveyed inmates (n=133) indicated they had experienced mail
problems with sending or receiving mail within the past six months.
48.8 percent of surveyed inmates (n=127) indicated they had experienced
telephone service problems within the past six months.
o Inmates identified the primary issues as there are not enough phones or
that phones are broken.
98
CIIC inspection process related to reentry preparations at SOCF included an interview of the Reentry
Coordinator/Unit Management Chief. One administrator is currently filling both job titles and duties.
99
CIIC conducted a focus group of a sample of ten SOCF inmates who are within a few weeks of release.
100
The inmate idleness review was not conducted during the SOCF inspection because the institution is a
maximum security institution with locked-down cells.
101
SOCF provided CIIC with a copy of the 2011 Annual Inmate Needs and Staffing Assessment Report for
Special Services.
102
The 2011 Annual Inmate Needs and Staffing Assessment Report for Special Services provided written
evidence of the administration’s awareness of areas where reentry-related deficits exist and made
recommendations for improvements. The following reentry-relevant recommendations and goals were
presented in the report: (1) maintain programming levels with reduced staffing in Mental Health and
Recreation; (2) implement increased programming in the booths that were constructed on K-side; and (3)
increase inter-departmental collaboration between program providers to reduce departmental
compartmentalization.
103
Results of the inmate survey revealed that inmates do not know how to obtain information after release
about county agencies [84 inmates (n=115)], continuing health care [80 inmates (n=117)], recovery
services [70 inmates (n=114)], and housing [70 inmates (n=123)].
54.1 percent of surveyed inmates (n=111) indicated that they have had problems
with visits.
o Inmates identified the distance between the facility and their families as
the reason for visitation problems.
o Positively, few inmates relayed that the visitation scheduling process is an
issue, as it is at many other institutions. The Warden relayed initiatives to
actively encourage visitation.
F. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AND PRIVILEGE LEVELS
CIIC staff reviewed security classification review documentation and found it to be
EXCEPTIONAL with no reviews shown as overdue. Further, staff relayed that under
the DRC’s “3 Tier Reorganization,” staff have created additional privilege level options
to encourage inmates to reduce their security classification.104
REENTRY AND REHABILITATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Consider developing strategies to improve access to programs and other
purposeful activities, both formal and informal.
Consider developing strategies to improve communication between inmates
and their families and communities.
Consider increasing the number of materials to raise the per capita rate of
materials in the library, such as through access to audio books.
Consider additional strategies to encourage inmate reading, such as through a
tracking system for inmate interests (as utilized at the comparator prison, OSP).
Consider adding another computer for reentry resources, as well as software
(Microsoft Office) for the development of word processing skills and resume
drafting.
Consider developing strategies to increase inmates’ knowledge of reentryrelated resources needed post-release, as well as strategies to improve
community connections.
Consider designating another position as the Reentry Coordinator (or creating
an Assistant Reentry Coordinator).
104
For example, inmates now are moved from Level 4B to Level 4AT, which is a “transitional” period in
which inmates are allowed more privileges but are monitored to see if they need to remain at 4B or can
proceed to 4A. Staff also relayed that they have been actively conducting special security reviews (i.e.
prior to the usual one year or six month review period) to recognize inmates’ positive behavior and to
move them through the classification levels.
VI. FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY
CIIC EXPECTATION: Prisons will responsibly utilize taxpayer funds and
implement cost savings initiatives where possible.
CIIC’s evaluation of fiscal accountability includes a review of the following: the most
recent fiscal audit conducted by an external auditor, overtime hours, cost saving
initiatives, staff interviews,105 and documentation review. Overall, CIIC rates fiscal
accountability as EXCEPTIONAL.
A. STAFFING
CIIC’s evaluation of staffing includes a data review and staff interviews regarding
overtime management, turnover ratio, morale, training, and evaluations. CIIC rates the
staffing as GOOD due to the highest possible score on their fiscal audit, their evaluation
and training completion rates, and the initiatives of the Warden to increase staff morale.
Fiscal Audit
SOCF was 100 percent compliant in its most recent fiscal audit conducted
(January 26, 2012 through October 5, 2012). xxii
Overtime Management
In CY 2012, SOCF paid $1,824,444 in overtime.xxiii
The Warden relayed the development of a creative operational initiative to
reduce overtime, which resulted in a 94 percent decrease in overtime.106
Turnover and Vacancies
The Warden relayed that in 2012, the facility had a 4.9 percent turnover rate,
which is the lowest in the southeast region and the lowest that it has been in 35
years.
Morale
None of the officers interviewed (n=10) rated morale as high or very high. Most of
the low ratings were based on a lack of wage increases.107
105
Staff interviews include correctional officers and members from the following areas: business office,
training, and human resources.
106
The Warden originally challenged each shift to reduce overtime by 25 percent. All staff on the winning
shift were placed into a lottery; staff were entered an additional time for each month of perfect
attendance. The two prizes were (1) a set of good days and (2) that an officer could not be mandated to
work overtime on the weekend for a month.
107
Officers relayed that they have not received performance raises or cost of living increases for several
years. During the February 6, 2013 closeout, the administrative staff confirmed the officer’s concerns and
stated that institution and department budget restraints as the reason for the lack of wage increase.
All of the officers interviewed (n=10) considered SOCF to be a well-run
institution. The majority of the officers believed that staff works well together to
ensure the safety and security of inmates and staff at the institution.
The Warden developed and implemented a creative initiative to improve staff
morale: the “Ideas at Work” board.108
Training109
SOCF staff demonstrated that in the four mandatory areas,110 training completion
rates ranged from 95.4 to 98.5 percent111 in FY 2012112xxiv
Evaluations113
In CY 2012, SOCF staff completed 673 (99.0 percent) of 680 required
performance evaluations on time.xxv The SOCF completion percentage is
significantly higher than the average completion rate114 for the DRC.xxvi
B. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND NEEDS
CIIC’s evaluation of cost savings includes a document review and an interview of staff
regarding the implementation of cost saving initiatives, both those required by policy 115
108
The “Ideas at Work” board is located in the administrative offices and invites staff from all departments
to provide suggestions for improvement. This creative initiative involves staff posting ideas for facility
improvement on a board. The Warden writes the staff a thank you note for the idea and, should the idea
be implemented, posts the implementation on the board next to the staff idea, so that staff can see that
their ideas are heard.
109
In FY 2012, DRC required 40 hours of in-service training for custody staff (all non-clerical/support
designated staff) and 16 hours in-service training for non-custody (clerical/support staff). According to
DRC policy, 39-TRN-02 (“In-Service Training”), the prisons are mandated by the CTA to ensure custody
staff receives annual re-certification training on the following topics: firearms, unarmed self-defense,
CPR/First Aid, and in-service training. These topics are derived from Administrative Regulations,
Legislative/Judicial Requirements, ACA Standards, DRC policies, and/or other Department Training
Advisory Council recommendations.
110
According to DRC policy, 39-TRN-02 (“In-Service Training”), the prisons are mandated by the CTA to
ensure custody staff receives annual re-certification training on the following topics: firearms, unarmed
self-defense, CPR/First Aid, and in-service training. These topics are derived from Administrative
Regulations, Legislative/Judicial Requirements, ACA Standards, DRC policies, and/or other Department
Training Advisory Council recommendations. The goal of each institution is for all required staff to
complete 100 percent of their required training by the end of each fiscal year.
111
FY 2012 Training courses include the number of staff who completed each mandated course and the
number staff who did not complete the course which also includes staff failures. Firearms training
(95.4%); In-service (98.2%); and Use of Force/Unarmed Self-Defense (98.5%). Some staff did not
complete or failed their course after they were placed on doctor’s care.
112
2012 fiscal year period includes July 1, 2011- June 30, 2012.
113
CIIC’s review of evaluations consists of a document review and staff interviews.
114
Completion rate of 70.1 percent is based on 8,019 of 11,439 evaluations completed within the required
time period by CY 2012.
115
According to DRC policy 22-BUS-17, “Energy Conservation and Waste Reduction,” each institution is
required to establish green initiatives that include recycling, energy conservation, and waste reduction.
and those independently developed by staff. CIIC rates their cost savings initiatives as
EXCEPTIONAL due to the implementation of creative cost savings initiatives in CY
2012.xxvii
Cost Savings:
Saved $12,086.52 by removing their cardboard compactor.
Saved approximately $6,000 by allowing SOCF maintenance staff to install the
Simplex Fire Detection System instead of contractors.
Saved $4,452.10 by reusing state issued items116 that were recovered during 2.4
shakedowns.
Saved approximately $3,000 per quarter by ordering recycled ink cartridges.
Saved approximately $500 per quarter by changing the size of the bed sheets
ordered.
Currently developing a forest resource management plan with the Ohio
Department of Natural Resources to sell timber.117 The plan could result in a
possible cost savings of $150,000.118
Energy Conservation and Waste Reduction:119
SOCF is in the fifth year of an energy conservation renovation project that is
expected to produce a cost savings of $396,537 annually or 29 percent.120 SOCF
had a cost savings of $489,638 in the fourth year of the project.121
In CY 2012, SOCF developed energy initiatives 122 that helped reduce its natural
gas cost by 44.2 percent and reduced its water costs by 10.4 percent. The 20112012 utility costs and savings are illustrated in the chart below:
Institutions that earn money through recycling initiatives deposit the money into a centralized fund, from
which they receive 50 percent back that must be reinvested into the institution.
116
The reusable items confiscated during 2.4 shakedowns include the following: blankets, bed sheets,
uniform shirts and pants, and laundry bags.
117
SOCF has approximately 310 acres of timbers. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources
recommended that SOCF conduct four (4) timber sales over a three-year period.
118
The cost savings is an estimate of the first of four sets of timber sales.
119
According to DRC policy 22-BUS-17, “Energy Conservation and Waste Reduction,” each institution is
required to establish green initiatives that include recycling, energy conservation, and waste reduction.
120
SOCF is currently in the fifth year of the ten-year performance contract with Johnson Controls.
According to the SOCF “Administrative Needs Assessment,” the total cost of the energy conservation
project was $2,656,090.
121
The fourth year of the contract began December 1, 2010 and ended November 30, 2011. In the five
years of the project, SOCF has saved an excess of $519,166.
122
SOCF developed the following initiatives: Removed 160 bulbs in five corridors to save electrical costs.
Corridors D, C, K, L, and E-complex disabled every other ballast which caused two bulbs per ballast to
not work; Maintained the chilled water temperature at 50 degrees until the outside temperature reached
90-degrees. This allowed the institution to conserve energy from the beginning of May through June.
According to the SOCF “Cost Savings Initiatives,” the factory set point of the water temperature is 42
degree; estimated daily cost savings of $107.84 by using cold water in the laundry area; Participates in an
emergency electric reduction program through KOREnergy which requires SOCF and other state
institutions to operate on Emergency Generated Power in the event of a power shortage. According to the
Energy Type
Gas
123
Water
124
Electric
125
2011
2012
Percent Change
$551,825.94
$307,999.44
-44.2%
$175,046.80
$156,861.61
-10.4%
$565,188.97
$600,870.56
+6.3 %
126
Recycling and Waste Reduction:
The 2012 waste reduction audit127 found that the institution needed to purchase a
baler to divert its recycled material.128xxviii The baler was purchased in September
2012.
In 2012, the recycling program produced $1,397.07129 of revenue.130xxix
Capital Projects
SOCF staff relayed that they have requested funding for the following capital projects:xxx
$191,707.72 to seal parking and road surfaces around the institution.
$171,590.15 for a valve house and water line to valve house (PIT).
$133,477.43 for a new warehouse freezer.
$35,011.66 for upgrade of the door control system
$27,050.00 for the installation of a replacement generator.
SOCF “Cost Savings Initiatives,” the State of Ohio is compensated $245,000 per quarter for institutions
participating in the KOREnergy program.
123
January 2011- November 2011 and January 2012- November 2012. December 2012 bill was not
available during the February 6, 2013 inspection date.
124
Comparison reflects the invoices received during the following periods: January 2011-December 2011
and January-December 2012.
125
Comparison reflects the invoices received during the following periods: January 2011- December 2011
and January 2012- December 2012.
126
Although the institution electricity cost increased by 6.3 percent, the institution used less electricity in
CY 2012 (7,651,800) compared to CY 2011 (8,040,600). The increase in cost could be attributed to an
increase in the charge per kilo-watt usage.
127
Per policy 22-BUS-17, the purpose of the waste audit is to identify additional waste to be diverted,
evaluate trends in waste disposal from the previous year, and determine the success of the current waste
diversion program. SOCF conducted its most recent audit in May 2012.
128
SOCF temporarily suspended its recycling program after the Ohio Penal Industries ended their
partnership. As a result, the institution purchased a baler to recycle steel cans, cardboard, plastic, and
paper.
129
Revenue as of November 2012. Revenue includes the following: $529.87 (cardboard/paper) and
$867.20 (tin).
130
Institutions that earn money through recycling initiatives deposit the money into a centralized fund,
from which they receive 50 percent back that must be reinvested into the institution.
C. PROPERTY
CIIC’s evaluation of property includes a document review regarding the reduction of
lost/theft claims initiatives developed by staff. CIIC rates their cost savings initiatives as
EXCEPTIONAL due to the reduction of property loss payout in CY 2012.
In FY 2012, SOCF reduced its property loss payout by 26 percent131 compared to
FY 2011.xxxi
SOCF Inmate Property Loss Committee has implemented the following
changes:132xxxii
o Initiated a training program for all new officers in the proper packing and
documentation of inmate property;
o Focused on holding staff accountable for incorrect documentation and not
following procedures;
o Hold other institutions accountable by taking photographs of damaged
property entering the institution; and
o Holding four-hour in-service training for correctional counselors to ensure
they conduct proper thorough loss property investigations.
FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
131
In 2012, SOCF paid $1,973.75 in property loss claims compared to $2,674.63 in 2011.
The SOCF Inmate Property Loss Committee found that inmates file claims for five main reasons: (1)
increased number of inmate transfers state wide due to the new three-tier system; (2) staff accidentally
breaking property; (3) the number of new transfers arriving at SOCF with damaged property; (4)
inexperienced staff working in shakedown/pack-up area; and (5) increase inexperienced counselors
conducting property loss investigations.
132
SECTION VII. APPENDIX
A. INMATE SURVEY
A voluntary, confidential and anonymous survey of a representative proportion of the
prisoner population was carried out for this inspection. The results of this survey formed
part of the evidence base for the inspection. CIIC’s inmate survey attempts to capture a
significant sample of the inmate population across a wide range of issues.
At SOCF, CIIC staff gave or attempted to give surveys to 174 inmates. Inmates were
selected using a stratified systematic sampling method: at the start of the inspection,
institutional staff provided a printout of inmates by housing unit and every eighth inmate
was selected. CIIC staff provided an explanation of the survey to each selected inmate.
CIIC staff later conducted sweeps of the housing units to collect the surveys. CIIC
received 139 completed surveys, representing 10.2 percent of the total SOCF
population.
The questions and the total response counts are replicated on the following pages.
B. INSPECTION CHECKLISTS133
133
The checklists here do not include all forms used by CIIC staff during the inspection process.
C. GLOSSARY OF TERMS
A
Administrative Assistant (AA) – Staff member who is an assistant to the Warden and
typically responsible for reviewing RIB (Rules Infraction Board) decisions and RIB
appeals.
Adult Basic Education (ABE)/Literacy – Literacy classes are for student with reading
levels at 226 and below the CASAS. The ABE/Literacy Unit consist of two afternoon
sessions. Students attend school approximately 1 ½ hours each day on Monday –
Thursday. Students work individually or in small groups with tutors and focus on
improving their reading and math skills. All tutors in the ABE/Literacy Unit are
certified through a 10 hour training course.
B
Brunch – Served on weekends as a cost savings initiative.
Bureau of Classification – Office located at the DRC Operation Support Center
responsible with the ultimate authority for inmate security levels, placement at
institutions, as well as transfers.
Bureau of Medical Services – Office located at the DRC Operation Support Center
responsible for direct oversight of medical services at each institution.
Bureau of Mental Health Services – Office located at the DRC Operation Support
Center responsible for direct oversight of Mental Health Services at each institution.
C
Case Manager – Staff member responsible for assisting inmates assigned to their
case load and conducting designated core and authorized reentry programs.
Cellie/Bunkie – An inmate’s cellmate or roommate.
Chief Inspector – Staff member at the DRC Operation Support Center responsible
for administering all aspects of the grievance procedure for inmates, rendering
dispositions on inmate grievance appeals as well as grievances against the
Wardens and/or Inspectors of Institutional Services.
Classification/Security Level – System by which inmates are classified based on the
following: current age; seriousness of the crime; prior offenses; most recent
violence (not including the current offense); gang activity before going to prison; and
present and past escape attempts.
Close Security – See Level 3
Computer Voice Stress Analysis (CVSA) – A device, which electronically detects,
measures, and charts the stress in a person’s voice following a pre-formatted
questionnaire. Used as a truth seeking device for investigations.
Conduct Report/Ticket – Document issued to inmate for violating a rule.
Contraband – items possessed by an inmate which, by their nature, use, or intended
use, pose a threat to security or safety of inmates, staff or public, or disrupt the
orderly operation of the facility. items possessed by an inmate without permission
and the location in which these items are discovered is improper; or the quantities in
which an allowable item is possessed is prohibited; or the manner or method by
which the item is obtained was improper; or an allowable item is possessed by an
inmate in an altered form or condition.
D
Deputy Warden of Operations (DWO) – Staff member at each institution in charge of
monitoring the Major, custody staff, the Unit Management Administrator, Unit
Managers, Case Managers, and the locksmith. Other areas include count office,
mail/visiting, Rules Infraction Board, segregation unit, and recreation. The Deputy
Warden of Operations is also responsible for reviewing use of force reports and
referring them to a Use of Force Committee when necessary for further
investigation.
Deputy Warden of Special Services (DWSS) – Staff member at each institution in
charge of monitoring education, the library, inmate health services, recovery
services, mental health services, religious services, Ohio Penal Industries, and food
service.
Disciplinary Control (DC) – The status of an inmate who was found guilty by the
Rules Infraction Board and his or her penalty is to serve DC time. An inmate may
serve up to 15 days in DC.
F
Food Service Administrator – An employee within the Office of Administration
Services educated in food service management and preparation, to manage DRC
food service departments.
G
GED/PRE-GED – Pre-GED classes are for those who have a reading score between
a 227 through 239 on level C or higher of the CASAS test. GED classes are for
those who have a reading score of 240 on level C or higher on the CASAS test.
Students attend class 1 ½ hours each day, Monday – Thursday. Students study the
five subjects measured by the GED. In addition to class work, students are given a
homework assignment consisting of a list of vocabulary words to define and writing
prompt each week. All GED and Pre-GED tutors are certified through a 10-hour
training course.
General Population (GP) – Inmates not assigned to a specialized housing unit.
H
Health Care Administrator (HCA) – The health care authority responsible for the
administration of medical services within the institution. This registered nurse
assesses, directs, plans, coordinates, supervises, and evaluates all medical services
delivered at the institutional level. The HCA interfaces with health service providers
in the community and state to provide continuity of care.
Hearing Officer – The person(s) designated by the Managing Officer to conduct an
informal hearing with an inmate who received a conduct report.
Hooch – An alcoholic beverage.
I
Industrial and Entertainment (I and E) Funds – Funds created and maintained for the
entertainment and welfare of the inmates.
Informal Complaint Resolution (ICR) – The first step of the Inmate Grievance
Procedure (IGP). Inmates submit ICRs to the supervisor of the staff member who is
the cause of the complaint. Staff members are to respond within seven calendar
days. Timeframe may be waived for good cause.
Inmate Grievance Procedure (IGP) – The inmate grievance procedure is a three
step administrative process, established in DRC Administrative Rule 5120-9-31.
The grievance procedure allows for investigation and nonviolent resolution of
inmate concerns. The first step is an informal complaint resolution, which the inmate
submits to the supervisor of the staff person or department responsible for the
complaint. The second step is a notification of grievance, submitted to the Inspector.
The final step is an appeal of the Inspector’s disposition to the Chief Inspector at the
DRC Operation Support Center.
Inspector of Institutional Services (IIS) – Staff person at the institution in charge of
facilitating the inmate grievance procedure, investigating and responding to inmate
grievances, conducting regular inspections of institutional services, serving as a
liaison between the inmate population and institutional personnel, reviewing and
providing input on new or revised institutional policies, procedures and post orders,
providing training on the inmate grievance procedure and other relevant topics, and
any other duties as assigned by the Warden or Chief Inspector that does not conflict
with facilitating the inmate grievance procedure or responding to grievances.
Institutional Separation – An order wherein two or more inmates are not assigned to
general population in the same institution due to a concern for the safety and
security of the institution, staff, and/or other inmates.
Intensive Program Prison (IPP) – Refers to several ninety-day programs, for which
certain inmates are eligible, that are characterized by concentrated and rigorous
specialized treatment services. An inmate who successfully completes an IPP will
have his/her sentence reduced to the amount of time already served and will be
released on post-release supervision for an appropriate time period.
Interstate Compact – The agreement codified in ORC 5149.21 governing the
transfer and supervision of adult offenders under the administration of the National
Interstate Commission.
K
Kite – A written form of communication from an inmate to staff.
L
Local Control (LC) – The status of an inmate who was referred to the Local Control
Committee by the Rules Infraction Board. The committee will decide if the inmate
has demonstrated a chronic inability to adjust to the general population or if the
inmate's presence in the general population is likely to seriously disrupt the orderly
operation of the institution. A committee reviews the inmate's status every 30 days
for release consideration. The inmate may serve up to 180 days in LC.
Local Separation – An order wherein two or more inmates are not permitted to be
assigned to the same living and/or work area, and are not permitted simultaneous
involvement in the same recreational or leisure time activities to ensure they are not
in close proximity with one another.
N
Notification of Grievance (NOG) – The second step of the Inmate Grievance
Procedure (IGP). The NOG is filed to the Inspector of Institutional Services and
must be responded to within 14 calendar days. Timeframe may be waived for good
cause.
M
Maximum Security – See Level 4
Medium Security – See Level 2
Mental Health Caseload – Consists of offenders with a mental health diagnosis who
receive treatment by mental health staff and are classified as C-1 (SMI) or C-2 (NonSMI).
Minimum Security – See Level 1
O
Ohio Central School System (OCSS) – The school district chartered by the Ohio
Department of Education to provide educational programming to inmates
incarcerated within the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.
Ohio Penal Industries (OPI) – A subordinate department of the Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction. OPI manufactures goods and services for ODRC and
other state agencies.
P
Parent Institution – The institution where an inmate is assigned to after reception
and will be the main institution where the inmate serves his or her time. The parent
institution is subject to change due to transfers.
Protective Control (PC) – A placement for inmates whose personal safety would be
at risk in the General Population (GP).
R
Reentry Accountability Plan (RAP) – Plan for inmates, which includes the static risk
assessment, dynamic needs assessment, and program recommendations and
participation.
Residential Treatment Unit (RTU) – The Residential Treatment Unit is a secure,
treatment environment that has a structured clinical program. All offenders enter at
the Crisis and Assessment Level (Level 1). This level is designed to assess
conditions and provide structure for the purpose of gaining clinical information or
containing a crisis. The disposition of the assessment can be admission to the
treatment levels of the RTU, referral to OCF, or referral back to the parent institution.
Rules Infraction Board (RIB) – A panel of two staff members who determine guilt or
innocence when an inmate receives a conduct report or ticket for disciplinary
reasons.
S
Security Control (SC) – The status of an inmate who is pending a hearing by the
Rules Infraction Board for a rule violation, under investigation or pending institutional
transfer and needs to be separated from the general population. Inmates may be
placed in SC for up to seven days. The seven day period can be extended if
additional time is needed.
Security Level/Classification – System by which inmates are classified based on the
following: current age; seriousness of the crime; prior offenses; most recent
violence (not including the current offense); gang activity before going to prison; and
present and past escape attempts.
Level 1A Security (Minimum) – The lowest security level in the classification
system. Inmates classed as Level 1 have the most privileges allowed.
Inmates in Level 1 who meet criteria specified in DRC Policy 53-CLS-03,
Community Release Approval Process, may be eligible to work off the
grounds of a correctional institution. Level 1A inmates may be housed at a
correctional camp with or without a perimeter fence and may work outside the
fence under periodic supervision. Level 1A replaces the classification
previously known as “Minimum 1 Security.”
Level 1B Security (Minimum) – The second lowest level in the classification
system. Level 1B inmates may be housed at a correctional camp with a
perimeter fence and may work outside of the fence under intermittent
supervision. However, Level 1B inmates who are sex offenders are not
permitted to work or house outside of a perimeter fence. Level 1B inmates
may not work off the grounds of the correctional institution. Level 1B replaces
the classification previously known as “Minimum 2 Security.”
Level 2 Security (Medium) – A security level for inmates who are deemed in
need of more supervision than Level 1 inmates, but less than Level 3
inmates. Level 2 replaces the classification previously known as “Medium
Security.”
Level 3 Security (Close) – This is the security level that is the next degree
higher than Level 2, and requires more security/supervision than Level 2, but
less than Level 4. Level 3 replaces the classification previously known as
“Close Security.”
Level 4 Security (Maximum) – This is the security level that is the next degree
higher than Level 3, and requires more security/supervision than Level 3, but
less than Level 5. It is the security level for inmates whose security
classification score at the time of placement indicates a need for very high
security. It is also a classification for those who are involved in, but not
leading others to commit violent, disruptive, predatory or riotous actions,
and/or a threat to the security of the. Level 4 replaces the classification
previously known as “Maximum Security.”
Level 4A Security (Maximum) – A less restrictive privilege level, which
inmates may be placed into by the privilege level review committee with the
Warden/Designee’s approval, after a review of the inmate’s status in level 4.
Level 4B Security (Maximum) – The most restrictive privilege level assigned
to an inmate classified into level 4.
Level 5 Security (Supermax) – A security level for inmates who commit or
lead others to commit violent, disruptive, predatory, riotous actions, or who
otherwise pose a serious threat to the security of the institution as set forth in
the established Level 5 criteria. Level 5 replaces the classification previously
known as “High Maximum Security.”
Level 5A Security (Supermax) – A less restrictive privilege level, which
inmates may be placed into by the privilege level review committee with the
Warden/Designee’s approval, after a review of the inmate’s status in level 5.
Level 5B Security (Supermax) – The most restrictive privilege level assigned
to an inmate classified into level 5.
Security Threat Group (STG) – Groups of inmates such as gangs that pose a threat
to the security of the institution.
Separation – See Institutional Separation and Local Separation
Seriously Mentally Ill (SMI) – Inmates who require extensive mental health
treatment.
Shank – Sharp object manufactured to be used as a weapon.
Special Management Housing Unit (SMHU)/Segregation – Housing unit for those
assigned to Security Control, Disciplinary Control, Protective Control, and Local
Control.
Supermax Security – See Level 5
T
Telemedicine – A two-way interactive videoconferencing system that allows for
visual and limited physical examination of an inmate by a physician specialist while
the inmate remains at his/her prison setting and the physician specialist remains at
the health care facility. It also includes educational and administrative uses of this
technology in the support of health care, such as distance learning, nutrition
counseling and administrative videoconferencing.
Transitional Control – Inmates approved for release up to 180 days prior to the
expiration of their prison sentence or release on parole or post release control
supervision under closely monitored supervision and confinement in the community,
such as a stay in a licensed halfway house or restriction to an approved residence
on electronic monitoring in accordance with section 2967.26 of the Ohio Revised
Code.
Transitional Education Program (TEP) – Learn skills to successfully re-enter society.
Release dated within 90-180 days.
U
Unit Management Administrator (UMA) – Staff member responsible for overseeing
the roles, responsibilities and processes of unit management staff in a decentralized
or centralized social services management format. The UMA may develop
centralized processes within unit management, while maintaining the unit based
caseload management system for managing offender needs. The UMA shall ensure
that at least one unit staff member visits the special management areas at least
once per week and visits will not exceed seven days in between visits.
Unit Manager (UM) – Staff member responsible for providing direct supervision to
assigned unit management staff and serving as the chairperson of designated
committees. Unit Managers will conduct rounds of all housing areas occupied by
inmates under their supervision.
Use of Force – Staff is authorized to utilize force per DRC Policy 63-UOF-01 and
Administrative Rule 5120-9-01, which lists six general circumstances when a staff member
may use less than deadly force against an inmate or third person as follows:
1. Self-defense from physical attack or threat of physical harm.
2. Defense of another from physical attack or threat of physical attack.
3. When necessary to control or subdue an inmate who refuses to obey prison
rules, regulations, or orders.
4. When necessary to stop an inmate from destroying property or engaging in a
riot or other disturbance.
5. Prevention of an escape or apprehension of an escapee.
6. Controlling or subduing an inmate in order to stop or prevent self-inflicted
harm.
Administrative Rule 5120-9-02 requires the Deputy Warden of Operations to
review the use of force packet prepared on each use of force incident, and to
determine if the type and amount of force was appropriate and reasonable for the
circumstances, and if administrative rules, policies, and post orders were
followed. The Warden reviews the submission and may refer any use of force
incident to the two person use of force committee or to the Chief Inspector. The
Warden must refer an incident to a use of force committee or the Chief Inspector.
The Warden must refer an incident to a use of force committee or the Chief
Inspector in the following instances:
Factual circumstances are not described sufficiently.
The incident involved serious physical harm.
The incident was a significant disruption to normal operations.
Weapons, PR-24 strikes or lethal munitions were used.
W
Warden – Managing officer of each correctional institution.
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Institution Acronyms
Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution............
Belmont Correctional Institution ......................
Chillicothe Correctional Institution ...................
Correctional Reception Center ........................
Dayton Correctional Institution ........................
Franklin Medical Center ..................................
Grafton Correctional Institution ........................
Hocking Correctional Facility ...........................
Lake Erie Correctional Institution ....................
Lebanon Correctional Institution ......................
London Correctional Institution ........................
Lorain Correctional Institution ..........................
Madison Correctional Institution ......................
Mansfield Correctional Institution ....................
Marion Correctional Institution .........................
Noble Correctional Institution ..........................
North Central Correctional Complex................
Northeast Pre-Release Center ........................
Ohio Reformatory for Women .........................
Ohio State Penitentiary ...................................
Pickaway Correctional Institution ....................
Richland Correctional Institution ......................
Ross Correctional Institution ...........................
Southeastern Correctional Institution ..............
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility .................
Toledo Correctional Institution .........................
Trumbull Correctional Institution ......................
Warren Correctional Institution ........................
AOCI
BeCI
CCI
CRC
DCI
FMC
GCI
HCF
LAECI
LeCI
LoCI
LorCI
MaCI
ManCI
MCI
NCI
NCCC
NEPRC
ORW
OSP
PCI
RiCI
RCI
SCI
SOCF
ToCI
TCI
WCI
D. ENDNOTES
i
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction: Southern Ohio Correctional Facility website.
Accessed at http://www.drc.ohio.gov/Public/socf.htm.
ii
Ibid.
iii
Ibid.
iv
American Correctional Association (ACA) Accreditation Report, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility,
April 24-26, 2012.
v
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction: Southern Ohio Correctional Facility website.
Accessed at http://www.drc.ohio.gov/Public/socf.htm.
vi
Personal communication, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, February 13, 2013.
vii
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, “Monthly Fact Sheet: ODRC Workforce
Composition.”
February
2013.
Accessed
at
http://drc.ohio.gov/web/Reports/staffing/February%202013.pdf.
viii
Significant Incident Summary reports provided by Southern Ohio Correctional Facility for the following
periods: January 2012 – December 2012.
ix
Ibid
x
A Report on Assaults, Disturbances, Violence, and Prosecution in the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation
& Correction: January 1, 2007 through September 30, 2012.
xi
xii
Ibid
xiii
A Report on Assaults, Disturbances, Violence, and Prosecution in the Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation & Correction: January 1, 2007 through September 30, 2012.
xiv
xv
Information provided by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, January 24, 2013.
xvi
xvii
xviii
Johnson, Alan. Drug use in Ohio’s prisons spiked in ’12, January 7, 2013.
xix
Information provided by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.
xx
Ibid.
xxi
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Bureau of Recovery Services Site Visit Report of the
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, March 2012.
xxii
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Bureau of Fiscal Audits Report, Southern Ohio
Correctional Facility, November 14, 2012.
xxiii
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, personal communication, February 19, 2013.
xxiv
2012 Annual Training Report, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, June 22, 2012.
xxv
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 2012 Performance Data, Southern Ohio
Correctional Facility, January 30, 2013.
xxvi
Ibid.
xxvii
Administrative Needs Assessment, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, January 31, 2013.
xxviii
Waste Material Baseline Audit Report, Sourthern Ohio Correctional Facility, May 2012.
xxix
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, personal communication, February 6, 2013.
xxx
Ibid.
xxxi
SOCF Inmate Property Loss Committee FY 2013 Proposed Action Plan, Southern Ohio Correctional
Facility, February 6, 2013.
xxxii
Ibid.

Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

Transcription

Similar documents

GWINNETT COUNTY SHERIFF`S DEPARTMENT

KITSAP COUNTY SHERIFF`S OFFICE

DPS Prisons

JAILS DIVISION

Narrative Art

inmate - Palm Beach County Sheriff`s Office

Chronology of the 1993 Lucasville Prison Riot page 8

Communicable Disease in the LA County Jail

Our Prison System

Grand Welcome 19 Annual Day of India Vision Foundation celebrated