Correctional Reception Center - Correctional Institution Inspection

Transcription

CIIC: Correctional Reception Center|1
Correctional
Reception
Center
July 6, 2015
July 7, 2015
July 8, 2015
Margaret Ogonek,
Report Coordinator
CIIC: Correctional Reception Center 2
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION INSPECTION COMMITTEE REPORT
ON THE INSPECTION AND EVALUATION OF
CORRECTIONAL RECEPTION CENTER
Dates of Inspection:
July 6, 2015
July 7, 2015
July 8, 2015
Type of Inspection:
Unannounced
Legislators/CIIC Staff Present:
Joanna E. Saul, Director
Darin Furderer, Corrections Analyst II
Adam Jackson, Corrections Analyst II
Martha Spohn, Corrections Analyst II
Margaret Ogonek, Corrections Analyst I
Whitney Pesek, CIIC Fellow
Lanny Sacco, Corrections Consultant
Rebecca Barnett, Intern
Karin Nordstrom, Intern
Ceri Turner, Intern
Gwyn Troyer, John Howard Association
Phil Whittington, John Howard Assoc.
Alex Penrod, Rep Duffey Legislative Aide
Joe Bizjack, LSC Fellow
Facility Staff Present:
Warden Rick Chuvalas
CIIC spoke with many additional staff
throughout the course of the inspection.
Institution Overview
Correctional Reception Center (CRC) is the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction’s (DRC) reception center for the southern region of Ohio. The facility houses
inmates of all security classifications including a small work cadre population that are
assigned to specific areas of the prison. Additionally, CRC houses all juveniles under
the age of 18 in the DRC system. The facility opened in 1987 and is located on 50 acres
in Orient, Ohio.i The institution’s FY 2015 GRF budget was $42,454,397.ii
The rated capacity for CRC is 1,562.iii As of July 6, 2015, the institution housed 1,565
inmatesiv (100.2 percent of capacity).
Demographically, 60.3 percent of the inmates are classified as white, 37.8 percent as
black, and 1.9 percent as “other” race. The average inmate age was 35.4 years.1v As
of June 1, 2015, CRC employed 507 total staff, of which 297 are security staff.vi
The institution scored 100 percent compliance on the most recent ACA audit for
mandatory standards,2 and 99.8 percent on non-mandatory standards.3,4vii In its most
recent full internal management audit,5 CRC was 98.3 percent compliant on mandatory
standards6 and 99.3 percent compliant on non-mandatory standards.7viii Of the Ohio
Standards, the facility was 87.1 percent compliant on the applicable standards.8ix
Executive Director Overview
Without question, CRC has made significant strides in the past several years. This was
particularly reflected in comments made by inmates who had been in CRC one or more
times before, as they shared that CRC had improved over past years. Medical services,
which has raised concern in prior inspections, also demonstrated improvement under
the direction of two new health care administrators. The segregation unit, previously an
area of serious concern for CIIC staff, was an entirely different environment, with
inmates genuinely praising the segregation supervisor.
In addition, the facility has played a key role in the implementation of the DRC’s
“reception reform,” which has included innovative components such as the use of peer
inmate mentors for reception inmates and an increase in programming and activities.
The facility also recently passed the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) audit
with very high marks, which is truly a credit to them.
This improvement has occurred at the same time that the facility has taken on
challenging, new missions – the juvenile unit and the Sex Offender Risk Reduction
Center – and it has transitioned the Residential Treatment Unit for seriously mentally ill
1
The youngest inmate was listed as 16.0 years of age and the oldest inmate was listed as 105.5 years of
age; however, the latter age is for an inmate who escaped several decades ago and is still listed on the
rolls.
2
CRC was compliant on each of the 61 applicable mandatory standards.
3
CRC was compliant on 425 of 426 applicable non-mandatory standards. The standards in which CRC
was not in compliance were pertaining to unencumbered space in general population.
4
The most recent audit by the Commission on Accreditation for Corrections was conducted on May 1820, 2015.
5
The full internal management audit was conducted on March 17-19, 2015.
6
CRC was compliant in 59 of the 60 applicable mandatory standards. The standard in which CRC was
not in compliance pertained to a nurse practitioner and the failure to renew his certification to prescribe
medication.
7
Three of the non-mandatory standards were found in non-compliance. The standards in which CRC was
found not in compliance were related to an anal cavity search performed by a nurse practitioner without
the proper authorization, proper supervision of juvenile inmates, proper documentation of reasons for mail
being withheld.
8
CRC was compliant on 88 of 101 applicable Ohio Standards. The standards in which CRC was not in
compliance with were pertaining to visitation, documentation of probationary employees, crisis treatment
plans, various mental health documentation, documentation of training for medical staff, documentation of
CQI minutes, medication administration, documentation of immunizations, case plans from Unit Staff.
inmates to a different location on the compound. The facility has also experienced
complete turnover in its top leadership and all are new to their roles. With such
challenges, it could have been expected to struggle. Instead, the facility is continuing to
maintain the accomplishments of the former administration and building further, which is
a real credit to the current administration.
There is still work to be done, particularly in the area of use of force, which has been a
concern at the facility for years. Inmates continue to report incidents of unnecessary
and excessive use of force and CIIC’s review also raised concerns. The administration
is aware of this concern, however, and has been working on it, including additional
training opportunities. Related, negative inmate/staff interactions were reported across
all areas of the institution, and CIIC staff have particular concern regarding officer
treatment of inmates in the Residential Treatment Unit. The administration also has a
lot of work to do to get the buy-in from the officers and so that they feel that they are
part of the process and success of CRC.
Overall, the facility demonstrated improvement over prior years and CIIC has
confidence in the current administration to continue improving.
I. INSPECTION SUMMARY
SAFETY AND SECURITY: ACCEPTABLE9
INDICATORS
RATING
FINDINGS
Acceptable

Disturbances
Good

Use of Force
In Need of
Improvement

Violence Outcome
Measures
Total inmate-on-inmate assaults in CY 2014 increased by four assaults in
comparison to CY 2013. Total inmate-on-staff assaults in CY 2014
decreased by one assault in comparison to CY 2013.
 The rate of inmate disciplinary convictions for assaults increased by 16.9
percent during CY 2014 in comparison to CY 2013. The rate of inmate
disciplinary convictions for assaults for CY 2014 at CRC was significantly
more than the comparator prison, but less than the DRC average.
 The rate of rule 19 convictions for CY 2014 decreased 6.1 percent
compared to CY 2013. The rate of rule 19 convictions for CY 2014 at
CRC was slightly more than the comparator prison, but slightly less than
the DRC average.
 There have been zero homicides during the past two years.
In FY 2014, CRC reported one disturbance. The rate of disturbances
remained the same in comparison to FY 2013, in which one disturbance
was reported.
 The rate of disturbances in FY 2014 was slightly less than the comparator
prison and significantly less than the DRC average.

9
During CY 2014, the facility reported 179 use of force incidents, which
was a decrease of 23.6 percent.
A review of use of force incidents indicated two use of force incidents
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.

Control of Illegal
Substances
Good


Inmate Perception
of Safety
Good



Unit Security
Management
Acceptable




were deemed inappropriate and/or excessive by a use of force committee
and an additional four incidents prompted concern regarding the amount
of force utilized.
However, video documentation was available for almost all incidents and
included footage from different cameras/vantage points, staff
appropriately referred incidents to a use of force committee, and Inmates
were generally seen within an hour following the use of force incident.
During CY 2014, 0.6 percent of the inmates tested positive for the
presence of an illegal substance, which decreased in comparison to CY
2013. The percentage of inmates who tested positive in CY 2014 at CRC
was less than the comparator prison and significantly less than the DRC
average.
During CY 2014, the institution drug tested 73 inmates for programs and
59 for cause, which is low.
83.2 percent of survey respondents reported they are very safe, safe, or
neutral (in terms of safety). This was approximately the same in
comparison to the 2014 inspection.
Many open-ended survey responses indicated safety as the most positive
aspect of the facility.
The institution did not have any inmates in segregation for refusal to lock
and there were no inmates under PC investigation or with an approved
PC placement on the day of the inspection.
Officers consistently documented rounds in the requisite 30 minute,
staggered intervals, with a few exceptions.
Officers were somewhat inconsistent for the documentation of required
shakedowns.
CIIC’s review of cells indicated minor concerns towels on the floor and
blocked windows on cell walls.
There were zero overdue security classification reviews that were
unaccounted for on the day of the inspection.
Institutional
Security
Management
Acceptable






Prison Rape
Elimination Act
(PREA)
Good






Executive staff members, with a few exceptions, are consistently making
the required rounds in housing units based on a review of employee signin logs.
Staff demonstrated they know how to use the Enterprise Information
Management system. However, the tracking system did not have a clear
breakdown by location and did not provide useful information on when,
where, and what types of violence occurs.
The majority of correctional officers believe they are adequately informed
of incidents between shifts.
The number of rule 17 (unauthorized group activity) convictions appears
to be in line with their STG population.
A review of the past six months’ of STG committee meetings indicates
that meetings were held, but did not always include the staff members
who are required to attend per policy.
There have been no escapes or attempted escapes during the past two
years.
The facility met all standards on their most recent PREA audit.
PREA posters, which contain information for inmates on reporting of
sexual assaults, were posted in all the housing units. In addition to the
posters, staff relayed they placed the PREA hotline number on all of the
phones to increase privacy.
There were no concerns noted by the classified potential victims.
A review of PREA risk assessments indicated staff are complying with
PREA standards.
A slightly higher percentage of inmate survey respondents indicated they
knew how to report sexual contact in comparison to the DRC average.
However, there were 11 substantiated PREA cases and staff did not
always make an announcement or utilize the notification system when a
female was entering the housing unit.
HEALTH AND WELLBEING: ACCEPTABLE
INDICATORS
Unit Conditions
RATING
Good
FINDINGS



Medical Services
Acceptable





Mental Health
Services
Acceptable

Good
Medical facilities were observed to be in good condition.
Staffing levels appear to be sufficient to meet the medical needs of the
inmate population; however, CRC has had a high turnover of medical staff
since the last inspection and the institution has three new nurse
practitioners.
Inmate focus groups were relatively positive regarding medical care at
CRC.
Staff reported no backlog for Nurse Sick Call or Doctor Sick Call; however,
there was a small backlog for Chronic Care appointments.
The percentage of Chronic Care No-Shows/AMA was calculated to be very
low.

Staffing levels appear to be sufficient given the numbers of individuals on
the caseload.
Staff reported a small backlog for initial psychiatry appointment.
The institution houses an RTU and SIB crisis unit.
CRC recently began offering programs to inmates receiving outpatient
services; however, the programs do not appear to meet the needs of the
individuals needing services.
Officer/inmate interactions on the RTU were of concern.

The recovery service facilities were noted to be clean and orderly;



Recovery Services
The housing units were generally rated as good and overall appeared to
be clean with very few concerns.
A small number of maintenance concerns were noted and staff relayed
that they are handled within a day or two.
Shower conditions were rated good or acceptable; however, several
housing units had shower rated in need of improvement.



Food Services


Acceptable


Recreation

Good


however, staff relayed that space does not have a consistent presence of
security staff and also has a leaky roof.
In FY 2014, CRC’s program termination rates were lower than the DRC
average with the exception of the Intensive Outpatient Services.
CRC has a large number of cadre inmates participating in AA, NA and 12step programs.
Negatively, outreach to inmates’ families is very limited.
The three meals sampled by CIIC were rated as good and acceptable.
The institution passed their most recent health inspection and was 97.0
percent compliant in its most recent evaluation by the DRC Food Service
Monitor.
Negatively, 78.1 percent of inmate survey respondents indicated that they
were either “unsatisfied” or “very unsatisfied” with the quality of the food
served.
Also negatively, the food service staff relayed that CRC has an issue with
gnats. CIIC observed gnats in the food service operations.
Physical facilities appeared clean and were in use during the inspection
and no maintenance concerns were relayed.
Inmates are offered a good selection of activities for recreation with a few
unique opportunities including arm wrestling and darts.
Inmate focus group participants relayed that recreation is too short and
survey respondents also reported low satisfaction with recreation.
FAIR TREATMENT: ACCEPTABLE
INDICATORS
Staff/Inmate
Interactions
RATING
In Need of
Improvement
FINDINGS

The predominant issue relayed via the inmate survey, across all
populations, was negative officer/inmate interactions, particularly excessive
use of force.
C I I C : C o r r e c t i o n a l R e c e p t i o n C e n t e r 10



Inmate Grievance
Procedure
Good




Inmate Discipline
Acceptable



Segregation
Good



The majority of CIIC staff heard multiple concerns regarding officers from
inmates.
Overall, all vulnerable population focus group participants believe that CRC
has a problem with use of force against inmates. Positively, inmates that
had previously been to CRC said it is getting better.
The Inspector relayed that she does not currently track the staff names that
most frequently appear in inmate complaints, although she has in the past.
The majority of inmates reported having access to informal complaints.
An average percentage of inmates reported knowing who the Inspector
was.
Staff timeliness of response to inmate complaints is relatively good.
CIIC’s review of a random sample of informal complaints and grievances
indicated that staff are responsive to inmate concerns and professional in
their responses.
CIIC’s review of closed cases revealed zero issues, indicating that
procedures are being followed and oversight from the Warden’s level is
good.
CRC’s RIB panel consistently followed standard hearing procedures;
however, the panel procedures could be improved by confirming the inmate
rights form and ensuring inmates understand what they are signing.
The review of evidence was merely adequate and it was difficult to
determine what evidence was actually reviewed, as little was attached to
the RIB record.
The segregation population has decreased in comparison to prior years.
Only two inmates had been in segregation for more than one month, which
is excellent.
Conditions appeared good and cells appeared clean. Inmates relayed
positive comments regarding the segregation supervisor.
A review of documentation indicated that staff were making appropriate
security rounds and the log sheets were fully completed.
REHABILITATION AND REENTRY: ACCEPTABLE
INDICATORS
Reentry Planning
RATING
Good
FINDINGS




Rehabilitative
Programming
Acceptable




Family
Engagement and
Community
Connections
Good



Literacy
Development
Acceptable


100 percent of the RPLANS for inmates at CRC at the time the RPLAN
was due were completed on time
A reentry fair in October 2014 was well attended by inmates and by
service providers
Reception reform is underway, promising to incorporate additional
services and activities to support successful reentry
A first-time offender group, facilitated by a new inmate, a cadre inmate,
and a case manager, meets weekly
A majority of surveyed cadre inmates knew how to obtain most services
in the community
Less than half of survey respondents indicated staff had given them
guidance regarding programs to take
Negatively, completion rates for the five-reentry approved programs were
at or near 50.0 percent for CY 14 and CY 15
Negatively, CRC in 2014 offered significantly fewer religious services than
the comparator prison and its participation rate was lower than the
comparator prison
A majority of inmates report experiencing few problems with mail and
visits; telephones remain an issue for some
Several events that bring inmates and their loved ones together inside the
prison were held in CY 14 and CY15 to date
Three community service activities are available for inmates and hours
were significantly higher than the comparator prison
The rate of items in circulation was significantly higher than the
comparator prison
Positively, CRC’s rate of inmates on the waitlist compared to those


Vocational and
Work Skill
Development
Acceptable




enrolled in academic programming decreased significantly FY 13 – 14
Negatively, the rate of GEDS earned in FY 14 was significantly lower than
the comparator prison.
Negatively, the rate of academic certificates decreased by 16 percent
from FY 13 to FY 14
CRC offers 14 apprenticeships
A pre-apprenticeship program will be rolled out soon
A 10-week career tech program is offered in fiber optic cabling
Negatively, apprenticeship enrollment greatly decreased FY 13 – 14 but
still was higher than the rate of the comparator prison
FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY: ACCEPTABLE
INDICATORS
Fiscal Wellness
RATING
Good
FINDINGS




Environmental
Sustainability
Acceptable


In their most recent internal fiscal audit, CRC was compliant in each of
their applicable mandatory standards for an overall score of 100.0
percent.
In their most recent external fiscal audit, CRC was non-compliant in four
areas.
In CY 2014, CRC property loss payouts were similar to the amount they
paid in CY 2013. In CY 2013, the CRC rate of property settlements was
lower than the average for comparator prisons.
In 2014, CRC reported $61,000 total in cost savings.
In FY 2015, CRC recycling revenue decreased by 5.5 percent decrease
from FY 2014.
CRC graduated all six participants in the Train the Trainers program and
currently has a Roots of Success sustainability program. However, CRC
does not have a re-claimers program.
Staff Management
Acceptable


Successfully completed their sustainability audit.
Negatively, CRC significantly increased their natural gas usage and
increased their electrical usage in 2014. CRC also increased their total
utility costs in FY 2014.

The CRC FY 2015 training rates ranged from 97.3 percent to 99.4
percent.
In FY 2015, CRC decreased their total staff turnover rate from FY 2014.
In CY 2014, CRC completed 74.9 percent of their performance
evaluations on time.
Officer interviews were mostly positive. However, officer survey results
indicate that officers have concerns that need to be addressed.



RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY

Implement additional use of force training opportunities for officers. Utilize OC if
possible prior to utilizing a takedown technique. Ensure that staff are exhausting
lesser alternatives, if possible, prior to force. Evaluate the disproportionate use
of force on black inmates. Ensure proper policy is followed during planned use
of force incidents.

Ensure staff conduct the required number of shakedowns per policy.

Ensure that executive staff conduct weekly rounds through housing units, in line
with DRC policy.

Develop a violent incident tracking system to analyze trends of violence that
occurs at the institution.

Ensure that the required staff are attending the monthly STG committee
meetings per policy.

Ensure that females are announced when they enter a housing unit

Ensure Health Care Request forms are available on each unit.

Ensure all floors in the medical bay are cleaned regularly and blood spills are
addressed immediately.

Ensure the individual that announced an inmate’s medical issues in front of other
inmates is counseled on proper patient care.

Ensure nurses are properly trained on pill-call and consider strategies to ensure
evening pill-call does not run into early morning hours.

Address the concerns regarding gnats and flies in food service.

Ensure the identification scanners are installed in food service.

Ensure the inmate incentive program is implemented for food service workers.

Evaluate inmate concerns regarding negative staff/inmate
particularly excessive use of force, and develop plans to address.

Ensure the inmate testimony form provides an accurate summary and that it is
confirmed with the inmate prior to signature.

Ensure all standards are met for the external fiscal audit.

Develop strategies to reduce natural gas usage.

Implement an inmate re-claimers program.

Develop and implement strategies to improve morale and correctional officer
concerns regarding supervision.
interactions,
RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED

ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS

Consider additional strategies to reduce inmate violence including assaults
and fights.

Consider increasing the number of inmates tested for prohibited substances.

Consider strategies to improve communication with security in both the
medical and mental health department. Additionally, consider strategies to
improve officer/inmate interactions on the RTU.

Consider evaluating the kite log system in both the medical and mental health
department to ensure kites are being answered and a system is in place to
document when the response was sent.

Consider evaluating the needs of individuals receiving outpatient mental
health services and tailor programs offered to their clinical diagnosis and
current need.

Consider implementing an inter-disciplinary team meeting during shift change.

Consider evaluating the reasons for a high number of terminations in the
Intensive Outpatient Services for FY 2014.

Consider increasing the number of movies in the Netflix subscription.

Consider having the Inspector track the names of staff who most frequently
appear in inmate complaints and providing a regular report to the Warden.

Consider evaluating the low granted rate for grievances, as well as the high
percentage of grievance extensions.

Consider improving the level of evidence attached to the RIB record and
reviewed as part of each RIB hearing.

Consider ways to increase enrollment in rehabilitative programming.

Consider polling inmates to find out why they drop out of programs and use the
data for quality improvement processes.

Consider ways to increase offerings of religious worship services.

Consider ways to schedule major family engagement events to ensure all go
off as planned.

Consider ways to increase the rate of GEDs earned.

Consider ways to increase enrollment in apprenticeships.
DRC RESPONSE
Issue Problem noted by CIIC – Use of force
Implement additional UOF training opportunities for officers. Utilize OC if possible prior to utilizing a takedown technique. Ensure that staff
are exhausting lesser alternatives, if possible, prior to force. Evaluate the disproportionate UOF on black inmates. Ensure proper policy is
followed during planned UOF incidents.
Tasks
Person Responsible
1. Schedule all remaining officers to attend Use of Force training presented by Managing Director
1.DWO, Major
Voorhies (date TBA.) On July 16, 2015 Mr. Voorhies facilitated a use of force training session with
2.Training Officer
several senior correction officers and conducted an afternoon session for CRC administrators.
3. Lt. Antle
2. Continue to show UOF video presented by Mr. Voorhies This video focuses on appropriate use of
4.DWO
chemical agents and proper threat assessment.
5. Training Officer
3. Lt. Antle to provide training to officers while on post to cover OC usage when, and is it appropriate and 6. Warden Chuvalas
train staff with hip pocket UOF training.
7. Warden Chuvalas
4. Use of force data will be reviewed weekly at the Operations Meetings to identify trends and hotspots.
8. Major
This information will be available to all staff as well.
9. Major
5. Meet with UOF instructors and express what is recommended for training prior to teaching UOF
training to all employees.
6. Warden Chuvalas will meet with all new employees upon their start of OJT and discuss in detail
appropriate use of force and effective communication with inmates.
7. ADO Officers will be discussing appropriate use of force response and noting it on their inspection
report.
8. Shift Supervisors will be on the yard during mass movement. (feeding of meals)
9. Shift Lieutenants will supervise the entire escort of all UOFs from the start of the UOF to segregation
placement.
Comments: In May 2015, all security staff was trained to use OC when appropriate. All security posts including perimeter patrol are
equipped with OC canisters. It is mandatory for officers to carry chemical agents. Additionally, in May 2015 the location of the pepper ball
gun was changed to better accommodate security supervisors. Use of force incidents are being evaluated very closely and investigated to
the degree that the seriousness warrants. Finally, additional surveillance cameras have been added to many areas throughout the facility.
Issue Problem noted by CIIC – Shakedowns
Ensure staff conducts the required number of shakedowns per policy.
Tasks
1. Unit Managers and shift supervisors will work together to check daily to make sure all shifts are
completing their required shakedowns.
2. Develop a shakedown log that can be kept at the Officers desk for quick reference. To be completed
by Administrative Captain and be put in place within 2 weeks.
Person Responsible
1. Unit Managers
2. Admin. Capt.
Comments: Security staff is struggling with tracking which cells have already been shaken down for the calendar quarter. A paper
document listing all of the beds will be placed in each pod for the officers to check off as they complete their shakedowns with subsequent
logging on E-shakedown.
Issue Problem noted by CIIC –Weekly Rounds
Ensure that executive staff conducts weekly rounds through housing units, in line with DRC policy.
Tasks
Person Responsible
1. Warden
1. Checklist to be developed that coincides with DRC policy to ensure that all areas are checked
regularly.
Comments: CRC’s understanding of 50-PAM-02 is that between all deputy wardens, all living and activity areas must be visited weekly.
The two deputies coordinate their rounds each week to ensure that all required areas are visited.
Issue Problem noted by CIIC – Violence Tracking
Develop a violent incident tracking system to analyze trends of violence that occur at the institution.
Tasks
1. DWO Administrative Professional to track violence on sheet that was discontinued in February of
2014 for reasons unknown. Sheet to be reviewed by DWO to ensure that it encompasses all required
tracking information.
2. The violence tracking module will be updated weekly and will be distributed to all department heads
and security supervisors for awareness and review of violence “hot spots.”
3. Hotspots will be targeted for additional shakedowns, staff surveillance and Canine searches.
Person Responsible
1.DWO Administrative
Professional.
2.DWO, Administrative
Professional
3.Major and Shift
Supervisors
Comments:
Issue
Problem noted by CIIC –STG Meetings
Ensure that the required staff is attending the monthly STG committee meetings per 310 policy.
Tasks
1. STG coordinator to send out Outlook meeting reminders in advance to all employees required by policy
to attend.
Comments:
Person Responsible
1. STG Coordinator
2. Administrative
Captain
Issue Problem noted by CIIC – PREA
Ensure that females are announced when they enter a housing unit.
Tasks
1. Email and discuss during Department head meeting that when staff are escorting females around the
compound, the escorting staff member will be responsible for the audible alert.
2. ACA/PREA Coordinator will continue to make monthly rounds and evaluate for female staff complying
with this requirement.
Person Responsible
1.All escorting staff
2.ACA/PREA Coordinator
Comments: On the days of inspection by CIIC, CRC escorting staff failed to announce female CIIC staff when they were entering the
living units. We need to be mindful of this. CRC remains proud however of achieving the highest exceptional practice of any other facility
during our recent ACA/PREA Audit.
Issue Problem noted by CIIC – Health Care requests
Ensure Health care request forms are available on each unit.
Tasks
1. Unit Staff will be responsible for monitoring and will also be required to contact the HCAs in the event
that the unit needs additional HCRs.
2. Procedure to be discussed during July 2015 Department head meeting. Completed on 7/30/2015.
3. An inspection notation for kites and Health Care Request forms with be added to the ADO Inspection
sheet
Comments: Health Service Request forms were not available in 4 of the 10 living units.
Person Responsible
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
HCA
Unit Staff
LRO
DWSS
Inspector
Issue Problem noted by CIIC – sanitation of medical bay
Ensure all floors in the medical bay are cleaned regularly and blood spills are addressed immediately.
Tasks
1. Monitor and meet with Department heads to discuss incident.
2. Monitor cleanliness of the medical area
Person Responsible
1. DWSS
2. Assistant Health
Care Admin.
Comments: Blood spots were found on the floor of the staff restroom. This is believed to be an isolated incident.
Issue
Problem noted by CIIC –Privacy of Medical care.
Ensure the individual that announced an inmate’s medical issues in front of other inmates is counseled on proper patient care.
Tasks
Person Responsible
1. HCA has addressed the issue with nursing staff.
1.HCA
2. HCA will conduct an additional review of HIPPA guidelines with medical staff.
Comments: The nurse was identified that made this announcement and was immediately counseled by the HCA.
Issue Problem noted by CIIC – Pill call
Ensure nurses are properly trained on pill-call and consider strategies to ensure evening pill call does not run into early morning hours.
Tasks
1. Medical Protocol B-10 “medication administration policy” has been issued to all nursing staff and the
HCA is monitoring.
2. HCAs are evaluating the process for appropriateness.
Person Responsible
1. HCA
2. DWSS
Comments:
Issue Problem noted by CIIC – Sanitation of food service
Tasks
1. Memo created and implemented that addresses issues of moving trash and food waste to the
appropriate areas.
2. Staff working in the area has been advised of the proper procedures to assist with keeping the area
clear of debris and offensive odors.
3. ADOs have been advised to address the issues immediately in the event that they see food, trash,
and other items accumulating in this area.
Comments:
Person Responsible
1. Lt. Antle
2. Health & Safety
3. LRO
Issue Problem noted by CIIC – Scanners
Tasks
1. Lt. Antle to follow up with ARAMARK administration on issue.
2. As of 7/29/2015 lines have been installed for both scanners and CRC is awaiting scanners.
Person Responsible
1. Lt. Antle
2. J. Miller ARAMARK
3. Maintenance
Superintendent.
Comments:
Issue Problem noted by CIIC – Incentive programs in food service
Tasks
1. Incentive program currently being revised by ARAMARK Food service manager. Once completed the
program will be reviewed for implementation.
2. The Fresh Favorite program for inmates will be kicked off after August 14, 2015 which will provide the
institution with a 15% profit amount. The CRC BA3 is working with OSC to determine if the 15% can
be utilized to fund the incentive program.
Person Responsible
1. ARAMARK Food
service manager.
2. BA3
Comments: The Inmate Incentive Program has been delayed as the initial proposal from ARAMARK requested that the monthly incentive
amount for inmates exceeds what the Administrative Rule allows. Further scrutiny of the incentive program realizes that the additional pay
for inmates is paid for through the CRC budget.
Issue Problem noted by CIIC – Staff / Inmate interactions
Evaluate inmate concerns regarding negative staff / inmate interactions, particularly excessive UOFs and develop plans to address.
Tasks
1. Excessive UOFs will be addressed the same as in issue #1 re: UOF.
2. Negative staff / inmate interactions will be addressed initially during OJT, emphasizing our zero
tolerance for negative interaction and inappropriate supervision of inmates. Management will be
taking a strong approach on disciplining those found to be out of compliance with the expectations of
the ODRC.
3. Tracking inmate complaints to determine unprofessional communication of staff toward inmates.
4. Town Hall meetings will be increased to more closely monitor inmate concerns regarding
unprofessional language and perceived negative treatment by staff.
5. Warden and Deputy Wardens will discuss appropriate communication and professional behavior of
staff during annual in-service training.
Person Responsible
1. Warden
2. Warden
3. Inspector
4. Unit Manager,
UMC, Inspector
5. Warden, DWO,
DWSS
Comments:
Issue Problem noted by CIIC – Inmate testimony
Ensure the inmate testimony form provides an accurate summary and that it is confirmed with the inmate prior to signature.
Tasks
1. Warden’s Assistant to address proper procedures during RIB cases, specifically addressing testimony
stated during case.
Comments:
Person Responsible
1. Warden’s assistant
Issue Problem noted by CIIC – Audit standards
Tasks
1. See attachment below: “Audit Standards” and plans of action.
Person Responsible
1. BA3
Comments:
Issue Problem noted by CIIC – Natural Gas
Tasks
1. Capital improvement project to include installing energy efficient boilers to reduce natural gas usage.
2. Maintenance department to seek out leaks that may be causing loss of natural gas.
Comments:
Person Responsible
1. Business
Administrator
2. Maintenance
Superintendent
Issue Problem noted by CIIC – Re-claimers program
Tasks
1. CRC is currently in the process of implementing jobs for re-claimers as we start to contribute our food
waste to Big Hanna.
2. Maintenance will have the final electrical work complete and a recycling baler will be installed at the
warehouse by August 21, 2015. Once the baler is installed, we will be moving forward on kicking off a
recycling program that will be facilitated using inmate re-claimers.
Person Responsible
1. Warden’s assistant
2. Maintenance Supt.
Comments:
Issue Problem noted by CIIC – Morale
Develop and implement strategies to improve morale and correctional officer concerns regarding supervision.
Tasks
1. Involve line staff in up and coming projects.
2. Town Hall meetings hosted by Executive Staff during in-service training to answer questions about
concerns.
3. Conduct effective Executive Staff Rounds
Comments:
Person Responsible
1. DWO
2. Warden, DWO,
DWSS
3. Executive Staff
ADDITIONAL RESPONSE
Audit Standards
Below are the written responses of corrective action taken regarding the Report of Audit dated May 5, 2015 for the Correctional Reception
Center. The examination period for the internal funds, was September 1, 2012 through February 28, 2014. Clifford Forshey, External
Auditor, conducted the audit.
Business Office – MBE and EDGE
Observation 1.:Four of ten forms tested (40%) were not properly completed. Segments of the form were not always filled out completely,
with several fields left blank.
Plan of Action:
We will be diligent to ensure that these forms are filled out completely. We have a great deal of purchasers within the organization and
most are very good to ensure that all appropriate segments are completed. We also do a second check in the Business Office when the
RTP comes to us to check for signatures and correctness of the form. Of course, not all segments need to be completed on every form
as it depends on the individual situation.
Business Office – Payment Card
Observation 2.: The Payment Card Reconciler did not sign any of the Payment Card logs reviewed. In addition, the logs were not
completely filled out, with columns left blank. The OAKS voucher number was not recorded for any purchases on the logs reviewed.
Plan of Action:
We are ensuring that all payment card logs are completed entirely. The Reconciler is signing the logs now, which was not done in the
past, and we are recording voucher numbers on the logs when the vouchers appear on the OAKS system.
Commissary
Observation 3. A large inventory variance, resulting in a shortage, totaling $9,933.66 was noted for the months of February and March
2013.
The current Commissary Manager was promoted on January 27, 2013. An inventory was taken after the new Manager’s first full month
on the job. The inventory, at the end of February 2013, resulted in a shortage totaling $8,041.44. There was another significant shortage
the following month (March 2013) of $1,892.22.
The February and March 2013 combined shortage, totaling $9,933.66, accounted for 90% of the 18-month audit period shortage. As a
result, the shortage lowered the Net Income percentage to 7.8% for the audit period. Since the promotion of the current Commissary
Manager, it appears the institution modified its procedures regarding i9nventory accountability, and as of 4/30/15, the fiscal year-to-date
Net Income is up to 10.1%, which is similar to that from the previous two audit periods that averaged 9.4%. Refer to the Comparative
Income Statement at the end of this report.
Plan of Action:
We have definitely modified our procedures to ensure that this type of shortage will no longer occur here at CRC. All items are counted
individually at Inventory time by Commissary Staff, not inmates. All inventory shipped in to the warehouse is also counted individually
to ensure there are no shortage. If shortages are found, we follow up immediately with the vendor to adjust invoices or to send shorted
items as soon as possible. Our adjustments have been minimal lately and are reviewed with the Business Administrator before being
made in the CACTAS system. Our old stock items are minimal due to good rotation of product. There are occasionally damaged items,
but again this is very minimal. Commissary use items are rare.
Observation 4: Fifteen Commissary vouchers and 15 Requests to Purchase (RTP) and/or Purchase Order (PO) forms were reviewed.
Twelve, or 92%, of the RTP or PO forms were dated after the vendor invoice date. Voucher cover sheets were not always signed to
document approval of the payment. This is a violation of the Commissary Manual that details proper purchasing procedures.
Plan of Action:
We are now following these guidelines to ensure that the RTP and Purchase order are dated prior to the Receiving Report and the
Invoice. In the past, and in order to keep appropriate stock, Commissary employees were telephoning orders to the vendor and not
always waiting for the appropriate RTP signatures to be obtained; therefore, the date sequences did not always follow. We are no longer
telephoning these orders in prior to the RTP being signed.
Cashier’s Office – Inmate Trust Fund
Comment 1: Old un-deposited Receipts on Account (ROA’s) totaled $794.54 at 2/28/14. The undeposited items were due to items having
been incorrectly posted to the wrong inmate accounts, involved two inmates, and were in the process of being corrected through
consultation with the Bureau of Information Technology (BITS) at the conclusion of the audit fieldwork. As of 5/4/15, these items are still
considered un-deposited in CACTAS.
Plan of Action: We waited one year to determine if the inmates would return in order to recoup the outstanding funds. Since they have
not returned, these will now be zeroed out.
II.
SAFETY AND SECURITY
CIIC EXPECTATION: Prisons will provide a safe and secure environment for all
inmates.
A. VIOLENCE OUTCOME MEASURES
CIIC’s evaluation of violence focuses on the number and rate of disciplinary convictions
for assaults, fights, and the number of homicides at the institution during a year in
comparison to the previous year; the comparator prison rate; and the DRC average.
Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated violence outcome measures as ACCEPTABLE.
Assaults



During CY 2014, there were 39 reported inmate-on-inmate assaults.x Of the total
92.3 percent were physical assaults, 5.1 percent were harassment assaults, and
one (2.6 percent) was a sexual assault.xi Total inmate-on-inmate assaults in CY
2014 increased by four assaults in comparison to CY 2013.10xii
The institution reported 31 inmate-on-staff assaults during CY 2014.xiii Of the
total, 51.6 percent were physical assaults, 35.5 percent were harassment
assaults, and 12.9 percent were inappropriate physical contact.xiv Total inmateon-staff assaults in CY 2014 decreased by one assault in comparison to CY
2013.11xv
The rate of inmate disciplinary convictions for assaults increased by 16.9 percent
during CY 2014 in comparison to CY 2013.12xvi The rate of inmate disciplinary
convictions for assaults for CY 2014 at CRC was significantly more than the
comparator prison, but less than the DRC average.13xvii
Number of
Assaults
Chart 1
Total Assaults
CY 2012 – CY 2015 YTD
50
40
30
20
10
-
Inmate on Staff
Inmate on Inmate
10
2012
41
37
2013
32
35
2014
31
39
2015 YTD
14
10
During CY 2013, there were 35 inmate-on-inmate assaults.
During CY 2013, there were 32 inmate-on-staff assaults.
12
The rate of inmate disciplinary convictions for assaults in CY 2013 was 40.2 per 1,000 inmates. The
rate in CY 2014 was 47.0.
13
The rate of inmate disciplinary convictions for assaults in CY 2014 was 47.0 per 1,000 inmates. The
rate of the comparator prison was 18.5 and the DRC average rate was 56.9.
11
Fights


Fights14 are documented via RIB convictions for rule 19 (fight) violations. The
rate15 of rule 19 convictions for CY 2014 decreased 6.1 percent compared to CY
2013.16xviii
The rate of rule 19 convictions for CY 2014 at CRC was slightly more than the
comparator prison, but slightly less than the DRC average.17xix
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) Rates18
CY 2014
350
300
250
200
143.2
150
100
50
Level
4/5
Reception
DCI
FMC
NERC
ORW
Level
3
CRC
LorCI
OSP
SOCF
Level
1/2
LeCI
ManCI
RCI
TCI
ToCI
WCI
AOCI
BeCI
CCI
GCC
LAECI
LoCI
MaCI
MCI
NCCC
NCI
PCI
RICI
SCC
0
Medical/
Female
Homicides

14
There have been zero homicides during the past two years (2013 to date).
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.
15
The rate was obtained by dividing the total number of rule 19 violations for the year by the average
monthly institutional population for that same time period.
16
In CY 2013, the facility reported 273 (152.5 per 1,000 inmates) rule 19 convictions; during CY 2014, the
facility reported 259 (143.2 per 1,000 inmates) rule 19 violations.
17
The rate for the comparator prison was 135.8 per 1,000 inmates and the DRC average was 146.1.
18
Rate is per 1,000 inmates.
B. DISTURBANCES19
CIIC’s evaluation of disturbances focuses on the number of disturbances at the
institution during a year in comparison to the previous year, the comparator prison rate,
and the DRC average. Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated disturbances as GOOD.


In FY 2014, CRC reported one disturbance. The rate of disturbances remained
the same in comparison to FY 2013, in which one disturbance was reported.20xx
The rate of disturbances in FY 2014 was slightly less than the comparator prison
and significantly less than the DRC average.21xxi
The following provides a comparison of the rate of disturbances across the DRC per
1,000 inmates.
Chart 3
Rate of Disturbances by Institution
FY 2014
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Level
1/2
Level
3
Level
4/5
Reception
DCI
FMC
NERC
ORW
CRC
LorCI
OSP
SOCF
LeCI
ManCI
RCI
TCI
ToCI
WCI
AOCI
BeCI
CCI
GCC
LAECI
LoCI
MaCI
MCI
NCCC
NCI
PCI
RICI
SCC
0.6
Medical/
Female
C. USE OF FORCE
CIIC’s evaluation of use of force focuses on the number of uses of force at the
institution during a year in comparison to the previous year, the comparator prison rate,
and the DRC average.
A further evaluation is conducted by reviewing a random
sample of completed use of force reports.22 Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated use
of force as IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT.
19
Disturbances are defined as any event caused by four or more inmates that disrupts the routine and
orderly operation of the prison.
20
The rate of disturbances at the institution in FY 2013 and FY 2014 was 0.6 per 1,000 inmates.
21
The rate of disturbances for the comparator prison was 0.7 and the average for DRC system-wide was
3.2.
22
CIIC’s review of use of force includes a sample of 20 randomly selected use of force reports as well as
any available video.
Incident Caseload



During CY 2014, the facility reported 179 use of force23 incidents.xxii Compared
to CY 2013, in which 232 uses of force were reported, total uses of forces
decreased by 22.8 percent. The rate of use of force incidents also decreased by
23.6 percent.24
The use of force rate for CY 2014 was more than the comparator prison and as
well as the DRC average.25xxiii
During CY 2014, chemical agents (mace) were used 58 times.xxiv This is less
than were used in CY 2013, in which chemical agents were used 73 times.xxv
Procedural Accountability

During a review of one planned use of force, members did not introduce
themselves in accordance with policy.26
Positively,
 Video documentation was available for almost all incidents and included footage
from different cameras/vantage points.
 Staff appropriately referred incidents to a use of force committee for investigation
when necessary.
 Officer statements reviewed were generally thorough and clearly stated
directives given prior to force.
 Inmates were generally seen within an hour following the use of force incident.27
 Very few documentation errors were present.28
 Almost all inmates provided a statement regarding the use of force incident. In
addition, a few use of force incidents included many statements from other
inmates.
Application of Force

23
Two use of force incidents were deemed inappropriate and/or excessive by a use
of force committee.29 An additional four incidents prompted concern regarding
the amount of force utilized.30
Further information regarding use of force incidents can be found in the Glossary.
The rate of use of force incidents in CY 2013 was 129.6 per 1,000 inmates. During CY 2014, the rate
was 99.0.
25
The use of force rate at CRC in CY 2014 was 99.0 per 1,000 inmates; the comparator prison rate was
91.0 per 1,000 inmates. The DRC average was 82.3.
26
Proper procedure requires video documentation of a briefing, introduction of staff involved who will be
involved in the force, as well as final directives prior to the use of force.
27
There were a few incidents were the inmate and/or staff were not evaluated within an hour after the
incident.
28
Documentation errors included a few missing times on staff DRC 5251 (medical) forms.
29
In one incident it was determined that force could have been avoided. The other incident involved staff
utilizing an improper escort technique.
24



Open-ended survey responses indicated a large number of concerns regarding
use of force.
None of the vulnerable population focus group participants reported being
involved in a use of force at CRC. However, all inmates in the vulnerable
population focus groups believe that use of force is excessive at CRC. 31
During CY 2014, 54.6 percent of use of force incidents involved black inmates,
42.0 percent involved white inmates, and 3.4 percent involved inmates of another
race.xxvi In comparison to the racial breakdown of the institution there was a
higher percentage of use of force on black inmates.32
D. CONTROL OF ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES
CIIC’s evaluation of control of illegal substances focuses on the percent of inmates who
tested positive of an illegal substance at the institution during a year in comparison to
the previous year, the comparator prison rate, and the DRC average. Overall, the CIIC
inspection team rated control of illegal substances as GOOD.


30
During CY 2014, 0.6 percent of the inmates tested positive for the presence of an
illegal substance,33,34xxvii which decreased in comparison to CY 2013.35xxviii
The percentage of inmates who tested positive in CY 2014 at CRC was less than
the comparator prison and significantly less than the DRC average.36xxix
In one incident a use of force committee justified the force, but indicated the officer should have called
for assistance. Another incident involved officers taking a handcuffed inmate to the ground and utilizing
closed fist strikes against him while on the ground. A separate incident involved force on an inmate who
had an extra soup packet. The fourth incident involved a staff member quickly using force on an inmate
and taking him to the ground.
31
Inmates said staff will tell bystanders that if they, “get caught looking you’re next.” Many inmates said
staff will provoke inmates to get a reaction so that they can use force. Inmates relayed incidents of other
inmates being cuffed and then beaten and slammed by COs. One incident that came up in all focus
groups was of a young inmate having his teeth knocked out outside of the chow hall. An inmate said
there was a reception inmate who was known by staff for assaulting a CO and a CO went to his cell and
slapped him in the face and kept slapping him while mocking him about thinking he can assault COs.
Many inmates said that staff will use OC on inmates after they are cuffed. A few inmates said that
excessive force is usually used on inmates who consistently cause issues. An inmate mentioned an
incident about another inmate was told to throw away his sandwich and the CO slammed him into a wall
and then knocked him to the ground hitting and kneeing him. Another inmate said an inmate in chow
threw away his spoon and a CO tackled him to the ground and he was “dripping with mace.” An inmate
relayed an incident that involved an inmate who was complying with his hands in the air and knees on the
ground and staff slammed his face into the sidewalk breaking his teeth.
32
As of July 6, 2015, 60.3 percent was classified as white; 37.8 percent of the total institutional population
was classified as black and 1.9 percent as inmates of another race.
33
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. The institution randomly tested 319
inmates of which two tested positive.
34
One inmate tested positive for THC (marijuana) and one tested positive for buprenorphine (Suboxone).
DRC started testing for buprenorphine in June 2014.
35
In CY 2013, 2.6 percent of inmates tested positive for the presence of an illegal substance.
36
The average percent of positive drug test results during CY 2014 for the comparator prison was 1.8
percent. The DRC average was 3.8 percent.


During CY 2014, the institution drug tested 73 inmates for programs37,38 and 59
for cause, which is low.39,40 However, staff relayed that they have a small
targeted population, which primarily consists of the cadre inmates.
In response to CIIC’s survey question pertaining to prohibited substances, the
majority of inmates responded that prohibited substances are not available. 41
(Please refer to the DRC Inmate Survey results in the Appendix for more
information.)
E. INMATE PERCEPTION OF SAFETY
CIIC’s evaluation of inmate perception of safety focuses on three areas: survey
responses, focus group participants, and the number of refusal to lock for personal
safety reasons. Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated inmate perception of safety as
GOOD.




37
83.2 percent of survey respondents (n=537) reported they are very safe, safe, or
neutral (in terms of safety).42 This was approximately the same in comparison to
the 2014 inspection.43
Many open-ended survey responses indicated safety as the most positive aspect
of the facility.
All of the vulnerable population focus group inmates relayed that inmate/inmate
interactions are “good” and that CRC is safe.44
The institution did not have any inmates in segregation for refusal to lock and
there were no inmates under PC investigation or with an approved PC placement
on the day of the inspection.
Per DRC policy 70-RCV-03, program drug testing includes inmates who are tested as part of recovery
service treatment programs; inmates who leave the secure perimeter as part of a job responsibility; prior
to parole board hearings and after hearings for inmates approved for release; inmates under medication
treatment for Hepatitis C; or as indicated by the Managing Officer or designee.
38
Zero inmates tested positive during program drug screenings in CY 2014.
39
Per DRC policy 70-RCV-03, for cause testing includes inmates who are tested when there is a
reasonable suspicion of drug use.
40
13 (22.0 percent) inmates tested positive during for cause drug screenings in CY 2014.
41
125 inmates refused to answer and 221 inmates indicated that prohibited substances are not available.
42
81.6 percent of reception inmates (n=304); 97.7 percent of cadre inmates (n=43); 82.6 percent of
SORRC inmates (n=115); 87.5 percent of RTU inmates (n=24); 66.7 percent of juveniles (n=21); and 90.0
percent of segregation inmates (n=30).
43
84.4 percent of survey respondents (n=244) reported they were very safe, safe, or neutral (in terms of
safety) during the 2014 inspection.
44
A few mentioned that it is “like school” and you “never know” what could happen. Inmates that had
been to CRC before said it has calmed down since the cameras have been installed. The inmates also
relayed that CRC is safe because they are “locked down all the time” and “controlled.” Most inmates said
whether or not they would report issues depended on the severity, but most things they would handle
themselves. Two groups mentioned there was no place that was unsafe, but the other two groups
relayed that the unsafe areas of the prison are where there are no cameras. One group also said unsafe
areas are the sallyports, under the stairs, the laundry rooms, TV room, the vault, and in inmates’ cells.
F. UNIT SECURITY MANAGEMENT
CIIC’s evaluation of unit security management focuses on policy compliance for officer
rounds, documented shakedowns, cell/bunk security, and security classification/
privilege level reviews.
Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated unit security
management as ACCEPTABLE.
Officer Rounds

Officers consistently documented rounds in the requisite 30 minute, staggered
intervals, with a few exceptions.45
Cell/Bunk Searches (Shakedowns)

Housing unit officers are required to search inmates’ bunks/cells for contraband,
including illegal drugs and weapons. Officers were somewhat inconsistent for
the documentation of required shakedowns.
Cell/Bunk 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 cuff ports, inappropriate pictures, clotheslines, and graffiti. CIIC’s review of
cells indicated minor concerns towels on the floor and blocked windows on cell
walls.
The atmosphere in the housing units appeared to be calm.
Security Classification

Unit staff are required to conduct reviews of inmates’ security classification as
well as privilege level to ensure proper institutional placement. There were zero
overdue security classification reviews that were unaccounted for on the day of
the inspection, which is exceptional.
G. INSTITUTIONAL SECURITY MANAGEMENT
CIIC’s evaluation of security management focuses on: executive staff rounds, critical
incident management, STG management, and escapes. Overall, the CIIC inspection
team rated institutional security management as ACCEPTABLE.
45
Housing unit officers are required to conduct security check rounds at least every 30 minutes at
staggered intervals.
Executive Staff Rounds

Executive staff members,46 with a few exceptions, are consistently making the
required rounds in housing units based on a review of employee sign-in logs.47
Violent Incident Management




A discussion was held with executive staff regarding violent incident tracking.
Staff demonstrated that they know how to use the Enterprise Information
Management system, but they do not have an internal system that can effectively
track and pinpoint issues, which is problematic.
The majority of correctional officers48 believe they are adequately informed of
incidents between shifts.xxx Further, most officers receive their information during
roll call.
Correctional officers relayed that if a critical incident would occur, it would also
most likely occur in an area that is occupied by a large number of inmates at one
time such as recreation or the dining hall. Some officers relayed that a critical
incident could also occur in the RTU.xxxi
Some correctional officers relayed that if a violent incident occurred, it would
most likely occur in the dining hall because there are multiple housing dorms that
occupy the area at one time.xxxii
STG Management



46
As of January 2, 2015, there were 185 STG-affiliated inmates,49 which was 10.8
percent of the institutional population.xxxiii The number of STG-affiliated inmates
was less in comparison to the number in January 2014.50
The institutional percentage of STG-affiliated inmates was more than the
comparator prison, but less than the DRC average.51xxxiv
The number of rule 17 (unauthorized group activity) convictions 52 appears to be
in line with their STG population.53xxxv
In reference to rounds, executive staff includes the Warden, the Deputy Wardens, the Inspector, and
the Unit Management Chief. The Warden and Deputy Wardens are required to conduct rounds per DRC
policy 50-PAM-02 (once per week). 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.
47
CIIC’s review of the employee sign-in logs generally covers the one month period prior to the date of
the inspection.
48
Results are based on individual interviews (n=15) and survey responses from Cuyahoga Juvenile
Correctional Facility Officers (n=37). The large majority of correctional officers survey responses (73.0
percent) believe they are adequately informed when they come on shift.
49
170 were listed as passive, four were listed as active, and 11 were disruptive.
50
The institution had an STG population of 226 as of January 2, 2014.
51
The percentage of STG-affiliated inmates for the comparator prison was 8.6 and the DRC average was
16.7.
52
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.


In response to CIIC’s survey question pertaining to the type of gang activity at the
institution, the majority of inmates (reception, cadre, and SORRC) responded
that gang activity is not frequent.54 Please refer to the DRC Inmate Survey
results in the Appendix for more information.
A review of the past six months’ of STG committee meetings indicates that
meetings were held, but did not always include all the staff members who are
required to attend per policy. There were 27 overdue security threat group
classification reviews.55
Escapes

There have been no escapes or attempted escapes during the past two years
(2013 to date).
H. PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION ACT (PREA)
CIIC’s evaluation of the institution’s compliance with the Prison Rape Elimination Act
(PREA) focuses on a review of the most recent PREA audit report, education and
awareness of reporting, the number of reported sexual assaults, and inmate responses.
Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated PREA compliance as GOOD.
PREA Management





53
The facility met all standards on their most recent PREA audit.56xxxvi
99.6 percent of staff enrolled in PREA training completed the mandated
training.57 An additional 98.5 percent of staff completed the PREA medical and
mental health mandate.58
There were no concerns noted by classified potential victims.59
A review of PREA risk assessments indicated staff are complying with PREA
standards.60
Negatively, staff did not always make an announcement or utilize the notification
system when a female was entering the housing unit.
In CY 2014 the facility reported a rate of 15.5 (28) rule 17 violations. The comparator prison rate was
13.8 and the DRC average was 24.5.
54
116 inmates refused to answer and 233 indicated that gang activity is not frequent at this institution.
55
Staff relayed that approximately 12-14 of those inmates were at a facility in another state.
56
The audit was conducted May 20 – May 22, 2015. The facility exceeded eight standards, met 33
standards, and two were not-applicable.
57
537 of 539 staff completed the PREA training. The four staff that did not complete the training were
due to medical, military, or disability leave.
58
65 of 66 staff completed the medical and mental health mandate.
59
The facility did not have any classified victims. During the inspection CIIC staff spoke to all six potential
victims.
60
CIIC’s review of PREA risk assessments includes a sample of 20 randomly selected completed
assessments. The review indicated staff are completing assessments in a timely manner and making
appropriate accommodations based on relevant evidence.
Inmate Education and Awareness


PREA posters, which contain information for inmates on reporting of sexual
assaults, were posted in all the housing units. In addition to the posters, staff
relayed they placed the PREA hotline number on all of the phones to increase
privacy.61
A slightly higher percentage of inmate survey respondents indicated they knew
how to report sexual contact in comparison to the DRC average. 62 All inmates in
the vulnerable population focus groups relayed that they had received
information regarding PREA and how to report concerns/incidents.
Investigations/Allegations

Staff reported 54 PREA cases in CY 2014. Of the 54 cases, 37 were unfounded
and six were unsubstantiated.
Negatively,
 11 PREA cases were substantiated.63
 Twelve inmate survey respondents reported that they had sexual contact with a
staff member at the facility.64 Ten inmates reported they experienced sexual
abuse from a staff member.65 Inmate survey responses66 indicated that six
inmates have had sexual contact with another inmate at the institution.67 Ten
inmates reported sexual abuse from another inmate at the institution. 68
61
Placing the number on the phones alleviates any potential obvious gestures from turning around or
having to stand up to see the number when dialing.
62
68.5 percent (n=524) indicated they knew how to report sexual contact with staff and 79.4 percent
(n=525) knew how to report sexual contact with another inmate. The inmate survey respondent average
for 2014 inspections was 67.3 percent (n=3,872) knowledge of how to report sexual contact with staff and
75.6 (n=3,893) knowledge of how to report sexual contact with another inmate.
63
Three substantiated cases were sexual assault and eight were sexual harassment.
64
Reception-8; SORRC-1; RTU-2; and Segregation-1.
65
Reception-8; SORRC-1; and Segregation-1.
66
Survey responses generally indicated that inmate-on-inmate sexual contact occurs in the cells.
67
Reception-4; Cadre-1; and SORRC-1.
68
Reception-7; SORRC-2; and RTU-1.
SAFETY AND SECURITY RECOMMENDATIONS

Consider additional strategies to reduce inmate violence including assaults and
fights.

Implement additional use of force training opportunities for officers. Utilize OC
if possible prior to utilizing a takedown technique. Ensure that staff are
exhausting lesser alternatives, if possible, prior to force. Evaluate the
disproportionate use of force on black inmates. Ensure proper policy is
followed during planned use of force incidents.

Consider increasing the number of inmates tested for prohibited substances.

Ensure staff conduct the required number of shakedowns per policy.

Ensure that executive staff conduct weekly rounds through housing units, in
line with DRC policy.

Develop a violent incident tracking system to analyze trends of violence that
occurs at the institution.

Ensure that the required staff are attending the monthly STG committee
meetings per policy.

Ensure that females are announced when they enter a housing unit
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.







69
The housing units at CRC consisted of ten reception housing units (A1-4, B1-2,
R1-2) (D2-D3); two housing units for individuals involved in the Sex Offender
Risk Reduction Center (SORRC) (B3-4); two general population units for work
cadre (C1-2); one Residential Treatment unit (C3); one crisis unit (D1); and one
unit for juveniles (D4). Additionally, the institution has a segregation unit and
medical bay area.
The majority of housing units were two-tiered and double celled with a dayroom,
TV room, showers, laundry facilities, drinking fountains, ice machines and
microwaves. Each of the units’ dayrooms appeared to be clean and were rated
good or exceptional.
Laundry facilities, drinking fountains, ice machines, and microwaves were mostly
all operational, with the exception of one microwave, one washing machine, and
three phones.69
The cell conditions were rated as good on most units.70 Every cell is equipped
with a toilet and a sink and each appeared to be operable in cells in which
individuals were housed. Several units had obstructed cell windows, towels on
the floor, and clotheslines in the cells. 71 Additionally, survey respondents
generally reported high satisfaction regarding the cleanliness of their unit.72
The shower conditions of most units were rated as good.73 Unit B3 was rated as
needs improvement due to rust, chipping paint and black spots in the showers.
Cleaning materials in all units were observed to be stocked with the correct
inventory.
First aid boxes were documented to be secure in every unit. Fire extinguishers
were present and secured in each unit. Each fire extinguisher had received their
monthly inspections.
The washing machine and microwave on unit B4 were not operational and the phones on units A3, D3
and D4 were also not operational.
70
Unit A3 and R2 were the exceptions, with A3 rated as acceptable and R2 rated as needs improvement.
71
Housing unit B2, B3, B4, C1, and C2 had obstructions in their cell windows, while A3 had a number of
clotheslines in the cells and A1 and C1 had a number of towels on the ground.
72
Of reception inmates 78.6 percent (n=308) reported that their unit is usually clean or very clean, while
88.7 percent (n=115) of SORRC inmates reported that their unit is generally clean or very clean, and 90.7
percent (=43) of cadre inmates reported that their unit is either clean or very clean.
73
The facility underwent a capital improvement to renovate the showers, but ran out of money.
Juvenile Unit74







CRC began housing juveniles on September 22, 2014.
At the time of the inspection, 31 juveniles were housed at CRC.75
The housing unit was observed to be clean and only one maintenance concern
was relayed to CIIC staff.76 Most juveniles surveyed also reported that their unit
is generally clean.77
Staff relayed that the juveniles are permitted to play video games, watch TV, and
enjoy other activities on their unit during the evenings and weekends.
No juvenile survey respondents reported having sexual contact with another
inmate or staff.78
The majority of juveniles reported that they had not been threatened, harassed,
or abused by inmates at CRC.79
Most juvenile reported that they had not been threatened, harassed, or abused
by staff at CRC.80
Negatively,
 One juvenile was observed in his cell during school hours and he relayed to CIIC
staff that he had been waiting two and a half months to be placed into classes at
CRC.
 Only 26.1 percent of juvenile survey respondents relayed that they are able to
exchange for clean sheets every week, which is low.
 Most juvenile survey responses responded negatively regarding the quality of
food at CRC.81
 The most common reason given by survey respondents for not using the inmate
grievance procedure was staff retaliation.82
 Most juveniles surveyed had property that has been lost, stolen, or damaged
within the past year.83
 86.7 percent of juvenile survey respondents do not believe disciplinary decisions
are fair at CRC, which is high.84
 38.1 percent of juvenile survey respondents do not know how to report sexual
contact with another inmate or staff, which is concerning.85
 A high percentage, 80.0 percent, have had problems sending or receiving mail. 86
74
CRC houses all male juveniles sentenced in adult court until they turn 18.
Of the 31, four were currently housed in juvenile segregation in D2.
76
One juvenile inmate relayed that his toilet was leaking. Staff called in a work order while CIIC was on
the unit.
77
69.6 percent (n=23) reported that their unit is “clean.”
78
n=21. CIIC attempted to give surveys to all 31 youth and received 23 completed surveys.
79
n=20. 85.0 percent had not been mistreated by inmates.
80
n=20. 80.0 percent had not been mistreated by staff.
81
82.6 percent (n=23) reported that they are “unsatisfied” or “very unsatisfied.”
82
47.8 percent (n=34).
83
63.7 percent (n=22).
84
n=15.
85
n=21.
86
n=20.
75

61.9 percent of juveniles surveyed have had problems accessing the phones,
which is high.87
B. MEDICAL SERVICES
CIIC’s inspection of medical services in a correctional facility focuses on cleanliness of
facilities, staffing, access and quality of medical services, in addition to crisis
management. The inspection includes information collected from interviewing the
health care administrator, observations of the facilities, and a focus group comprised of
staff, and two focus groups of inmates.88 CIIC does not conduct a review of medical
files. Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated medical services as ACCEPTABLE.
Facilities





The medical facilities were observed to be good condition.89,90
The infirmary and crisis cells were noted to be good condition with good visibility.
The facility appears to have limited space for staff to conduct clinical duties.91
The sanitation practices observed were limited, however; there was blood on the
floor of the female staff bathroom.
Staff relayed the x-ray machine is over 20 years old.
Staffing

87
The facility appears to have a sufficient number of medical staff and staffing has
increased since the last CIIC inspection.92,93
n= 21. The most common reason cited was “Not enough phones” (n=15).
Two focus groups were conducted of general population inmates. One focus group consisted of
inmates on the chronic care caseload, the other focus group consisted of inmates that are not on the
chronic care caseload.
89
Medical facilities consisted of the primary medical bay, where the majority of the clinics are conducted.
A portion of the reception block is dedicated to performing physicals of inmates as they come into the
institution from the county jails. Additionally, there are exams rooms and a caged in area in the
Residential Treatment Unit for individuals to get their medicine. The facilities were noted to be clean and
well organized.
90
The primary infirmary includes four offices, one nurse’s station, four exam rooms, five infirmary beds,
one pharmacy, one lab area, one crisis cell, one records area, one waiting area, one inmate bathroom
and two staff bathrooms.
91
The amount of space appeared limited and staff specifically relayed that space is an issue when all
providers are at the institution on the same day. Specifically, staff noted that some days the optometrist
has to work out of housing unit when all staff are at CRC at the same time.
92
Staff relayed that total medical staff consists of two FTE medical doctor, one part-time medical doctors,
four nurse practitioners, 18 registered nurses, six licensed practical nurses, one assistant health care
administrator, two health care administrators, and one QIC. Contract staff includes; two dentists, three
dental assistants, one hygienist, one radiologist, and four phlebotomists, six HITs, one part-time
podiatrist, one part-time optometrist, one full time medical doctor and one part-time, and one part-time
dietary technician.
93
In the 2014 CRC inspection report, CIIC reported that there were 46 total medical staff; currently, there
are a total of 54.
88



Staff relayed that the Chief Medical Officer is “great;” however, the facility has
several relatively new advanced level providers.94 Additionally, the institution has
hired a total of eight new registered nurses and licensed practical nurses in the
past 10 months.
There was one vacancy, at the time of the inspection.95
Inmate focus group participants relayed mixed feelings about the staff. 96
Similarly, a large number of the open-ended survey responses regarding
healthcare services noted that negative information regarding staff.
Access to Medical Services97



Staff reported no backlog for Nurse Sick Call or Doctor Sick Call, which is good.
The medical department received 62 informal complaints in the past six months,
which is moderately low98 and responses to complaints seemed appropriate.99
A formal kite log is kept and staff reported no backlog; however, several of the
open-ended responses from survey respondents noted that kites have gone
unanswered.
Negatively,
 Health Service Request forms were not available in four housing units.100
 Staff reported a small backlog for Chronic Care appointments.101
 Focus group participants relayed that within the past two weeks evening pill-call
lasted until 2 a.m., at least once.
 Several of the inmates participating in the focus groups relayed that they are
unsure how to refill their medication and felt that staff could better address the
healthcare needs’ of inmates.
Quality

94
A full internal management audit was conducted in March 17-19, 2015. The
auditors relayed seven concerns related to medical services.102
Staff relayed that three of the nurse practitioners are new to CRC.
Staff relayed the individual was on leave and the separation happened the week prior to the inspection
so they are now able to advertise the position. The vacancy was of the QIC position.
96
Some inmates relayed that staff are respectful while others disagreed and felt like staff could be more
kind.
97
Access to medical services 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 Health Call, Doctor Health Call, and Chronic Care Clinic.
98
The number of informal complaints received is in line with the number of informal complaints received
at Level 3 facilities inspected by CIIC thus far in 2015.
99
Staff relayed the majority of informal complaints are related to the discontinuation of pain medication.
100
Housing units R2, C1, C2 and B4 did not have Health Service Request forms available on the day of
the inspection
101
Staff relayed 18 clinics are beyond 15 days of when they were to be held.
95







The percentage of inmates who were documented as No-Shows/AMA for
Chronic Care appointments in the past six months was calculated to be less than
one percent, which is good.
Staff relayed that they participate in quarterly interdisciplinary meetings, which is
in compliance with DRC policy.
Staff relayed that patient satisfaction meetings occur quarterly, which is in
compliance with DRC policy.
There were five inmate deaths in the time period reported to CIIC.103,104
Overall inmate survey participants generally reported high satisfaction with the
quality of care provided by the nurses, doctors and dentists.105
Officers were observed doing a thorough check of inmates during noon pill-call,
to ensure “cheeking” was not occurring.
Negatively, during the day of the inspection CIIC staff observed medical staff
loudly broadcast an inmate’s medical condition in front of other inmates in the
waiting area during pill-call.
Crisis Management




In the past six months, there were 460 on-site emergency notifications and 113
off-site emergency visits.
Staff relayed that the response time to emergencies is less than four minutes,
which is within policy.106
Negatively, inmate focus groups relayed that they feel nurses “downplay
emergency situations.”
Staff relayed that communication with security is “improving” but noted this as an
area in need of improvement.
Further information regarding medical services can be found in the inspection checklist
in the Appendix.
102
The concerns were related to documentation of; Lippincott testing, CQI compliance, medication
administration, nursing telephone triage, immunizations, and proper certification for prescriber.
Additionally, auditors felt the infirmary had a blind spot and recommended added a mirror.
103
The period of time evaluated by CIIC was from January 2013 to present.
104
Of the five deaths, two were from suicide and the four others were considered expected deaths. Of the
expected deaths, one was due to cancer, one organ failure, and one cardiac arrest.
105
Of survey respondents at CRC, 84.5 percent (n=97) of SORRC inmates, 85.0 percent (n=40) of cadre
inmates, and 82.9 percent (n=234) of reception inmates reported being very satisfied, satisfied, or neutral
with the quality of care provided by the nurses. 80.5 percent (n=87) of SORRC inmates, 81.1 percent
(n=37) of cadre inmates and 77.3 percent (n=220) of reception inmates reported being very satisfied,
satisfied or neutral regarding the quality of care provided by the doctor. 75.4 percent (n=61) of SORRC
inmates, 78.4 percent (n=37) of cadre inmates, and 78.6 percent (n=206) of reception inmates reported
being very satisfied, satisfied, or neutral with the quality of care provided by the dentist.
106
DRC policy 68-MED-20 requires medical staff to respond to health related emergencies within a fourminute response timeframe.
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, programming, crisis
prevention and critical incident data in addition to quality of services. Overall, the CIIC
inspection team rated mental health services as ACCEPTABLE.
Caseload

There were 245 inmates on the mental health caseload, or 15.7 percent of the
total inmate population. Of the total, 124 inmates were classified as seriously
mentally ill (SMI).
Facilities



The mental health facilities were noted to be clean and orderly; however, limited
space was available for programming.107
CRC houses one of the male Residential Treatment Units (RTU) in the state.
Additionally, CRC houses a Self-Injurious Behavior (SIB) crisis unit.
There are 15 crisis cells; all were noted to be in good condition with good
visibility.108
Staffing



107
Staffing levels appear to be sufficient to the number of individuals on the
caseload.109 Staffing levels increased since the 2014 inspection.110
CRC recently began serving as a residency site for psychiatry students at The
Ohio State University.
There were seven vacancies at the time of the inspection.111
The facilities consist of 31 offices; three conference room/ group rooms and four secure records area..
Of the three group rooms, one is on the RTU unit. Staff relayed that, “they make the space available
work.”
108
Two of the crisis cells were located in segregation, one in the infirmary, one in the juvenile unit and
eleven in housing unit D1.
109
Staffing consists of two psychiatrists, four psychologists, one APN-MH, 14 RNs, one psychology
assistant, three licensed social workers, three independently licensed social workers, one behavioral
healthcare provider, one mental health administrator, one assistant mental health administrator, four
health information technicians, three activity therapists, and two psych attendants.
110
The number of staff on the table of organization in the mental health departments has increased by
three positions and several positions have changed in the past year.
111
The vacancies included; one psychologist, two APN-MH, two LISW, one RN and one activity therapist.
At the time of the inspection, contract staff were filling the LISW and APN-MH positions.
Access to Mental Health112





Staff relayed that mental health requests are responded to every day; however,
the kite log did not specifically document when requests were answered.
Additionally, there was no backlog for mental health referrals and they are
responded to within two weeks, which is within policy.
Survey participants reported moderately low satisfaction with the access to and
mental health services.113
Mental health staff make rounds in segregation daily.114
Staff reported they do not have formal office hours; however, mental staff are on
each unit and have an open door policy.
Negatively, there was a backlog for an initial psychiatry appointment.115
Crisis Prevention





Staff routinely receives suicide training and participates in restraint drills.
Staff relayed that the mental health caseload is updated weekly and available for
mental health staff and executive staff.
23 inmates are reportedly on mandated medications.116,117
Staff reported that they participate in quarterly interdisciplinary meetings with
medical, recovery services and security staff, which is within policy.
Staff in the medical department relayed that they feel it would be beneficial to
start routinely meeting with the mental health staff for treatment team meetings.
Negatively,
 Throughout the inspection, several staff members relayed that security staff show
little respect to inmates with mental health issues and feel this is an area of need
of improvement.
 CIIC observed an interaction between non-mental health staff where one staff
member has to ask another staff member how to handle a juvenile reporting
feeling suicidal.
112
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.
113
60.7 percent (n=140) of reception inmates reported they had adequate access to mental health
services, while 66.7 percent (n=18) of cadre inmates and 57.1 percent (n=63) of SORRC inmates
reported they had adequate access to mental health services.
114
Per policy, mental health staff must make weekly rounds in segregation.
115
Staff relayed that the current backlog was around 40.
116
Staff relayed that the mandated medications range from anti-depressants to mood stabilizers and antipsychotics.
117
Several of the 23 inmates are housed on the RTU.
Programming




CRC offers a variety of mental health programming intended to meet the
missions of the populations housed at the institution. At the time of the
inspection, staff had just recently begun offering mental health programs for
inmates receiving outpatient services and currently offered four psychoeducational programs.118
It appears that the programming needs to be evaluated for relevancy to clinical
diagnosis and needs of these inmates.119 Additionally, it was relayed that
outpatient services previously have not been a priority at CRC due to the other
missions it serves.
Staff relayed that programming on the RTU includes 14 different programs 120 and
appears to address the diverse needs of the population housed on the RTU.
Staff recently began providing programming to inmates in segregation.
Program Observation121



118
Overall, the program sessions were deemed acceptable based on observation of
the facilitator and appropriate therapeutic instruction.
The following observations were noted:
o A therapeutic atmosphere was maintained throughout each group;
however, both facilitators used a lecture style format throughout the entire
group period.
o The facilitator of the Anger Management group effectively balanced the
group dynamics, while it appeared the facilitator of the Mental Wellness
group was better able to express empathy towards the inmates’ questions
and answers.
o Group participants were observed engaged in both sessions as evidenced
by body language throughout the session.
o Neither facilitator reframed the material presented but the facilitator of the
Anger Management group was able to draw connections to and apply
examples presented to correctional settings.
o Respect for the facilitator and program participants was observed in both
groups and the participants of the both groups seemed to be comfortable.
The following could have improved the sessions:
Staff relayed that four programs were recently started but it is difficult to recruit inmates to participate
in programming. The programs include Men’s group, Distress Tolerance, Cognitive Restructuring and
Effective Communication. Each group meets two times per week.
119
Staff reported that many individuals on the outpatient have been difficult to engage and participation is
relatively low. One inmate asked CIIC staff about the relevancy of the programming when he has been
incarcerated for over 20 years.
120
The programs include a PTSD group, Perception Management, Mood Management, Emotion
Regulation, Medication Education, Sleep Hygiene, AOD 12-Step, AOD/CBT, Art for Relaxation, Art for
Mood Management, Anger Management, Music for Relaxation, Exercise for Stress Management, and
Stress/Anxiety.
121
During the inspection, CIIC staff observed two programs. One program, Anger Management was held
on the RTU and the other program, Mental Wellness was intended for outpatient inmates.
o Incorporation of interactive and meaningful activities that allow participants
to be more active in session.
o Additional examples of material presented used in order to create
discussion so individuals will actively contribute to the session.
o The Mental Wellness group could have more relevant to the participants
and their current needs.
Residential Treatment Unit122







122
At the time of the inspection, 66 individuals were housed in the RTU.123
The housing unit was observed to be clean and orderly with two maintenance
concerns related to one toilet and one sink. However, it was relayed to CIIC staff
that these cells are not used. Additionally, RTU survey respondents reported high
satisfaction with the cleanliness of the unit.124
Individuals on the unit appeared to be appropriately active and engaged with a
number of available activities. Additionally, the atmosphere appeared to be
effectively structured for therapeutic needs.125
Staff relayed that 66 inmates were admitted to the RTU since January 2015 and
information regarding the unit that is provided to inmates upon admission
seemed to be appropriate.126
Staff relayed that the RTU houses several individuals who are dually-diagnosed
with a mental illness and developmental disabilities.
RTU survey participants relayed high satisfaction with access and quality of
mental health services.127 Additionally, RTU survey respondents noted that the
RTU was a positive aspect of CRC; however, a frequent answer received
regarding one change they would most like to see was regarding officer
interactions.
Similarly, staff/inmate relations were observed to be very negative.
o Many of the inmates interviewed relayed concerns about how unit officers
treat inmates on the unit. Inmates relayed that officers are not respectful to
their needs, are unprofessional and use derogatory slurs. A staff member
reported that officers are not patient with individuals on the RTU and when
CIIC relayed a concerning use of force incident, the mental health staff
member stated, “That does not surprise me from that officer.”
There are four levels of care within an RTU. An individual experiencing a mental health crisis will enter
the RTU at a care level one, and progress to less restrictive levels of care upon assessment and
successful engagement with treatment.
123
Of the 66, one was level one, 20 were level two, 45 were level three, and zero were level four.
124
82.1 percent of respondents (n=28) reported that their unit was very clean or clean.
125
Staff relayed that the RTU runs on a schedule and a copy of the schedule was provided.
126
Staff relayed that upon admission, individuals meet one on one with a nurse, psychiatrist and social
worker, in addition to receiving an informational pamphlet on the unit. Additionally, at the individual’s first
treatment team meeting, an individualized program scheduled is created and given to the individual.
127
80.8 percent (n=26) reported they are very satisfied, satisfied or neutral with the quality of care
provided by mental health staff and 76.9 percent (n=26) of respondents reported they feel they have
adequate access to mental health services.

o The attitude of the officers in the RTU during the inspection was
concerning. Officers (who were regulars on the unit) interviewed relayed
that working the RTU is no different than working another housing unit and
no additional skills are needed.
Communication between nursing staff and security does not appear to be strong
and no inter-disciplinary meeting between shift change occurs.
Critical Incidents



There were two suicides reported at the institution in the time period evaluated by
CIIC.128,129 Additionally, there were two suicide attempts reported in the past
year.130
There were also 67 incidents of (SIB) during the past year.131
Restraints were reportedly not used in the past year.
Quality



A full internal management audit was conducted in March 17-19, 2015. The
auditors relayed four concerns related to mental health services.132
Staff relayed a total of ten informal complaints were received in the past six
months.133,134
A moderately high percentage of cadre and reception inmates reported
satisfaction with the quality of services while SORRC inmates reported a much
lower percentage of satisfaction.135
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 on
cleanliness of facilities, staffing, participation and outreach of inmates, access and
quality (as determined by DRC staff). Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated recovery
services as GOOD.
128
The time period evaluated by CIIC is January 2013 to present.
Both suicides were from hanging. Following one of the suicides a public report was released.
130
The attempts were from hanging.
131
The 67 SIB includes individuals on the RTU. The most common method was by cutting (30) followed
by inserting foreign objects and stabbing (10).
132
The standards out of the compliance were related to crisis treatment plans, documentation related to
involuntary medication administration, treatment plans that correspond to the needs and mental health
evaluations are not being completed within the 14 day allowance.
133
The informal complaints were related to disagreement to services provided
134
Responses to informal complaints were deemed appropriate.
135
75.7 percent (n=181) of reception inmates, 85.0 percent (n=20) of cadre inmates and 64.7 percent
(n=68) of SORRC inmates are very satisfied, satisfied or neutral with the quality of the mental health
services.
129
Facilities




The recovery service facilities were noted to be clean and organized; however,
the trailer’s roof was beginning to leak.136
The facility appears to have sufficient space for staff to conduct clinical duties;
however, staff relayed they feel they do not have enough space.
CRC does not have a designated recovery services housing unit.
Staff relayed that the recovery service trailer does not consistently have an
officer present, which could pose a security concern.
Staffing




Staffing levels appear sufficient to provide adequate recovery service
programming.137
There were no staff vacancies at the time of the inspection.
Four inmate graduates are used as mentors and provide education and
information to other inmates. Positively, one inmate created a program for the
juveniles housed at CRC.
CRC has an average of eight community volunteers that facilitate AA/NA
programming and are at the facility on a weekly basis, which is good.
Participation and Outreach138



136
CRC reported 13 inmates139 are currently participating in recovery service
programming,140 which is the same since the last cohort of programming.141
A high number of Cadre inmates participate in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and
Narcotics Anonymous (NA), with consideration to their population size.142
Additionally, CRC offers a 12-step group.143
Staff relayed that they often reach out to individuals found guilty of Rule 39 and
are involved in conversations regarding inmate sanctions. Additionally, staff
The recovery service department is housed in two trailers. The facilities consist of six offices, two
classrooms and one secured records room.
137
Staff consists of four counselors, one HIT, and one administrator.
138
Each inmate is screened using an assessment tool for the need for addiction services, and is assigned
a number associated with a recovery services level. This number indicates the degree to which inmates
are in need of addiction services. Inmates 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. Inmates who score either two or three are most in need of treatment;
thus, they should be prioritized for programming.
139
Of the 13, five inmates are considered R2 and eight inmates are considered R3.
140
Formal programming offered at CRC consists of the Treatment Readiness Program (TRP), the
Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP), and Recovery Maintenance Programming (RMP).
141
Staff relayed that CRC is unique in the fact that it does not have a long list of individuals eligible for
treatment programming due to its nature of being a reception center.
142
Staff relayed that per month AA had an average attendance of 96 participants and NA had an average
of 60 participants.
143
On average 40 individuals participate in the 12-step program every month.

relayed that programming for individuals found guilty of Rule 39 in segregation
will begin shortly.
Staff relayed that once a week staff provide programming (including introduction
to recovery services in prison and education) is offered to reception inmates,
which may also take the form of AA or NA.
Access






As a reception center, CRC screens all received inmates for appropriateness of
Therapeutic Communities.
Survey participants reported moderate satisfaction with access to recovery
services.144,145
Staff relayed that treatment groups are never cancelled.146
Staff relayed interdisciplinary meetings occur quarterly, which is within policy.
CRC reported less than 10 inmates are currently on the waitlist for treatment
programming, which is much lower than prisons with the same population size. 147
This is in part due to the fact only cadre inmates would be eligible for formal
treatment programs at CRC.
Additionally, Alcohol and Drug programming is available on the RTU.
Program Observation

CIIC staff did not observe any recovery service programming during our
inspection.
Quality

144
In FY 2014,xxxvii
o 10.0 percent of inmates enrolled in CRC’s Treatment Readiness
Program148 were early terminators, which is lower than the DRC
average.149
43.2 percent (n=227) of reception inmates, 87.9 percent (n=33) of cadre inmates, and 46.2 percent
(n=78) of SORRC inmates feel they have adequate access to recovery services.
145
(n=115) of SORRC inmates reported using drugs or alcohol prior to incarceration.
146
Staff relayed all 65 schedule treatment groups were held in the past 90 days.
147
This is due to the fact that much the population at CRC is comprised of reception inmates who will be
transferred to a parent institution to receive treatment programming.
148
The Treatment Readiness Program is a 60-hour program delivered daily for a minimum of 15 hours a
week. A minimum of ten of the hours must be cognitive behavioral treatment specific. The remaining
hours shall consist of ancillary services. This program incorporates the stages of change model to focus
on participant motivation and readiness that will enhance treatment engagement and retention. This
program is offered to Recovery Service level 2 and 3 inmates.
149
According to information provided the Bureau of Recovery Services, at CRC there were 40 total
participants and four early terminations from the Treatment Readiness Program in FY 2014. The overall
DRC average early termination rate was 16.4 percent.
o 30.6 percent of inmates enrolled in CRC’s Intensive Outpatient Program 150
were early terminators, which is higher than the DRC average.151
o Zero percent of inmates enrolled in CRC’s Recovery Maintenance
Program were early terminators, which is substantially lower than the DRC
average.152
Reentry Preparation

Staff makes efforts to connect inmates to recovery service resources in the
community and currently conducts very limited outreach to families to incorporate
them into an inmate’s recovery.153
E. FOOD SERVICE
CIIC’s inspection of food services included eating the inmate meal, and observation of
the dining hall, food preparation area, and loading dock for both the main compound
and the camp. CIIC also interviews the Food Service Manager. Overall, food service
was rated as ACCEPTABLE.
Meal



CIIC sampled three inmate meals.154 Overall, two of the meals were rated as
good based on the quality of the main entrée and side items. Also, the portion
sizes were sufficient.
One meal was rated as acceptable. Although the portion sizes were sufficient,
the quality of the main entrée was not as good as the meals that were rated
good.
The most recent staff evaluation of an inmate meal was rated as good.155
Negatively,
 78.1 percent of inmate survey respondents (n=544) indicated that they were
either “unsatisfied” or “very unsatisfied” with the quality of the food served. The
150
The Intensive Outpatient Program is a 180 hour program that provides treatment services delivered
daily for a minimum of 15 hours a week. A minimum of ten of the hours must be cognitive behavioral
treatment specific. The remaining hours will consist of ancillary services.
151
According to information provided the Bureau of Recovery Services, at CRC there were 36 total
participants and 11 early terminations from the Intensive Outpatient Services in FY 2014. The DRC
average termination rate was 24.0 percent.
152
According to the information provided the Bureau of Recovery Services, at CRC there were 21 total
participants and zero early terminations from the Recovery Maintenance Program in FY 2014. The DRC
average termination rate was 18.4 percent early terminators.
153
Staff relayed that outreach to family is conducted by inviting them to an inmate’s graduation.
154
The regular inmate meals were sampled on July 6-8, 2015. The July 6 meal consisted of cheeseburger
pizza, oven brown potatoes, green beans, diced apples, a cookie. The July 7 meal consisted of smoked
turkey sausage, mixed vegetables, potatoes, and a banana.
155
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 an inmate meal was the July 6,
2015 dinner meal which consisted of turkey ham, cabbage, pinto beans, white bread, and an orange.

responses from inmates were significantly more negative than the responses
from CRC inmates during the 2014 inspection.156 The most common reason for
inmate dissatisfaction with the food was the quality of the meal.
A review of the food service kite log157 found some concerns related to requests
for larger portion sizes.
Dining Hall


Most of the dining hall floor and tables appeared to be clean and clear of food
particles or debris. However, inmates pointed out flies on the flags hanging in
the dining room.
There were small amounts of food particles under the serving line as inmate
workers prepared the trays for the inmates.
Food Preparation Area




The kitchen and food prep area were clean as inmate workers prepared the
meals.
CIIC observed oven that was inoperable. Staff relayed that the oven was too
expensive to be repaired and would be removed.
The institution passed their most recent health inspection with three violations
mostly related to facility maintenance repairs.158xxxviii
In their most recent evaluation by the DRC Food Service Contract Monitor, CRC
was 97.0 percent compliant.159xxxix
Food Service Management and Oversight



156
A review of the employee sign-in log found that most administrative staff were
making frequent visits to monitor the food service operations.
The food service contract staff consisted of 15 employees including one Food
Service Director, two Assistant Directors, and 12 contract workers. The average
length of service at the facility was approximately one year.
The contract staff relayed that there have been zero serving delays within the
past 30 days despite not having their inmate scanners installed.160
During the 2014 inspection, 63.8 percent of inmates interviewed were not satisfied with the food.
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.
158
The most recent health inspection of the main compound was conducted on March 24, 2015.
Violations were related to cracks in kitchen floor and two cooler gaskets needed to be replaced. There
were also cracked plastic lids and pans needed to be removed.
159
According to the February 25, 2015 evaluation, CRC was non-compliant regarding concerns related to
quality control program.
160
The scanners are present at the institution. However, staff relayed that the institution is waiting to
reroute electrical wires and connectivity to install the scanners.
157
Inmate Work Programs


CRC does not currently have an incentive program for inmate workers. However,
staff relayed that an incentive program could be implemented within the next two
months. Inmates currently earn $17 to $24 per month. There are currently 44 work
cadre inmates and 30 reception inmates assigned to the food service operations.xl
CRC recently implemented the IN-2-WORK program161 with the purpose of
helping inmates gain skills that can be applied when they re-enter the workforce.
CRC began the program with 11 inmates and had eight inmates still enrolled on
the day of the inspection.xli
Loading Dock and Other Areas


The loading dock was clean and clear of any debris.
According to the contract staff, CRC has an issue with gnats. During the
inspection, CIIC observed gnats in the hallway near the staff office. The
exterminator makes weekly visits to institution.
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.
Facilities


161
Physical facilities appeared clean and were observed in use during each day of
the inspection162 and staff relayed that there were no maintenance concerns on
the day of the inspection.
Staff relayed that at least two officers are posted to recreation in addition to at
least one recreation staff, at all times.
IN-2-WORK is provided by Aramark and includes both a classroom component and an on-the-job
training. The curriculum is tailored to the special needs of inmates including classroom instruction and
“on-the-job” training (where appropriate) for offenders to deepen learning.
162
Indoor facilities include: a dart board, a multipurpose room, Ping-Pong tables, a gymnasium, stair
climber machines, two elliptical machines, three treadmills, a rowing machine, an arm-wrestling table, and
a large band room. Outside facilities include: benches, pull up bars, dip bars, a track, sit-up boards, two
basketball courts, a hand-ball court, volleyball court, horse-shoes and an open-grass space
Activities





Inmates are offered a variety of activities for recreation, including a number of
organized intramural sports and tournaments.163 Overall, the recreation
department offers an acceptable number of recreational activities.
CRC offers unique recreation activities for inmates including arm-wrestling
tournaments and darts.
Staff relayed Cadre inmates have an art program in their housing units and also
have access to music programming.164 Staff relayed that reception inmates have
access to musical instruments during recreation hour upon request.
The recreation department has seven inmate program assistants who help in the
recreation department.
CRC hand-selects movies from Netflix and currently has a subscription that
allows the institution to have three movies at a time, which is low compared to
other facilities.
Access



163
Inmate survey respondents reported low satisfaction with access to recreation.165
Similarly, to the survey responses many of the vulnerable population focus group
participants relayed that the amount of time available for recreation is too short. A
few participants also mentioned that staff often threaten to take away recreation.
Staff reported that recreation runs on a schedule166 and the yard is run by
officers.
Sports leagues offered to inmates include basketball, flag football, softball, volleyball and soccer.
It was relayed that at least three bands exist at the institution.
165
Reception inmates reported the lowest satisfaction with recreation with 32.3 percent (n=303) reporting
that they are very satisfied, satisfied, or neutral with access to recreation and not enough time being the
main reason of being unsatisfied. 33.3 percent (n=114) of SORRC inmates reported being very satisfied,
satisfied or neutral with recreation and also had the highest inmates reporting that not enough time was
their main reason for being dissatisfied. 44.2 percent (n=43) of cadre inmates reported satisfaction with
access to recreation and their top reason for being unsatisfied was due to the schedule not being
followed.
166
Recreation is open during the following hours: 6:30am-8pm. Inmates on the RTU, in reception, and
juveniles are only permitted to recreate one hour per day. Cadre inmates recreate altogether from
5:30pm-8pm.
164
HEALTH AND WELLBEING RECOMMENDATIONS

Ensure Health Care Request forms are available on each unit.

Ensure all floors in the medical bay are cleaned regularly and blood spills are
addressed immediately.

Ensure the individual that announced an inmate’s medical issues in front of
other inmates is counseled on proper patient care.

Ensure nurses are properly trained on pill-call and consider strategies to
ensure evening pill-call does not run into early morning hours.

Consider strategies to improve communication with security in both the
medical and mental health department. Additionally, consider strategies to
improve officer/inmate interactions on the RTU.

Consider evaluating the kite log system in both the medical and mental health
department to ensure kites are being answered and a system is in place to
document when the response was sent.

Consider evaluating the needs of individuals receiving outpatient mental
health services and tailor programs offered to their clinical diagnosis and
current need.

Consider implementing an inter-disciplinary team meeting during shift change.

Consider evaluating the reasons for a high number of terminations in the
Intensive Outpatient Services for FY 2014.




Consider increasing the number of movies in the Netflix subscription.
IV.
FAIR TREATMENT
CIIC EXPECTATION: Prisons will provide fair and professional treatment of
inmates.
A. STAFF/INMATE INTERACTIONS
CIIC’s evaluation of staff/inmate interactions is based on its survey of inmates, inmate
focus groups, and analysis of grievance data. Overall, CIIC rates staff/inmate
interactions as IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT.
General Population
Negatively,



167
The predominant issue relayed via the inmate survey, across all populations, was
negative officer/inmate interactions, particularly excessive use of force. (For more
information regarding the CIIC Inmate Survey, please see the Appendix.)
The majority of inmate survey respondents relayed that they had been harassed,
threatened, or abused by staff.167 For those who reported that they had, the
most common incidents involved insulting remarks or feeling threatened or
intimidated. Responses were more negative than the 2014 survey, and
significantly more negative than the comparator prison.168
CIIC staff did not observe any staff/inmate interactions that caused concern on
site. However, the majority of CIIC staff heard multiple concerns regarding
officers from inmates.169 In addition, as discussed above, the interaction
between inmates and officers on the RTU, in particular, is concerning.
57.4 percent in reception (n=305), 47.6 percent of cadre inmates (n=42), 60.0 percent of SORRC
inmates (n=115), 69.2 percent of RTU inmates (n=26), 72.7 percent of juvenile inmates (n=22), and 62.1
percent of segregation inmates (n=29).
168
In 2014, 51.4 percent of inmate respondents reported that they had felt harassed, threatened, or
abused by staff. At LORCI, only 27.7 percent of inmate survey respondents reported that they had been
similarly treated by staff.
169
Inmate focus group participants reported:
 witnessing a corrections officer take a hamburger from an inmate’s tray, squeeze it, and drop it
back on the tray.
 observing inappropriate shakedowns of cells, including an instance where a corrections officer
used an inmate’s personal belongings to wipe the floor of a cell, placed dirty underwear on his
cellmate’s pillow.
 being called or hearing staff call inmates “bitch, fag, and dumb motherfucker”
 witnessing an incident where a corrections officer used what they felt was unnecessary and
excessive force on an inmate outside the dining hall, ripping out the inmate’s colostomy bag while
doing patting down the inmate after suspecting him of taking food out of the dining hall. Inmates
relayed that the corrections officers involved in the incident were the same ones who later
requested and collected their witness statements. Inmates reported that the colostomy bag
remained on the ground outside the dining hall for up to four days.
 unnecessary use of pepper spray predominately by female staff


The majority of inmate survey respondents reported that housing unit officers are
not responsive to their needs, professional, and fulfilling job duties,170 with the
exception of the cadre and RTU units.171 Responses were less positive than the
comparator prison.172
Less than half of inmates respondents reported that their Case Manager or Unit
Manager was helpful.173 Responses were in line with the 2014 inspection
findings.174
Positively,



Many inmates who had been at CRC in previous years reported that the facility
(including officer/inmate interactions) has improved.
A review of inmate letters to CIIC over CY 2014 indicates CRC ranked in the
middle for number of concerns regarding supervision at a DRC facility reported to
CIIC.
The total number of grievances against staff actions decreased 61.9 percent from
CY 2013 (42 total) to CY 2014 (16 total).
Vulnerable Populations175



Overall, all vulnerable population focus group participants believe that CRC has a
problem with use of force against inmates. Positively, inmates that had previously
been to CRC said it is getting better. Most inmates also said there is a big
difference in how reception versus cadre inmates are treated, with reception
inmates treated worse. Most inmates said that their unit staff are generally fair
and responsive, but other officers, such as on the yard and at chow, are
problematic.
CIIC spoke with two limited English proficient inmates.176 Both reported that they
had not had problems with staff or other inmates due to their limited English
skills.
line movements were stopped for twenty minutes on the yard in the rain as punishment for the
rule infractions of a few.
170
Respectively, 61.7 percent (n=287), 62.0 percent (n=292), and 52.5 percent (n=278) in Reception;
58.3 percent (n=108), 60.7 percent (n=107), and 51.0 percent (n=104) in SORRC; 71.4 percent (n=21),
66.7 percent (n=21), and 68.2 percent (n=22) in juvenile; 60.7 percent (n=28) for all three categories in
segregation.
171
68.4 percent (n=38), 57.1 percent (n=35), and 75.7 percent (n=37) for the cadre unit.
172
The 2013 LORCI survey found that a majority of inmates at that institution felt that housing unit officers
were responsive, professional, and performing job duties.
173
Respectively, 47.5 percent (n=204) and 37.6 percent (n=165) of Reception inmates felt that their
Case/Unit Manager was helpful; 26.2 percent and 38.1 percent (n=42, 42) for Cadre; 35.6 percent and
45.3 percent (n=87, 53) for SORRC; 65.2 percent and 55.0 percent (n=23, 20) for RTU; 68.2 percent and
63.6 percent (n=22, 22) for Juvenile; and 58.3 percent and 66.7 percent (n=24, 21) for segregation.
174
In 2014, CRC total survey responses were 48.4 percent and 42.6 percent, respectively.
175
CIIC staff conduct four focus groups of vulnerable population inmates: inmates under 21, over 55, sex
offenders, and LGBTI.
176
All inmates spoke Spanish. CIIC staff communicated with them in Spanish.
Staff Accountability

The Inspector relayed that she does not currently track the staff names that most
frequently appear in inmate complaints, although she has in the past.
B. INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (IGP)
CIIC’s evaluation of the inmate grievance procedure177 includes a review of a random
sample of informal complaints and grievances, inmate survey responses, and data
analysis. Overall, CIIC rates the inmate grievance procedure as GOOD.
Access





The majority of inmates reported having access to informal complaints, 178 and
the percentage was average for reception institutions.179
An average percentage of inmate survey respondents (36.5 percent) reported
that they had ever felt prevented from using the grievance procedure.180
For inmates who had not used the grievance procedure, the top reason reported
for reception/SORRC inmates “no problems/reason to use,” which is positive; for
other populations, “staff retaliation” was the primary deterrent, which is a
concern.
An average percentage of inmates reported knowing who the Inspector was,
although the reception populations reported significantly lower percentages.181
The Inspector logged an average of one to two rounds in the prior 30 days in the
housing units, and she serves as the administrative duty officer monthly. This
appears somewhat low in frequency; however, inmate grievance procedure
information, including the Inspector’s picture, is posted in every housing unit, and
information is also played over the institutional channel for reception inmates.
Informal Complaints

177
In CY 2014, the facility reported receiving 1,117 informal complaints resolutions
(ICRs), which was a 34.3 percent increase from 2013.182
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.
178
67.4 percent (n=285) for Reception; 78.0 percent (n=41) for cadre; 76.0 percent (n=104) for SORRC;
59.1 percent (n=22) for RTU; 76.2 percent (n=21) for juveniles; and 63.3 percent (n=30) for segregation.
179
In 2014, 72.3 percent of CRC inmates reported having access to informal complaints and the reception
average was 72.2 percent.
180
For reception, 29.7 percent (n=303); cadre, 40.5 percent (n=42); SORRC, 21.2 percent (n=113); RTU,
34.6 percent (n=26); juvenile, 57.1 percent (n=21); and segregation, 42.9 percent (n=28). In 2014, 29.7
percent of all respondents indicated that they had felt prevented from using the grievance procedure at
some point.
181
Reception, 15.0 percent (n=306); Cadre, 45.2 percent (n=42); SORRC, 16.8 percent (n=113); RTU,
35.7 percent (n=28); juvenile, 31.8 percent (n=22); and segregation, 33.3 percent (n=30).
182
The facility reported 832 informal complaints received in CY 2013.



Of the total in CY 2014, only 15 did not have a documented response, which is
very positive. Of those that did receive a response, 10.3 percent were outside of
the seven day timeframe mandated by DRC administrative rule, which is a little
high. The untimely response rate increased in comparison to CY 2013, 183 which
is negative.
CIIC’s review of a random sample of ICR responses indicated that staff are
responsive to inmate concerns and professional in their responses.
An average percentage of inmates reported feeling that informal complaints are
dealt with fairly at the institution, and it was an improvement over the 2014
survey.
Grievances





In CY 2014, there were 84 grievances filed, an increase of four from CY 2013.
The total number of inmates who filed a grievance decreased slightly and the
number of frequent filers is relatively low. Staff reported four grievances on hand
at the end of the year.
Of the total dispositions in 2014, 95.1 percent were denied and only 4.9 percent
were granted, which is an extremely low granted rate.184,185 The top three
categories with the most grievances were Healthcare (21), Personal Property
(18), and Staff Accountability (7).
Inspectors are expected to dispose of grievances within 14 days to ensure timely
response to inmates’ concerns. In CY 2014, 34.5 percent of the total grievances
were extended beyond the applicable timeframe, which is very high. 186
CIIC’s review of a random sample of grievance dispositions indicated that the
Inspector interviews relevant staff, reviews relevant evidence, and provides a
thorough response to inmates.
Similar to the informal complaints, an average percentage of inmates reported
feeling that grievances and grievance appeals are dealt with fairly at the
institution.
Oversight and Accountability

183
The Inspector relayed that she is taking steps to address untimely informal
complaint responses, including a friendly reminder email two to three days before
the response is due to the responding staff person.
In CY 2013, the untimely response rate was 7.9 percent.
In CY 2014, 13.9 percent of grievances were granted in the DRC.
185
The Inspector reviewed the top three grieved areas and relayed that staff have been working to reduce
issues in those areas, resulting in fewer granted grievances.
186
The Inspector relayed that she extends a property claim to provide the inmate with every possibility to
obtain the necessary documentation. In other cases extensions are processed due to administrative
responsibilities, schedule conflicts and if the inmate is no longer at CRC, the Inspector may have to wait
for documentation.
184



The Inspector relayed that seven out of 21 grievances resulted in a report to the
Warden within the past six months. Reports generally pertained to uses of force
with no report, supervision issues, and granted property grievances.
The Inspector relayed that she has the opportunity to discuss issues/trends
related to the grievance procedure and inmate complaints at least three times
each week through executive staff meetings.
The Inspector relayed that she ensures that inmates are not retaliated against for
using the grievance procedure because staff know that they can be disciplined.
C. INMATE DISCIPLINE
CIIC’s evaluation of inmate discipline187 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.
Caseload


In the past six months, CRC reported 152 cases that originated at CRC that were
referred to RIB.188
The most frequent rule violation referred to RIB was a rule 19 violation (fights).
Procedures




187
CRC’s RIB panel consistently followed standard hearing procedures.189
However, the panel procedures could be improved by reviewing the inmate rights
form with the inmate on tape, checking that the inmate had received a conduct
report prior to the hearing, and appropriately informing the inmate of what he was
signing, including a review of the documentation of his testimony.
The RIB panel’s review of relevant evidence190 was merely adequate. At the
moment, it appears that much of the evidence is in paper format and sent over to
the RIB Chair; while it is good that the RIB Chair does review the appropriate
documentation, this does not preserve it for later review and oversight.
All of the cases reviewed were either heard within the requisite seven days or a
reason was stated.
CIIC’s review of closed cases191 revealed zero issues, indicating that the
oversight of RIB from the Warden’s level is good.192
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.
188
The print-out of CRC cases includes a number of cases that originated at other institutions.
189
Standard hearing procedures include reading the conduct report, providing an opportunity for the
inmate to speak on his behalf, providing the opportunity for any requested witnesses, pausing the hearing
for review of evidence and deliberation, informing the inmate of the disposition and offering an appeal.
190
Relevant evidence generally includes reviewing camera footage, use of force packets, drug tests,
contraband control slips, etc.
191
CIIC reviewed 20 closed RIB cases.
Due Process




In all but one of the closed cases reviewed in which the inmate was on the
mental health caseload, the inmate was appropriately screened by mental health
staff. Staff relayed that mental health staff come to RIB for every case involving
an RTU inmate and that they give their input on sanctions and placement postsegregation. CIIC staff observed an active discussion between the RIB Chair
and mental health staff regarding the appropriate handling of an RTU inmate.
The inmate rights form was completed for all cases.193
CIIC did not review any cases in which the inmate requested a witness.
Confidential information was not used in any of the reviewed cases.
Sanctions



The RIB panel demonstrated consistent and progressive application of
sanctions,194 which is positive.
Sanctions appeared significantly less than other prisons.195
Negatively, almost all of the vulnerable population focus group inmates reported
that they do not believe that inmate discipline is applied fairly across the
population; however, none of the participants had personally received a ticket.
D. SEGREGATION
CIIC’s evaluation of segregation consists of an observation of the unit and evaluation of
the population. CIIC rates segregation as GOOD.
Segregation Population


192
Staff provided a segregation tracking mechanism (segregation roster) that
provided a good amount of data.196
On the day of the inspection, there were 54 total inmates in segregation, or 3.5
percent of the total institutional population, which is low for the security
classification. This is a decrease from the number of inmates that were in
segregation in early 2014.
CIIC staff were unable to review the mental health assessment of a large number of inmates because
many of them had already been released from prison.
193
The inmate rights form asks whether the inmate waives the 24 hour notice, the presence of the
charging official at the hearing, and the presence of any witnesses. The form also asks the staff
completing the form whether he or she believes that the inmate needs staff assistance.
194
The RIB Chair relayed, for example, that a rule 19 violation would receive just a local separation for
the first time; for the second violation, seven to ten days; for the third, 15 days, or Local Control
placement. Rule 4 (assault) violations receive 15 days plus an LC recommendation.
195
For example, staff relayed that for a first fight, they would release an inmate from segregation after the
RIB hearing, counting time served with no additional time given.
196
The roster tracks inmates by disciplinary status, rule violation, the date that the inmate came into the
segregation unit, mental health status, and STG status. All of this is important information for ensuring
the orderly management the population.




Of the total, only two had been in segregation for more than one month, which is
exceptional; zero inmates had been in segregation more than three months.
Of the total, only three inmates were in segregation under investigation; all had
been in segregation less than two weeks.
Of the total, 44.4 percent were classified as white, 53.7 percent were classified
as black, and one inmate was classified as “other.” This is slightly out of line with
the institutional demographics, with a greater representation of black inmates.197
Of the total, 14.8 percent were on the mental health caseload according to
mental health staff. This is in line with the institutional mental health caseload
proportion.198
Conditions






CRC has a single segregation unit, divided into three, double-tiered pods. Each
cell has its own sink, toilet, and shower. Positively, none of the cells housed more
than two inmates.
Overall, conditions appeared good and cells appeared clean. Inmates relayed
positive comments regarding the segregation supervisor. Subjectively, CIIC staff
was extremely impressed by the change in the entire segregation
environment.199
Staff relayed that there were two maintenance issues on the day of the
inspection (two toilets were down). Staff relayed that maintenance concerns are
handled “pretty quick.”
CIIC staff did not eat a segregation meal; however, inmates did not relay any
concerns regarding the food.
There is one indoor recreation room on each pod with a sit-up and pull-up
apparatus, as well as a table and chairs. There is also an outdoor recreation
concrete area that contained a basketball hoop. There were no sanitation issues
noted. Inmates are offered recreation seven days a week, which is above policy.
Inmates relayed concerns regarding the lack of hot water and that the water is
brown. Staff also stated that they do not drink the water.
Staff Accountability

197
There were no cell security issues viewed,200 other than slight graffiti.
As of July 6, 2015, 60.3 percent of the inmates are classified as white, 37.8 percent as black, and 1.9
percent as “other” race.
198
As of the day of the inspection, there were 245 inmates on the mental health caseload, or 15.7 percent
of the total inmate population. Of the total, 124 inmates were classified as seriously mentally ill (SMI).
199
In prior inspections, inmates were terrified of staff and refused to talk to CIIC staff due to concerns
about officers beating them in retaliation. This was pervasive and repeated over multiple inspections.
200
Cell security issues include inmates attempting to block cell windows or cell door windows, STG
related graffiti, attempting to jam the locks or place material in the cuffports, or excessive clotheslines or
towels on the floor.



A review of randomly selected segregation log sheets indicated that staff
accountability is excellent, as all sheets were fully completed with a number of
signatures, indicating staff presence in the unit.
Documentation indicated that staff were making appropriate security rounds.
There was a slight concern, however, regarding appropriate documentation of
sufficient shakedowns.
A review of the employee sign-in logbook indicated that executive staff are doing
a good job of conducting the necessary rounds.
Critical Incidents




Staff relayed that uses of force occur “not very often” and that they tend to occur
in transit to or from segregation rather than on the segregation unit itself.
Staff relayed that the use of a disciplinary meal (“food loaf”) was about once
every six months. The most recent incident reportedly involved an inmate who
used a tray to throw food at an officer.
Staff reported that inmates very rarely flooded the range.
Staff stated that inmates could report sexual assaults via a telephone to call the
PREA hotline in the holding cells. Staff stated that the last sexual assault
allegation regarding segregation was a year ago.
Programming/Activities





There was one telephone available for inmates’ use; it can be used by an inmate
who has been in segregation over 30 days, at the segregation supervisor’s
discretion.
The log book indicated that mental health staff make rounds frequently and are
on the unit daily. Mental health staff relayed that they conduct one-on-one
programming and that they give Carey Guides to inmates for personal study.
Inmates had books available in their cells, and there was also a bookcase on the
unit that they could access. However, the librarian did not document any rounds
in segregation in the 30 days prior to the inspection.
The Principal or other educational staff also did not document any rounds to
segregation.
Inmates are provided access to religious services through the Chaplain, who
made two rounds through segregation in the 30 days prior.
FAIR TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Evaluate inmate concerns regarding negative staff/inmate
particularly excessive use of force, and develop plans to address.

Consider having the Inspector track the names of staff who most frequently
appear in inmate complaints and providing a regular report to the Warden.

Consider evaluating the low granted rate for grievances, as well as the high
percentage of grievance extensions.

Ensure the inmate testimony form provides an accurate summary and that it is
confirmed with the inmate prior to signature.

Consider improving the level of evidence attached to the RIB record and
reviewed as part of each RIB hearing.
interactions,
V. REHABILITATION AND REENTRY
CIIC EXPECTATION: Prisons will provide access to quality programming and
purposeful activities that will ultimately aid reentry.
A. REENTRY PLANNING
CIIC’s evaluation of reentry planning201 includes interviews of staff,202 inmate focus
groups,203 a document review, and inmate survey responses. Overall, CIIC rates
reentry planning as GOOD.
Staff Performance




201
In a review of past releases,204 it was determined that 100 percent of the
reviewed RPLANs205 for inmates still at CRC at the time the RPLAN was due
were completed by the time the inmate was released.206,207,208
To ensure timely RPLAN completions, the Unit Management Chief runs the
reports on a regular basis and communicates with case managers. In addition,
CRC case managers compile and send the UMC a weekly checklist that includes
number of RPLANS completed.
Positively, CRC completed RPLANS on time even when inmates were released
the same day they arrived at CRC, an occurrence that reportedly occurs about
ten times per month.
During the most recent Internal Management Auditxlii CRC was found to be noncompliant one standard related to unit management.209
Effective reentry planning requires attention to individualized details from the first day of incarceration
through the post-release period and is crucial for a successful reintegration into society. The inspection
considers the amount and types of inmate access to unit programs and purposeful activities, inmate
contact with local community representatives, and staff performance.
202
CIIC inspections include interviews of the Reentry Coordinator (RC), the Unit Management Chief
(UMC) [who sometimes doubles as the RC], and Case Managers (CM).
203
CIIC conducts focus groups of inmates representing various populations, including inmates who are
within approximately 30 days of their transfer from CRC to a parent institution. The Rehabilitation and
Reentry focus group of eight included both reception and cadre inmates.
204
CIIC staff reviewed the list of inmates released within the past 60 days.
205
Reentry operations at DRC institutions include the use of the DRC RPLAN (Offender Transitional
Release Plan). In the few months prior to release, all DRC institutions provide various types of
information to inmates through channels like Adult Parole Authority (APA) workshops and printed
materials from service providers and county agencies across Ohio.
206
20 past releases were reviewed.
207
CIIC evaluates RPLAN completions by ensuring all blanks are filled with the corresponding: yes, no, or
not applicable selection.
208
Seventeen of the twenty randomly selected release reviews were for inmates who were no longer at
CRC, were released from another facility, or were being carried on the CRC count for other reasons. .
209
OH 15-5 The parent facility Unit management Staff will complete a Prison Intake Tool (PIT – if not
completed at Reception) and case plan on inmates rated as moderate/high risk on the PST. Case plans
are to be completed within 45 days of inmate’s arrival/transfer to institution.

During a focus group, case managers listed the following materials that are in
short supply for programming: markers, flip charts, videos, workbooks, TV/DVDs,
and programming space.
Reentry Resources








210
Ninety-seven inmates attended the reentry fair held October 29, 2014. Fourteen
service providers and social service agencies were represented, bringing 25 staff
into the facility to meet with inmates.210
Four computers located in the library are dedicated to reentry and feature Ohio
Means Jobs and Ohio Career Information System (OCIS) software.211,212,213
The UMC and case managers attend the closest reentry coalition meetings in
Chillicothe, in neighboring Ross County.
Orientation, previously presented through video, is led by a corrections officer
who reviews areas of top concern to inmates: money, telephones, and
commissary.
Positively, an inmate-led orientation is offered nightly to help new inmates make
the adjustment to prison life and to start thinking about reentry.
A first-time offender group, facilitated by a new inmate, a cadre inmate, and a
case manager, meets weekly.
Reception Reform, under the auspices of the DRC Office of Offender Reentry, is
underway, and is designed to integrate elements and activities such as a reentry
tool kit, issuance of a state identification card while the inmate is still in prison,
and linkage to community reentry services,
Positively, a five-week release preparation class is available to all CRC
inmates.214
Service providers, or presenters were from the Ohio Department of Youth Services; Ohio Department
of Job and Family Services; Columbus Urban League; Columbus and Hillsboro Offices of Adult Parole
TM
Authority; Get Covered America , (a nonprofit organization focused on raising public awareness about
affordable health insurance options); Bureau of Motor Vehicles; IMPACT Community Action; Veteran’s
Administration; Action for Children; Columbus State Community College; Franklin County Child Support
Enforcement Agency; the Starts Within Organization; and Ohio Commission on Fatherhood.
211
All DRC libraries are required, per DRC 78-REL-05, to have a reentry resource center.
212
At the reentry center, inmates can learn what careers are in demand; research technical schools,
colleges, universities, and scholarship opportunities; read interviews of someone working in the inmate’s
field of interest, and find out how to prepare for a chosen career. The reentry computers feature the Ohio
Career Information System (OCIS) and the Ohio Means Jobs website, which support inmates in preparing
for employment or additional education. OCIS and Ohio Reentry Connections software systems allow
inmates to create an individualized job search account that ‘goes live’ on the inmate’s release day,
allowing access from a computer in the community. The inmate can then send previously created job
applications and cover letters to potential employers.
213
Three out of the four reentry computers were not operable on the day of the inspection, according to
inmates’ reports.
214
Topics include accessing community services such as transportation, employment, O.N.E. Stop!;
career exploration and resume writing; probation and parole, public assistance, voter registration, and
recovery services such as support groups, like Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, counseling
and treatment resources.

A representative of Veterans Affairs comes to CRC monthly to interview inmates
and a representative of Children Services/Child Support comes to the facility
weekly to interview inmates.
B. REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMMING
CIIC’s evaluation of rehabilitative programming is based on a review of unit-based
program enrollment and completion, on-site observations, and review of additional
purposeful activities. Overall, CIIC rates rehabilitative programming as ACCEPTABLE.
Unit-Based Programs


CRC offers cadre inmates five unit-based, reentry-approved programs.215
Negatively, for programs offered in CY 2014, for which there was complete
information, of the 100 inmates enrolled, 47.0 percent completed the program.
For CY 2015 year to date, of 37 inmates enrolled, 19, or 51.3 percent, completed
the program.
Inmate Survey Responses
215

Slightly less than half of survey respondents in the cadre unit reported staff had
discussed with them what programs they should take while incarcerated216 and
significantly less than half of both reception inmates and SORRC inmates
reported staff had given them program guidance.217,218

Negatively, a significant number of survey respondents housed in reception,
cadre, and SORRC living units indicated they did not know where to find reentry
information at CRC.

A majority of cadre survey respondents indicated they knew how to obtain each
of the following after release: housing, employment, a state ID, food, recovery
services programs, education, and county agency information. 219 A minority of
the same respondents indicated they knew how to obtain continuing health
care.220
At the time of inspection, CRC scheduled five reentry approved programs twice per year, including
Cage Your Rage, Inside Out Dads, Money Smart, Thinking for a Change, Victim Awareness, plus the
non-reentry program, inmate-led Roots of Success.
216
48.8 percent (n=43) of cadre respondents reported staff had discussed programs with them.
217
32.4 percent (n=299) of reception inmates reported staff had discussed programs with them.
218
21.9 percent (n=114) of SORRC inmates reported staff had discussed programs with them.
219
52.6 percent (n=38) knew how to obtain housing; 60.5 percent (n=38) knew how to obtain a job; 65.8
percent (n=38) knew how to obtain a state ID; 62.2 percent (n=37) knew how to obtain food; 64.9 percent
(n=37) indicated they knew how to access recovery services programming; 63.2 percent (n=38) knew
how to pursue an education; and 50.0 percent (n=38) knew how to access county agency information.
220
47.4 percent (n=38) indicated they knew how to obtain continuing health care after release.

A minority of SORRC survey respondents indicated they knew how to obtain
each of the following after release: housing, employment, food, continuing health
care, recovery services, education, and county agency information.221 A majority
of SORRC respondents knew how to obtain state identification.222

In a focus group, inmates noted poor accessibility of their case managers.
Program Observation

CIIC staff did not observe a unit based program while onsite.
Additional Purposeful Activities





The facility is currently engaged in substantial initiatives and program growth
through the DRC’s Reception Reform.
CRC offers a wide range of inmate-led meaningful activities.223 The UMC reviews
and tracks attendance records.
CRC offers one inmate-facilitated program, Roots of Success.
One inmate group, Family Ties, is offered at CRC.
CRC in 2014 offered a significantly lower number of religious services compared
to the comparator prison.224 CRC’s inmate participation rate in religious services
was also significantly lower than the comparator prison.225
C. FAMILY ENGAGEMENT AND COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS
CIIC’s evaluation of family engagement and community connections consists interviews
with staff, inmate focus groups, review of inmate surveys, and review of data. Overall,
CIIC rates family engagement and community connections as GOOD.
Family Connections
Responses to surveys about maintaining contact with individuals outside of the
correctional facility included the following:
221
42.1 percent (n=107) knew how to obtain housing; 37.9 percent (n=103) knew how to obtain a job;
49.5 percent (n=109) knew how to obtain food; 44.9 percent (n=107) knew how to obtain continuing
health care; 50.0 percent (n=98) indicated they knew how to access recovery services programming; 45.4
percent (n=97) knew how to pursue an education; and 40.6 percent (n=106) knew how to access county
agency information.
222
56.1 percent of SORRC inmates knew how to obtain state identification.
223
Inmate-led activities include review of the implications of House Bill 86 and Senate Bill 337 and the
Ohio Plan, managing prison resources, GED study group, fathering from within prison, gardening,
interpersonal skill development, movie night, and effective communication.
224
In FY 2014, CRC’s rate of religious service programming per 1,000 inmates was 141.9 programs,
compared to the comparator prison’s rate of 282.1.
225
In FY 2014, CRC’s rate of participants in religious programming was 5.4 per 1,000 inmates; the
comparator prison’s rate was 11.4.



Mail: About half of survey respondents in housed in reception and SORRC units
indicated that they have experienced problems with sending or receiving mail
within the past six months.226 A large majority of cadre inmates indicated they
have had problems with mail.227
Telephones: A minority of cadre survey respondents indicated that they have
experienced problems accessing the telephones within the past six months228,
while a large majority of reception and SORRC inmates reported experiencing
problems with the telephones.229
Visits: A majority of survey respondents in each category (reception, cadre, and
SORRC) indicated that they have not experienced problems receiving visits
within the past six months.230
Family Engagement Events in Calendar Year 2014


Family Ties, an inmate group facilitated by a case manager, planned and hosted
six family-oriented events around these themes:
Father’s Day, Back-to-School, Halloween, Christmas, Mother’s Day, and Spring.
Collectively, 231 inmates and 511 family members participated.
Family Engagement Events Held in or Planned for Calendar Year 2015


Family Ties has hosted two family-oriented events to date in 2015: Mother’s Day
and Spring Family Ties, with collective inmate participation of 108 inmates and
126 visitors.
Negatively, a Father’s Day event was cancelled in part due to heavy visitor
reservations on what the UMC said is likely the busiest visiting day of the year.
Community Connections


226
CRC has three community service activities available to the inmate population:
dog handling, reading room, and “vanning mats” (crocheted using recycled
plastic bags) which are distributed to homeless shelters in Franklin County.
For CY 2013 and 2014, the rate of community service hours remained virtually
the same, at 58.8 and 58.2 respectively; the rates were significantly higher than
the comparator prison’s rates of 16.3 and 14.1, respectively.
48.8 percent (n=295) of reception inmates and 52.6 percent of SORRC inmates (n=114) indicated they
had experienced problems with mail.
227
69.0 percent (n=42) reported problems with the mail.
228
46.5 percent (n=43) indicated problems with the phones.
229
68.2 percent (n=299) Reception inmates and 59.6 percent of SORRC (n=114) inmates reported
problems with the phones. Most commonly reported problems were insufficient number of telephones,
phones were broken, or access was denied by other inmates.
230
(n=13) of SORRC inmates indicated they had experienced problems receiving visits. Of those who
reported concerns, the most commonly cited reasons were distance for visitors, the visit scheduling
process, and visitor not approved.

CRC has 149 active community volunteers231 that provide a variety of
programming within different areas of the institution. The institution was cohosting with Pickaway Correctional Institution a volunteer recognition banquet the
week of the CIIC inspection.
D. LITERACY DEVELOPMENT
CIIC’s evaluation of literacy development in a correctional institution focuses on data
analysis, a document review, direct observation of at least one program, and inmate
survey responses. CIIC rates overall literacy development as ACCEPTABLE.
Staffing


One ABE/GED teacher position was vacant at the time of the CIIC inspection.
Three of four inmate tutors are certified and work with reception inmates.
Library Facilities



The library is small, and was clean and well maintained, with no apparent
visibility or safety concerns.
The library has a capacity of 20 inmates, including inmate library workers.
A separate law library has a capacity of 15 inmates and features four LexisNexis
computers for legal work.232 Two inmate law clerks are employed in the law
library.
Library Access






231
The library is open for approximately 30 hours per week Sunday through
Thursday. 233
Positively, the library has an excellent interlibrary loan system, partnering with
the Grove City (Ohio) library and a consortium of prison libraries.
As of June 2015, the library had 14,751 items, including 13 newspapers and 35
magazine subscriptions.234
The librarian personally obtains and transports used books donated by a
bookstore and a suburban library to add to the collection at CRC.
The rate of items in circulation per inmate was 2.1 for both FYs 2013 and 2014,
significantly higher than the rate of the comparator prison, which reported rates of
0.2 and 0.5, respectively.
The librarian delivers books to segregation every two weeks and responds to
inmate requests for items as kites are received.
Active community volunteers are defined as volunteers who enter the facility more than three times per
year.
232
All four LexisNexis law computers were not functioning on the day of the inspection.
233
It has been the CIIC’s experience that not many prison libraries offer Sunday hours.
234
Periodical subscriptions starting in August will be managed through EBSCO Information Services, a
vendor new to CRC.



From FY 2013 to FY 2014, the rate of library materials per capita at CRC
increased by 20.5 percent. CRC’s rate remained higher than the comparator
prison.235
Each housing unit also has a selection of books for inmates to browse, which,
according to the librarian, is now an ACA (American Correctional Association)
standard. Negatively, books on some units were few in number.
Feedback from brief interviews with inmates in the library included a desire for
more time in the library and for more non-fiction.
Library Special Programs

The librarian actively seeks and receives grant funding for inmate programs 236
and brought a panel on civil rights, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and school
desegregation to CRC.237 The librarian has received funding through the NEA
Foundation Student Achievement Grant Program for additional inmate programs.
Academic Programs



235
CRC had an overall classroom capacity utilization in January 2015, was 81.4
percent while the comparator prison reported 87.2 percent.
Positively, CRC’s rate238 of inmates on the waitlist compared to those enrolled in
academic programming decreased significantly from FY 2013 to FY 2014 and
was significantly below the rate of the comparator prison.239,240
A very large majority of cadre survey respondents relayed that it is easy or
neutral to get a prison job, or enroll in programs in education, mental health and
wellness and recovery services.241
In FY 2013 and in FY 2014 CRCs average rate of library materials per inmate was 4.4 and 5.3,
respectively. During the same years, the comparator prison’s rates were 3.0 and 3.3, respectively.
236
Full disclosure: this writer has known the librarian professionally for over 20 years and is familiar with
his work at another state agency.
237
In the librarian’s June 2015 monthly report, described one of the activities thusly: the panel included
Allen Zak, Columbus-area photographer who was at the march in Selma, Alabama; Angela Johnson,
award winning young adult author who writes on the Black experience, and Reggie Barnes, former school
superintendent of West Tallahatchie, Mississippi schools, who also was featured in the HBO and Oscar
nominated film, “La Lee’s Kin: A Legacy of Cotton,” and who was one of the first African American
students in an all-white Greenville, MS high school.
238
The rate is per 100 inmates enrolled in academic programming.
239
In FY 2013, CRC’s rate of inmates on the waitlist compared to those enrolled in academic
programming was 11.6, which decreased in FY 2014 to 9.1. For FY 2014, CRC’s rate was significantly
lower that the comparator prison’s rate of 72.1.
240
Per DRC policy 57-EDU-01, reception inmates within 90 days of release will not be considered for
mandatory enrollment in mandatory educational programming but may remain eligible for voluntary
education is space if available.
241
81.0 percent (n=42) said it was easy or neutral to get a prison job, 81.8 percent (n=33) said it was
easy or neutral to get into academic programming; 80.0 percent (n=30) reported it was easy or neutral to
get into mental health and wellness programming, and 91.7 percent (n=36) reported it was easy or neutral
to get into recovery services programming.






Positively, the school administrator relayed the education department is working
to incorporate technology and is developing the Inmate Personal Education
Program (IPEP) that will be supported by a tablet device.
Pre-apprenticeships will be offered soon at reception only. Earned credit will be
attached to the program which is designed to assist inmates in preparing for
apprenticeships at parent institution.
A minority of cadre survey respondents indicated it is easy or neutral to get into
vocational training.242
CRC’s rate of academic enrollment per 1,000 inmates is dramatically higher than
the comparator prison and showed an increase FY13 to FY14.243
CRC offers five of the standard academic programs.244
Inmates are able, on a self-pay basis, to take correspondence courses through
Ohio University – Athens.
Outcome Measures



The rate of GEDs earned in FY 2014 was significantly lower than the rate of the
comparator prison.245,246 Data is not available for the rate of GEDs earned in FY
13 at CRC or the comparator prison. Two more GEDs were earned in FY 2014
than in FY 2013.247
The rate of academic certificates earned to enrollment decreased by 16.2
percent from FY 2013 to FY 2014.248 CRC’s rate of earned certificates in FY
2014 was significantly higher than the comparator prisons.249
CRC’s attendance rate for educational programs was within two-three
percentage points of the comparator prison for the months of January, April, July,
and October, FY 2014.250 Attendance for the month of January, FY 2015 was
91.1 percent, slightly less than the comparator’s rate of 93.3 percent.
Classroom Observation

242
The CIIC site visit included brief observations of three classes for the juvenile
population and one class of adult GED students. In general, teachers were
54.1 percent (n=37) reported it was easy or neutral to get into vocational programming..
In FY 2013, CRC’s rate of academic enrollment per population was 927.3 while the comparator
prison’s rate was 364.5. In FY 2014, CRC’s rate increased to 956.5, while the rate of the comparator
prison decreased to 101.8.
244
The academic programs offered at CRC include: Pre-GED, GED, ABLE, Literacy, and Special
Education.
245
Total GEDs earned in FY 2014 decreased across the DRC, and the country, due to down time of the
system during the conversion to the computerized GED testing process.
246
In FY 2014, the rate of GEDs earned per 100 inmates enrolled in GED classes at CRC was 11.3. The
comparator prisons rate was 36.5 and the DRC average rate was 29.6.
247
Thirty-four CRC inmates earned a GED in FY 2013; 36 CRC inmates earned a GED in FY 2014.
248
In FY 2014, the rate of certificates earned to academic enrollment at CRC was 16.6, compared to 19.8
in FY 2013.
249
The comparator prison’s rate of certificates earned to academic enrollment for FY 2013 and FY 2014
were 9.4 and 2.1, respectively.
250
Attendance data is compiled four times a year for one-month periods.
243
actively engaged with the students and for the most part, students were attentive
and participatory.
D. VOCATIONAL AND WORK SKILL DEVELOPMENT
CIIC’s evaluation of vocational and work skill development in a correctional institution
includes data analysis, document review, direct observation, and inmate survey
responses.
Overall, CIIC rates vocational and work skill development as
ACCEPTABLE.
Vocational Programs and Outcome Measures

At the time of the inspection, CRC offered one career-tech program251 and no
vocational programs. Excluding cadre inmates at CRC, average length of stay at
CRC is four-to-six weeks, a time frame that is not conducive for long-term
vocational programs.
Apprenticeships and Outcome Measures

CRC currently offers 14 apprenticeship programs for the cadre inmate
population.252 Apprenticeship enrollment greatly decreased from FY 2013 to FY
2014. Still, the rate of apprenticeship enrollment was significantly higher than
that of the comparator prison.253
Classroom Observation

No apprentices were directly observed during this site visit.
Ohio Penal Industries

251
CRC does not have an OPI shop.
A ten-week career-tech program is offered in fiber optic cabling.
CRC offers apprenticeships in animal trainer, alteration tailor, boiler operator, building maintenance,
cook, HVAC installer/servicer, janitor, landscape management technician, material coordinator, painter,
plumber, recovery operator (recycling), and welder.
253
In FY 2013, CRC’s rate of apprenticeships per 100 inmates was 66.5; the rate decreased to 55.2 in FY
2014. Rates for the comparator prison for the two fiscal years were 17.4 and 13.1, respectively. The
CRC school administrator attributed the decrease to a vacancy in the school administrator position and to
the impact of the relocation of the youthful offender unit to CRC from another prison.
252
REHABILITATION AND REENTRY RECOMMENDATIONS

Consider ways to increase enrollment in rehabilitative programming.

Consider polling inmates to find out why they drop out of programs and use the
data for quality improvement processes.

Consider ways to increase offerings of religious worship services.

Consider ways to schedule major family engagement events to ensure all go off
as planned.

Consider ways to increase the rate of GEDs earned.

Consider ways to increase enrollment in apprenticeships.
IV. FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY
CIIC EXPECTATION: Prisons will responsibly utilize taxpayer funds and
implement cost savings initiatives where possible.
A. FISCAL WELLNESS
CIIC’s evaluation of fiscal wellness includes a document review of the institution budget
status report, fiscal audits and an interview of staff regarding the implementation of cost
saving initiatives, both those required by policy and those independently developed by
staff. CIIC rates fiscal wellness as GOOD.
Budget Overview


254
According to their FY 2015 budget overview, CRC used nearly 100.0 percent of
their allocated budget.254xliii Institutional operations payroll accounted for 69.5
percent of their expenses, followed by mental health services payroll (9.9
percent) and medical services payroll (7.2 percent).xliv CRC has received a
similar allocated budget for FY 2016.255xlv
In FY 2014, CRC also used nearly 100 percent of their allocated budget.256xlvi,xlvii
The highest expenses were institutional operations payroll, mental health
services payroll, and medical services payroll.xlviii
According to the Office of Budget Planning and Administration, the approved FY 2015 budget for CRC
was $42,454,397. However, according to their budget overview, the approved FY 2015 budget for CRC
was $43,654,187.13. Based on the CRC Budget Overview, CRC spent $42,347,443.92 of their allocated
budget and had an encumbrance of $1,300,581.10.
255
According to their FY 2016 Budget Overview, CRC has an allocated budget of $42,194,725.04.
256
According to the CRC Budget Overview, the approved FY 2014 budget for CRC had an allocated
budget of $41,923,361.94 and spent $41,874,358.91.
Chart 4
DRC Institutional Budget Allocations by Security Classificationxlix
FY 2015
$60,000,000
$50,000,000
$42,454,397
$40,000,000
$30,000,000
$20,000,000
$10,000,000
$0
Level
1/2
Level
4/5
Level
3
Reception
Medical/
Female
Chart 5
Daily Cost Per Inmate by Security Classificationl
FY 2015
$250
$200
$150
$100
$67.27
$50
Level
1/2
Level
3
Level
4/5
Reception
DCI
FMC
NERC
ORW
CRC
LORCI
OSP
SOCF
LECI
MANCI
RCI
TCI
TOCI
WCI
AOCI
BECI
CCI
GCC
LAECI
LOCI
MACI
MCI
NCCC
NCI
PCI
RICI
SCC
$0
Medical/
Female
Fiscal Audits

In their most recent internal fiscal audit, CRC was compliant in each of their
applicable mandatory standards for an overall score of 100.0 percent. li

In their most recent external fiscal audit, CRC was compliant in four of their
eleven accounts.257lii The auditor required an action plan from CRC to address
the standard that was not met during the external audit.liii
Overtime Management


In FY 2015, CRC paid $1,146,724 in total staff overtime hours, which was a
significant decrease from FY 2014.258liv The amount of paid overtime in FY 2014
was more than the DRC average.259lv
In FY 2015, CRC paid $917,952 in correctional officer overtime hours, which was
also a significant decrease from FY 2014.260lvi The amount of correctional officer
paid overtime was also more than the DRC average for FY 2014.261lvii
Inmate Property Loss Reimbursement


257
In CY 2014, CRC paid $358.78 in property loss payouts which was similar to the
amount they paid in CY 2013.262lviii Their CY 2014 settlement rate also decreased
from CY 2013.263 In CY 2013, the CRC rate of property settlements was lower
than the comparator prison.264lix
In CY 2014, CRC inmates filed 18 grievances regarding personal property
including 14 grievances (77.8 percent) for property that was lost, damaged, or
confiscated by staff.lx Total property grievances slightly decreased in comparison
to CY 2013.265lxi
CRC was non-compliant in the following four accounts: MBE and EDGE (incomplete forms); payment
card (logs not completed); commissary (inventory variance resulted in shortage of funds); inmate trust
fund (items incorrectly posted to inmate accounts).
258
In FY 2014, CRC paid $2,884,957.97 in total staff overtime.
259
In FY 2014, the average DRC total staff overtime was $2,303,085.
260
In FY 2014, CRC paid $2,208,570.40 in correctional officer overtime.
261
The average DRC correctional officer overtime paid in FY 2014 was $1,876,780.44.
262
CRC paid $385.07 in property loss payouts for CY 2013.
263
In CY 2014, CRC had a property settlement rate of $199 per every 1,000 inmates. In CY 2013, the
CRC average property settlement rate was $215.
264
In CY 2013, the property settle rate was $422 for the comparator prison.
265
In CY 2013, inmates filed 19 grievances regarding property loss including 17 grievances for items that
were lost, damaged, or confiscated by staff.
Chart 6
Property Settlement Rates (per 1,000 inmates)266
CY 2013
$4,000
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
Level
1/2
Level
3
Level
4/5
Reception
Medical/
Female
Cost Savings

The following cost savings provided by CRC are based on initiatives that were
implemented during 2014 :267
o
o
o
o
o
Change in policy 52-RCP-01
Decrease in in purchase of legal kits
Reduction in drain system cleaning costs
Installation of “shutdown” switch in warehouse
Selling of laundry detergent in Commissary
$16,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$5,000
$51,000
Infrastructure

The following capital improvement requests were submitted during FY 20132018:
o HVAC project268
o Window replacement project
o Food service drains
266
ORW
NERC
DCI
FMC
LorCI
CRC
SOCF
OSP
WCI
ToCI
TCI
RCI
ManCI
LeCI
RICI
SCC
PCI
NCI
NCCC
MCI
MaCI
LoCI
GCC
CCI
AOCI
BeCI
215
$5,270,700
$3,948,000
$2,510,000
Property settlement rate is calculated for each institution by dividing the cost of property settlements by
the average institution population for the year. Then multiplying that number by 1000 (cost of settlements/
CY 2013 average population =dollar amount x 1000 = rate).
267
CRC plans to implement to following cost savings initiatives in 2015 include purchasing a baler,
consider methods to reduce overtime costs, complete capital improvement projects regarding lighting and
boiler replacement, replace water softeners, and partner with nearby Pickaway Correctional Institution to
compost food waste.
268
Staff relayed that the project is 65 percent complete.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Heat loop replacement
Control room upgrade269
HVAC duct system cleaning
Water valve replacement
Shower renovation project270
Emergency power loop upgrade
Sinks and toilets- segregation
Door replacement
Emergency power-water tower 271
$1,322,500
$994,875
$635,000
$404,250
$203,175
$150,000
$120,000
$80,000
NR
$15,638,500
B. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
CIIC’s evaluation of environmental sustainability includes a document review of the
utility bills and an interview of staff regarding the implementation of cost saving
initiatives, both those required by policy and those independently developed by staff.
CIIC rates environmental sustainability as ACCEPTABLE.
Utility Conservation272



269
In FY 2014, CRC significantly increased their natural gas usage by 29.8 percent
and increased their electrical usage by 5.1 percent. However, CRC decreased
their water usage by 14.9 percent.
CRC increased their total utility costs by $104,502.57 (15.6 percent) in FY 2014.
The most significant increase was their natural gas costs which increased by
24.0 percent. Their electrical costs increased by 11.6 percent.
The FY 2013-2014 utility consumption and costs comparisons273 are illustrated in
the following chart:
Energy
Type
FY
2013
FY
2014
Percentage of
Change
Water274
(gal)
88,215,513 gal
75,056,590 gal
-14.9%
N/A
N/A
Natural Gas
(mcf)
35,163 mcf
45,648 mcf
29.8%
$217,278.76
$269,318.27
24.0%
Control room upgrade is scheduled to begin in August 2015.
Shower project is complete.
271
Water tower painting project will begin July 20, 2015. Capital expense not provided to CIIC.
272
The DRC established a goal for each institution to reduce its annual utility costs by five percent.
Natural gas, water and electricity are the primary utilities targeted for reduction of use.
273
Comparison reflects the invoices received during the following periods: July 2012 – June 2013 and
July 2013- June 2014.
274
CRC water is supplied by nearby Pickaway Correctional Institution.
270
Electric
(kwh)
5,957,072 kwh
6,258,409kwh
5.1%
$452,956.51
$505,419.57
11.6%
Total Costs
$670,235.27
$774,737.84
15.6%
Recycling

In FY 2015, CRC recycling projects resulted in $10,232.58 of revenue which was
a 5.5 percent decrease from FY 2014.275lxii The revenue rate that CRC earned
from recycling in FY 2014 was less than the comparator prison.276
Chart 7
Recycling Revenue Rates (based on inmate population)277
FY 2014
$20,000
$18,000
$16,000
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
Level
1/2
Level
3
Level
4/5
Reception
Medical/
Female
Sustainability Audit

275
CRC conducted a sustainability audit which outlined additional energy
conservation and waste reduction initiatives from FY 2015.278lxiii
In FY 2014, CRC earned $10,827.56 in recycling revenue.
The recycling revenue rate was $8,423 for the comparator prison.
277
The recycling revenue rate is calculated for each institution by dividing the recycling revenue by the
average institution population for the year. Then multiplying that number by 1000 (cost of settlements/ FY
2014 average population =dollar amount x 1000 = rate). Dollar amounts are documented in whole
numbers.
278
The sustainability audit found the following: a lighting project is currently in progress, performed lifecycle cost evaluations to determine operational costs for equipment, identified equipment that may need
to be replaced to conserve energy, ensured that inmates and staff are aware of the institution’s
sustainability goals through postings, programs, and e-mails, waste costs have increased due to a need
for new contract with the vendor, purchased a baler to help reduce waste costs, decreased in cardboard
276
ORW
NERC
FMC
DCI
CRC
LorCI
SOCF
OSP
WCI
ToCI
TCI
RCI
ManCI
LeCI
SCC
PCI
RICI
NCI
MCI
LoCI
MaCI
GCC
CCI
BeCI
AOCI
5,979
Sustainability Cost Savings and Avoidance

The following cost savings provided by CRC are based on initiatives that were
implemented during 2014 :279
o Conversion of exit signs to LED lighting
$10,000
Sustainability Programs



In 2014, each of the six CRC inmates who participated in the Train the Trainers
program for the Roots of Success program graduated. The sustainability
programs are illustrated below:
Program
Name
Participants
Graduates
Graduation
Rate
Train the Trainers for
Roots of Success
6
6
100%
CRC recently implemented their Roots of Success program. As of July 2015,
CRC had 12 inmates enrolled in the program and would begin a second class of
12 inmates after the first class is complete.lxiv
CRC has five inmate yard workers that earn $17 per month. However, CRC
currently does not have a re-claimers program for recycling.
C. STAFF MANAGEMENT
CIIC’s evaluation of staff management includes a data review and staff interviews
regarding overtime management, turnover ratio, morale, training, and evaluations. CIIC
rates staff management as ACCEPTABLE.
Workplace Environment
CIIC interviewed 16 correctional officers who provided the following insight regarding
the CRC workplace environment:lxv

All of the officers interviewed believe that CRC is well-run. Most officers believe
the institution is well-run based on the efforts of the staff to maintain a safe
environment. Also, the majority of the officers interviewed believe that staff get
along well.
recycling revenue because less cardboard is being received from the vendor, CRC will reduce the
number of trash containers and frequency trips to the landfill.
279
CRC plans to implement to following cost savings initiatives in 2015 include purchasing a baler,
consider methods to reduce overtime costs, complete capital improvement projects regarding lighting and
boiler replacement, replace water softeners, and partner with nearby Pickaway Correctional Institution to
compost food waste.



Nearly all of the officers interviewed feel supported by their immediate
supervisor. The most common reason why officers feel supported is that they
have an overall good relationship with their immediate supervisors.
Additionally, most of the officers stated that they feel supported by the
administration.
Most officers interviewed rated morale as “average.” Overall, officers relayed that
the average rating depends on their perception of the facility. However, some
officers relayed that they morale has slightly decreased because of constant
changes to their administration. The officers relayed that CRC has had three
different Wardens in the last five to seven years which causes staff to constantly
adapt to change.
CIIC received 69 responses back from CRC correctional officers.280 The following are
key findings:
Positively,






In regard to officers’ overall opinions of the facility, the majority of officer survey
respondents (70.6 percent) believe the facility is well run.
In regard to supervision, 86.8 percent of officer survey respondents understand
their supervisor’s expectations. Also, 81.8 percent of survey respondents relayed
that their supervisor is available when needed and 66.7 percent of the survey
respondents have confidence in their supervisor. Additionally, most survey
respondents (68.1 percent) believe they are adequately informed when they
come on shift.
In regard to overtime, 92.6 percent of the officer survey respondents relayed that
they are not required to work an excessive amount of overtime.
According to the survey results, 78.3 percent of survey respondents trust their
fellow officers to have their back. However, surprisingly, only 66.2 percent of
survey respondents believe that staff get along well at CRC.
Although most officers responded positively to questions regarding if their coworkers are competent (65.2 percent), and the ability for other officers to
consistently follow post orders (63.8 percent), those areas could also be slightly
improved.
The large majority of survey respondents (88.2 percent) believe they receive the
appropriate training to do their job well.
Negatively,

280
Although most officers believe the institution is run well, only 44.6 percent believe
the institution is run better now than it was a year ago.
The overall findings cannot be considered representative of the entire officer population due to the low
number of responses.






According to the survey results, only 30.4 percent of the survey respondents
believe that morale is good which indicates that it is a major area of concern
among the officers.
In regard to the administration, only 49.3 percent of the respondents have
confidence in their administration. Further, only 47.8 percent of the officers at the
institution feel appreciated. Also, only 36.2 percent of the officer survey
respondents believe the administration is open to their input.
In regard to employee discipline, only 46.4 percent of the officer survey
respondents believe that employee discipline is consistent.
Although most officers provided positive responses regarding supervision, 71.0
percent of officers believe that some supervisors show favoritism. Also,
communication that officers receive from supervisors can be improved.
According to the survey results, 43.3 percent of officer respondents relayed that
they receive inconsistent requests from two or more supervisors.
In regard to promotions, only 42.0 percent of survey respondents believe the
right people receive promotions at CRC.
Although officer opinions regarding their job were mostly positive, there is still
room for improvement in some of those areas as well. Survey results show that
only 63.8 percent of respondents are satisfied with their job and only 60.3
percent do not frequently think about quitting their job.
A review of the two open-ended survey questions found that more officers responded to
the question regarding “one change they would make” in comparison to the “one
positive aspect” at CRC.lxvi


Survey results indicate that 48 officers responded to the “one change that you
would make.” Some of the changes that officers would make included overtime,
the administration, favoritism, inconsistent discipline, staff training to deal with
conflict, better communication, and stronger leadership.
In comparison, 41 officers responded to the “one positive aspect” question. Some
of the positive aspects of CRC relayed by correctional officers are regarding the
ability for officers to work well together, their co-workers, seniority, close to home,
their paycheck, safe environment, job security, and not much mandated
overtime.
Evaluations

281
In CY 2014, CRC staff completed 74.9 percent of required performance
evaluations on time.281lxvii Overall, CRC completed 100.0 percent of all required
evaluations.282 In comparison, CRC completed 97.8 percent of their required
In CY 2014, CRC supervisors completed 304 of 406 required performance evaluations on time. The
December 2014 was not provided.
282
According to staff, CRC supervisors completed all of their 406 required performance evaluations.


performance evaluations in CY 2013 which was higher than the DRC
average.283lxviii
As of May 2015, CRC had completed 98.3 percent of their performance
evaluations on time.284
The large majority of officer survey respondents (79.1 percent) believe their
direct supervisors conduct performance evaluations that are fair. Most officer
survey respondents (64.2 percent) believe their supervisor provides good
feedback regarding their job performance.lxix
Training285

The FY 2014 CRC mandated training completion rates consisted of the
following:lxx
o
o
o
o
CPR/First-Aid:
Defense Tactics:
In-Service Training:
Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) Spray
o Firearms Training:
99.4 percent286
98.9 percent287
98.9 percent288
98.3 percent289
97.3 percent290
Turnover Ratio

283
In FY 2015, CRC had a 6.8 percent total staff turnover ratio,291 which was a
decrease from FY 2014.292lxxi The 2014 turnover ratio was higher than the DRC
average.293
The average completion rate for all evaluations for CY 2013 was 84.7 percent. The percentage is
based on 9,790 of 11,557. In 2013, CRC completed 91.6 percent of their required evaluations on time.
284
From January 2015 through May 2015, CRC supervisors completed 234 of 238 required performance
evaluations on time.
285
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-TRN02 (“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 inservice training. Institutions are only mandated to take CPR every other year. 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. In FY 2014,
CRC was not required to conduct CPR or OC-Spray training.
286
Three staff did not complete the program due to either military leave or disability leave.
287
Six staff did not complete the program due to either military leave or disability leave.
288
289
290
Nine staff did not complete the program due to either military leave or disability leave.
291
Most of the turnover was a result of resignations.
292
In FY 2014, CRC had an 8.5 percent total staff turnover rate.
293
In FY 2014, the average DRC turnover rate was 7.8 percent.

In FY 2015, CRC had a correctional officer turnover rate was also 8.5 percent,
which was similar to the FY 2014 turnover rate.294 The 2014 correctional officer
turnover rate was also higher than the DRC average. 295lxxii
Vacancies
On the day of the inspection, CRC reported 20 total vacancies296 including three
correctional officer vacancies (1.0 percent of total correctional officer
positions).297lxxiii The number of total vacancies was significantly less than the
number of reported vacancies from the 2014 inspection.298lxxiv

Recruiting and Retention Initiatives

CRC recruiting initiatives included participating in job fairs within a 60 mile radius
of the institution.299
FISCAL WELLNESS RECOMMENDATIONS
294




In FY 2014, CRC reported an 8.6 percent correctional officer turnover ratio. The FY 2015 turnover
ratio covers July 7, 2014 to July 7, 2015 based on the DRC Correctional Reception Center Turnover
Report. According to staff, most of the correctional officer separations were due to transfers, promotions,
and retirement.
295
In FY 2014, the average DRC correctional officer turnover rate was 8.0 percent.
296
In addition to the vacant correctional officer position(s), there were also vacancies in administration,
education, medical services, mental health services, recovery services, and recreation.
297
According to their personnel staff, CRC received funding for 312 correctional officer positions.
298
During the 2013 inspection, CRC reported 48 vacancies.
299
CRC personnel staff participated in a job fair in September 2014 in Circleville, Ohio and a career fair in
February 2015 in Columbus, Ohio.
VII. APPENDIX
A. INMATE SURVEY
A voluntary, confidential and anonymous survey of a representative sample of the
prisoner population was carried out during this inspection on July 6, 2015.
The survey was administered using a systematic sampling method of inmates stratified
by housing unit and category of inmate.
At the beginning of the inspection, institutional staff provided a printout of inmates by
housing unit to CIIC staff. CIIC staff calculated the number of inmates by category (i.e.
reception, cadre, juveniles etc.) and selected every inmate from each category except
reception inmates, where every other inmate was selected from the housing list printout.
CIIC staff attempted to speak to each selected inmate in their respective housing unit.
Staff explained the purpose of the survey, providing each inmate with the survey and an
empty envelope. Inmates were directed not to write their name or number on the survey
or envelope. After completion, inmates were instructed to place the survey in the
envelope and place it in manila envelope provided by CIIC staff on the corrections
officer’s desk. CIIC staff conducted sweeps of each housing unit in the afternoon to
pick up the manila envelopes on the officers’ desks. Additionally, inmates had the
opportunity to return the surveys by mail, at the expense of the inmate.
In the sample, 848 surveys were given out. Approximately 320 inmates were not
present in their housing unit during the distribution of surveys or refused to participate,
two blank survey and 551 total completed surveys were returned. (See the following
pages for numbers of completed surveys returned by each category of inmates.) The
number of total completed surveys represents 35.3 percentage of the population.
The questions are replicated on the following pages with markings of the different
categories of inmates surveyed. Demographic counts are represented in questions 44
thru question 48. The counts listed for the closed-ended questions 1 thru question 41,
are the number of respondents who answered accordingly. With the number of returned
surveys, we are 95.0 percent confident that the proportion of the population who agree
with the closed-ended statements, is the number given plus or minus the margin of error
of five percent. Questions 9, 28, 34, 42 and 43 are open-ended questions and questions
42 and 43 are typed out at the end of the report.
The results from the survey form part of the evidence base for our inspection.
RTU Open-Ended Responses
What is ONE positive aspect of this prison?
1.
RTU
2.
It offers Mental Health RTU
3.
RTU program, medical care
4.
The program RTU make me feel happy is good program
5.
If one behaves accordingly to a lot of the different philosophy’s of folks here, one
can get
through a temporary stay
6.
7.
8.
RTU
9.
10.
Futuristic change allowed by access to re-entry to community
11.
12.
Food
13.
14.
It sucks
15.
Most helpful hard working attractive intelligent women assisting changes, less
violence
16.
The Mental Health staff
17.
18.
?
19.
Commissary
20.
You get a visit all day with your people
21.
Nothing!
22.
None
23.
Easy to get by without getting in trouble
24.
25.
Food
26.
Groups
27.
TV Channels
28.
What is the ONE change you would most like to see here?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Respect inmate
Eat meat, (illegible)
Education about GED and college programs
Cultural thinking.
Respect inmate
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
ed
Compromise
Everything is confined
Politics
More dog trainers. More female Wardens. More intelligent reading materials. Co-
prison.
16.
That when an officer beats an inmate up, they just sweep it under the rug. They
need to
be held accountable for there actions because they will attack an inmate quick
and
nothing ever happens.
17.
18.
?
19.
More qualified mental health CO’s
20.
The CO’s attitude toward us and the way they treat us
21.
COs they said they don’t give a fuck about (CIIC)
22.
CO need to not use excessive force
23.
I need access to the law library. I’ve been given a total of 2 hours in the last 5
weeks and
this is insufficient for my filings.
24.
25.
Don’t know
26.
Food
27.
Cable boxes in every cell
Cadre Open-Ended Responses
1. The size
2. –
3. Close to home
4. IDK
5. –
6. Easy time
7. Close to home
8. Cadre
9. N/A
10. Clean and not a lot of people to deal with.
11. I don’t have to deal with the case manager every day!! 
12. Free housing
13. The bid is smooth for the most part.
14. Being able to get a job to help pass time.
15. Free housing.
16. There is nothing positive about prison.
17. Quiet
18. –
19. It helps us preserve ourselves, and it does help us get into school & maintain a
work ethic so when we are released, we will have this same mentality.
20. It’s easy to stay out of trouble.
21. When you are going home or to different camp. Sometimes programs when you
get into one.
22. Easy to stay out of the way. Safe
23. I’m in a cell away from other inmates and their kangaroo courts and gangbangers
for the most part!
24. I’m safer here than somewhere else.
25. Freedom of movement while at work.
26. As a whole this place has a very laid back atmosphere. For the most part the
caliber of inmates here are good.
27. N/A?
28. Small
29. Being able to see unit staff when needed
30. Small cadre population makes it easy for officers to learn inmates’ names and
character = safer camp
31. Warden Oppy and the new Warden
32. –
33. Apprenticeship programs and education is great
34. –
35. Sleep time
36. Laid back and easy goin. No violence.
37. It is less stressful here
38. Getting to be outside
39. Easy access to drug and alcohol programs
40. It’s lade back
41. Can do your time
42. CRC is a very laxed place as long as you stay out of the way
43. –
44. Non-violent/safe
1. –
2. –
3. Remove CO Napper from recreation.
4. A Lot !!!
5. –
6. More activity during the day.
7. Better food.
8. Treat us better.
9. N/A
10. Dirty CO’s who bring in drugs.
11. I would like to see a new case manager in cadre housing. Ours doesn’t do her
job but tries to do everyone else
12. Better treatment of GP.
13. We get rec regularly.
14. Get a new case manager in C-unit.
15. Let us free.
16. RIB cases looked into and bullshit RIB case overturned.
17. –
18. A new movie system and more fundraisers.
19. The change I would like to see is all cadre inmates receive their incentive pay
that is due to us. Because all inmates at other institutions that work inside the
prison get their incentive pay. So why can’t we have our incentive pay like
everyone else?
20. Better food.
21. CO that overdue their job & a better case manager that helps.
22. Better food.
23. Put private eye CO’s next to Fletcher and Miss Scott.
24. Martha Moore and Anna Ebersole.
25. Get rid of Officer Napper.
26. More respect and professionalism from staff. The case manager in C1 and C2 is
the worst I’ve had, by far, the whole time I’ve been incarcerated and I’ve been
incarcerated 13 yrs. She’s extremely condescending, unhelpful, and seems as if
she has a prejudice against all inmates.
27. More equipment in the gym
28. Officer Naper removed from rec. He doesn’t care about safety here. He comes in
to mess with inmates and everybody knows it but doesn’t do anything about it.
29. More rec tiem for cadre
30. More community outreach programming
31. The cadre are giving more
32. –
33. Remove Napper from second shift rec post. He is combative and dangerous to
the safety and security of the institution.
34. Better food
35. Racism, food, jobs
36. Less child molestors, more rec time
37. I don’t know
38. Our doors unlocked when count clears
39. I would like for the rec officer respect inmates at recreation
40. To get arts and crafts started here! Take computers out!
41. More family oriented programs
42. I would like to see security levels dropped faster and easier.
43. –
44. Opportunities to better myself. And the staff of C1 and C2 to give a shit and help
us better ourselves. I.e., #1 Case Manager, #2 secretary and #3 Unit manager
Reception Open-Ended Responses
1. Can’t name one
2. Cameras
3. –
4. –
5. ?
6. A cell instead of dorm
7. –
8. The food is hot and pretty damn good
9. It’s prison
10. Church and the worship band are awesome and the officers that treat you with
respect are needed!
11. Safety
12. –
13. There is nothing positive about staff abusing their power to take from people who
got nothing already or abusing inmates or no proper healthcare. Watch the
cameras, they tell most of it.
14. Getting outside a few hours a week after being in county jail for 6 months
15. Can’t think of one
16. I have short time, thank God. Church.
17. N/A
18. –
19. –
20. The programs if you could actually get to them
21. –
22. –
23. Don’t know never been here before
24. Sobriety
25. The lockdown time is hard
26. –
27. –
28. There isn’t one
29. –
30. Nothing
31. Help to get back on the right track
32. N/A
33. The COs still talk with disrespect but some of us deserve it for our own lack of
respect. But they don’t hit us like it used to be. Thank God for the cameras
34. None whatsoever
35. Familiarizing people with prison
36. –
37. –
38. I have an outdate
39. Time to think
40. –
41. N/A
42. Clean
43. N/A
44. Commissary
45. I get to sleep at night
46. ?
47. –
48. None
49. Religious services
50. There is none
51. –
52. Religious services
53. –
54. Clean and safe
55. We get a little fresh air
56. C/O attitudes
57. Sleep
58. –
59. –
60. –
61. Not many fights
62. –
63. None
64. It’s safe from inmates but that’s because people are scared of officers
65. They really know how to yell and beat on inmates
66. –
67. –
68. UNK
69. –
70. I get out in 19 months. Nothing positive other than that
71. Not sure
72. N/A
73. –
74. None
75. None
76. You’re out of county jail
77. –
78. –
79. N/A
80. –
81. I got picked for a porter
82. –
83. Church
84. I’m new first time?
85. Time to think
86. Control
87. –
88. Head on straight
89. –
90. It’s a beginning to getting my life together for my children!
91. –
92. None
93. It’s an outside prison
94. –
95. The structure compared to other prisons
96. –
97. –
98. –
99. Inmates behave decent
100.
Women drugs food
101.
No worries of losing commissary to inmates
102.
–
103.
Nothing so far
104.
Nothing
105.
People helping with each other
106.
Haha!
107.
Its walls are still standing
108.
–
109.
It sucks
110.
None
111.
–
112.
–
113.
There is not one
114.
I can probably say that it helps in getting sober is number and probably
only…maybe physically fit too!
115.
–
116.
–
117.
N/A The CO get to do what ever they want to you
118.
None
119.
–
120.
Nothing
121.
At least I feel safe from other inmates…
122.
Safety
123.
As I see so far they have replaced a lot of officers from 5 yrs ago that
thought all they could do is assault inmates for no reason. Still few left. We just
need to keep pushing lawsuits until it’s corrected.
124.
–
125.
–
126.
You ride out
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
169.
170.
171.
172.
It’s close to where I live
N/A
–
Y’all came
–
N/A
–
Close to Columbus
I get to read my book
None
N/A
?
N/A
–
Horrible
Going home soon
–
–
Informative
You can get help if you need it
Nothing
Porter jobs
–
–
–
–
She is my support and my kids’ mother
Me getting a fresh start
–
N/A
–
A lot of good vocational apprenticeship programs
–
None
Church services, IPP, sorry I wish I could name more
None
White T shirts, underwear, socks
None
Get to go to the library
Quiet!
–
Clean
–
Nothing
Phone
Nothing at all!!
173.
174.
175.
176.
177.
178.
179.
180.
181.
182.
183.
184.
185.
186.
187.
188.
189.
190.
191.
192.
193.
194.
195.
196.
197.
198.
199.
200.
201.
202.
203.
204.
205.
206.
207.
208.
209.
210.
211.
212.
213.
214.
215.
216.
217.
218.
Security
–
Safe
Ice available sometimes
–
–
–
Nothing is positive except your outdate. It’s prison
–
Structure
None
The cadre mentors
–
Recreation
Free vacation/rehab
Staff is very respectful
It’s a wake up call
I’ve learned my lesson
Cleanliness
My 1st time in prison and this place is a shithole
Staff are a lot better now
Lesson learned
The library, the pretty women that come through occasionally
–
Nothing
–
–
Clean
None
–
–
Leaving
–
Cleanliness
–
Time to reflect
They try and help you change your life
N/A
Safe
Getting time to rethink bad decisions
–
It got cells and not open dorms
Commissary
A window
–
Safer than most
219.
Provide you with fresh whites
220.
Phone calls
221.
Nothing
222.
–
223.
N/A
224.
This is a clean institution
225.
Don’t have one!
226.
Pretty good staff
227.
It’s fair
228.
I don’t have any at all for this prison. It’s the worst one in Ohio
229.
Somewhat clean
230.
I don’t know
231.
Officers, staff work together as team, even as bad as it is. It good
because you don’t want to come back.
232.
That you brung this form to us
233.
–
234.
Being in my cell so I don’t have to even deal with any of it
235.
Some guards are decent to us
236.
None
237.
It is ran how a prison should be/controlled and safe
238.
–
239.
–
240.
–
241.
Education
242.
Cameras
243.
–
244.
–
245.
–
246.
–
247.
Time to think about my life, and to get clean
248.
N/A
249.
–
250.
We will not be here long/we will go to another prison
251.
–
252.
–
253.
Perspectives
254.
Cells make it a little more private and secure
255.
It’s clean and most COs are respectful
256.
–
257.
Nothing
258.
None
259.
The programs, the only positive thing about this prison!
260.
–
261.
Officer Dumass
262.
Recovery access is great. Clothing appeal is horrible! People are getting
sick!!
263.
Nothing is positive about it at all
264.
Less use of force since cameras were installed
265.
–
266.
Nothing comes to mind…walking to chow, maybe
267.
You guys came
268.
Cells
269.
I can still get high
270.
N/A
271.
Nothing
272.
Nothing
273.
N/A
274.
Keeping people safe
275.
–
276.
It’s a good institution with flaws
277.
Refocus on my life
278.
Commissary prices
279.
–
280.
They have programs in your housing unit
281.
Commissary. But spending limit not sufficient
282.
–
283.
Leaving
284.
Programs
285.
–
286.
Creates a routine
287.
Awareness
288.
N/A
289.
–
290.
To help us inmates with short time for reentry to community. Jobs,
housing, etc.
291.
U living
292.
–
293.
Look outside from the windows
294.
–
295.
I’m leaving it…
296.
Clean
297.
Safety
298.
Quiet
299.
–
300.
None
301.
Have not noticed anything positive because we are almost always locked
down.
302.
Nothing, except some staff treat us like humans instead of gum on the
bottom of their show or subhumanized
303.
It has nice flower bed sin front of the units.
304.
Short term
305.
–
306.
307.
308.
309.
310.
AA services
–
I’m not out getting high or committing crimes
Release
-
What is the ONE change that you would most like to see here?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
COs not so disrespectful or threatening
More cameras
COs treat inmates different
–
Not locked down all day. I’m a Level 1 and I’m treated like a Level 3 close camp
–
Mental health access and availability of staff to counsel. Equal portions of food
not [does not complete]
8. Guards and housing officers making their own rules. No consistency from shift to
shift
9. Fire all COs hire new ones with better attitude especially Howard and Spitler.
10. Staff with intention to help reform with inmate interactions. Removing aggressive
staff and disrespectful staff that are abusive and unprofessional.
11. Less down time
12. –
13. A lot needs to be changed. We are criminals but not dogs. This place is one of
the worst places and they are good to cover their tracks. I understand we need
changing but not abused. Only makes for a worse criminal that’s not reformed
14. More rec
15. Food
16. Better food. Better COs. Better rec.
17. New second shift COs
18. –
19. –
20. For staff to stop hurting inmates for the sheer joy of it. Overkill.
21. More time out of our cells
22. –
23. Don’t know
24. More outside rec time
25. The way the COs talk to the inmates
26. –
27. Food
28. –
29. –
30. If you classed as a Level 1 or 2 you should be allowed out of your cell more than
oen or two hours a day you should get more freedom. Please make that happen.
31. More time out of cells for recreation inmates. And be able to earn state pay
32. N/A
33. I would like to see more phones possibly added and more respect by both us and
COs. Maybe if we made age group blocks people would get along better. But for
the most part everything has gotten better but the food, it’s the worst it’s ever
been.
34. The correctional officers. They are very disrespectful
35. Food services
36. Leave faster
37. –
38. Not 22 hours a day lockdown. More/better books
39. COs talking crazy for no reason
40. –
41. Treated with respect
42. Visits by video. Mail getting out and in on Jpay and mail.
43. Food portions and time we get to eat
44. Cheaper commissary
45. Stop raping me
46. Please stop the rape my butt hurts [may be the same inmate as the previous
response; it is unclear]
47. –
48. CO stop beating up inmates and yelling straight in inmates’ face hoping to get
them to fight them.
49. Grievance procedure
50. Mold out of showers
51. The way it’s run
52. More recreation
53. –
54. 2nd shift guard at R2 fired
55. More time for recreation/not locked down all day
56. Food!
57. COs
58. The staff’s way of handling situations. They are hurting people for no reason.
Too aggressive!
59. COs assault against inmates 3 and 4 on 1
60. –
61. Receiving mail faster
62. –
63. COs address things they have no set rules. Rules at chow hall change from
each meal. They will make you dig in trash for sporks, plastic spoons
64. More things to do or better food
65. How guard can spray inmate with mace, without the inmate becoming physically
threatening. Or how guard beat inmates after they take into cells so they won’t
be on camera
66. –
67. COs respect inmates and treat us how they would if they seen us on the street
68. UNK
69. The cell ice breaks AR codes and stops us from our hour a day rec. plus they
are always cheating us out of our rec
70. More outside rec. Better food. Aramark is horrible.
71. More free time
72. There be more phones put in on the block
73. Do away with the JPay bring back money orders
74. From Level 3 to Level 2
75. CO need to stop downgrading inmates. Not all of us do drugs or kill people to
get in here. I made 300,000 plus a year which is more than they make in their
lifetime
76. When in trouble they place you on cell ice. You are supposed to get an hour a
day rec no matter according to AR codes and they refuse to do that
77. B-1 2nd shift broken up and talked to. For COs to quit beating guys up for no
reason. Especially black inmates.
78. COs not spraying and beating on inmates
79. More freedom
80. –
81. Food and more time out of cells
82. The food
83. Better medical treatment
84. More programs
85. A/C, treat inmates with respect
86. Better food
87. –
88. Food
89. Better food and CO staying to schedule
90. Food
91. Out the cell
92. Corrections officers
93. More time out of our cell. More access to telephones.
94. –
95. N/A
96. –
97. Bring tobacco back
98. –
99. Us get all our recreation time instead of it being cut short for no reason
100.
More women!
101.
–
102.
The food
103.
Better staff that don’t beat us
104.
Staff
105.
Respect from the CO
106.
Make phones more accessible
107.
New officers that threaten you over the petty stuff
108.
–
109.
More phones, better commissary, better food
110.
Phone lines
111.
The COs to stop putting their hands on inmates cuz if we did that we
would get charged
112.
–
113.
No more reprocessed meat at chow
114.
More rec hours, better staff and more access to phones and JPay
115.
–
116.
–
117.
To feel like a human and not a dog
118.
COs behavior
119.
–
120.
Food, quality. There’s rotten bologna in every meal
121.
Better food quality
122.
More movement inside the unit
123.
Officers are criminals too bringing drugs in. Food has to change. Need to
place officers Chew in B-4, Martinez on 2nd, and few others or inmates still get
abused for no reason. Guess they don’t care till it reaches outside authorities
and lawsuits begin on this place for allowing it all. See you in court!!!
124.
–
125.
More time out of our cell. We are locked down too much and can’t contact
family
126.
Phone situation
127.
How money is placed on inmates’ books. The process is a pain in the ass
for people on the streets
128.
They should not have to be approved to send money on your books.
There should be no limitations on this.
129.
Officer reform of attitudes toward inmates
130.
More rec time so that all inmates are able to use the phone
131.
Bette and more food
132.
More humane treatment
133.
–
134.
I would like to see some kind of college courses
135.
The COs stop beating people please help us
136.
IDK
137.
–
138.
?
139.
N/A
140.
–
141.
Recreation time extended
142.
Staff
143.
–
144.
–
145.
More recreation time
146.
More time out your cell
147.
Just spent 11 days in R-2. Need to get out into population faster.
148.
Time out of cell.
149.
Rec in R unit
150.
More COs and staff to be helpful to us
151.
Officers treat us better
152.
COs being more respectful toward inmate new and old and more helpful
would be nice.
153.
Visit approval
154.
Staff member no disrespected inmate
155.
–
156.
NA
157.
–
158.
Anyone who cares enough about someone should be able to send them
money
159.
–
160.
Getting out of R unit faster
161.
A lil more freedom. A lil more respect. And maybe a lil bit of help with
issues like kites, cleans to the cells, a shower every day at least while it’s 80% in
the 23 hour cell.
162.
It need a lot of change.
163.
Food quality, portion, and time to ingest food
164.
Close them all down/ get way better programming
165.
More rec time
166.
Co’s to stop threatening inmates
167.
–
168.
More rec
169.
Better food and no correctional officers beating people up thanks so much
(please)
170.
After intake if classed a 1 or 2 level you should have more privileges than
3, 4, and 5 level.
171.
Respect.
172.
The CO’s give us some respect a lot more then they give because it’s
none…
173.
Staff verbal disrespect
174.
N/A
175.
Give better opportunities for programs. Lift mental health older problems.
176.
More hrs wreck, more phones, more space
177.
–
178.
–
179.
–
180.
That I never come back
181.
The CO’s attitudes, they treat us based upon how they feel that day
182.
Longer time to eat
183.
Everything
184.
I would like there to be cable.
185.
Separate inmates who want to do good and change from inmates who
don’t care
186.
Non-disrespect
187.
More rec
188.
Menu items
189.
Titled property such as a radio for recreation inmate
190.
Sooner ride outs less time at CRC
191.
More state soap
192.
Guards that don’t suck blacks asses
193.
Don’t care
194.
N/A
195.
One man cels, to stop the rapes from occurring on a daily basis
196.
–
197.
Phones/visits/food
198.
–
199.
CO’s doing their job instead of inmates having to cross the line.
200.
CO’s start being more professional and not threaten us
201.
More rec time
202.
–
203.
–
204.
Rotation of visit days
205.
–
206.
More privileges
207.
More food
208.
Safer from COs
209.
The level of security
210.
Time outside
211.
Phones
212.
Amount of time spent in cells
213.
–
214.
More later phone and TV privileges for guys who work. Past 9:00 pm
privileges.
215.
Time to eat
216.
Receiving units turn over faster
217.
Place inmates close to home if possible.
218.
Better food
219.
Extend rec at least 30 more minutes
220.
Food
221.
More outside recreation time
222.
–
223.
Quit treating people like trash beneath their feet
224.
I would visit less often
225.
Little more food
226.
More reading material
227.
I have medical problems and am not in the medical dorm I need a cane
too. I have a LOT of medical issues.
228.
Classing you closest to home
229.
Wheights exercise yard not being in cells so long
230.
More food
231.
That the food would be better and a little more time to eat. Hot shower not
cold. Every day.
232.
The way the COs address inmates that commit minor rule infractions.
233.
–
234.
The violence and very bad attitudes of the staff. The COs…
235.
To be able to contact family shortly after arriving to let them know where
you are and what is going on.
236.
Rec time in R-unit
237.
R-unit books or rec time
238.
People being classes quicker, getting to a different prison
239.
Better schooling programs and reentry programs
240.
The way staff disrespects inmates!!!
241.
Recreation everyday better food enough time to eat
242.
More food
243.
COs stop beating on us
244.
Friendly staff
245.
–
246.
To be able to use the phone to call family while in R1-R2. Family wants to
hear from us! Some people do not get through on 1 call.
247.
Not enough time to answers
248.
N/A
249.
–
250.
More phones, make CO’s 1st shift not threaten us
251.
–
252.
–
253.
Equal rights
254.
Recreational time outside and inside. More phones in all prisons.
255.
Transfer time – food is real BAD – and more phones
256.
–
257.
The lockdown criteria and the assaults of how they talk to you
258.
Food
259.
The staff to treat us like we are human beings, and not animals that they
can abuse and put through hell when they are having a bad day!
260.
–
261.
More rec
262.
Food quality – more minutes to eat food without choking.
263.
The food
264.
More rec time less lock down
265.
–
266.
More rec time outside and inside
267.
The way officers treat inmates
268.
More food
269.
The rust off of bed areas along with black mold in matts
270.
Food service to be way better than what it is now. Its watered down and
nasty also it never has another chace.
271.
Food sizes
272.
For level 1 and level 2 inmates get the rec their supposed to have
specially if their back under the same number. Like PV.
273.
More open
274.
Good food
275.
–
276.
The length in time of recreation. In CO professionalism
277.
Tobacco, would help some of the stress
278.
The COs being more respectful calling people names and cussing at
people is not professional
279.
–
280.
More phones and more time out of cell
281.
Amount of time spent here. Back on PV and been here 3 weeks and not
classed.
282.
–
283.
More phone #2, better food #3, new bed mats #1
284.
Food (quantity/ better cooked), more rec time (time out of cell)
285.
More time to eat
286.
More recreation 3 hours outside a week isn’t enough
287.
Open dorm areas
288.
When we come from our counties our money and shoes should come with
us
289.
–
290.
Better programs for people with 12 mo or less. We get no help. And most
of us need it.
291.
Everything
292.
1st shift COs are lazy and rude.
293.
More time outside the cell
294.
–
295.
That guards stop abusing inmates and they be held to a higher standard
of accountability for actions and use of force
296.
Attitude wit guards but they are ok
297.
Security levels separated so its not level 3 lock down all the time
298.
Out rooms more
299.
–
300.
More rec time for reception inmates. Being able to purchase phone time
on J-Pay.
301.
When we get classes move us to dorms with like security levels to allow
for more free time and ability to prepare for parent institution
302.
Staff assaulting inmates
303.
I would like to have more than just one person able to put money on my
account without having to visit.
304.
More phones with time limits enforced
305.
–
306.
Better food, use spices and change the menu up sometimes
307.
–
308.
We shouldn’t be locked down so much
309.
310.
COs
–
Juveniles Open-Ended Responses
1. Not a damn thing
2. –
3. –
4. N/A
5. Nothing
6. Less fights and gang violence
7. –
8. Nothing
9. –
10. N/A
11. Not a thing
12. Mentors
13. None
14. –
15. Good first shift C/Os and Warden and Case Manager
16. –
17. Education
18. School
19. –
20. The programs
21. The unit manager and white shirts do there job
22. More opportunities to become a better person
23. Nothing I seen is good here
What is the ONE change that you would most like to see here?
1.
2. Better food & C.O.’s
3. –
4. –
5. The C/O’s an there attitude
6. Stuff
7. Staff be better people
8. –
9. Transportation for family
10. –
11. The C/O
12. Ever thing
13. More people
14. Food service
15. –
16. 2nd Shift C/O’s on D4 A Side
17. –
18. Programs
19. More time out of room
20. Trades for juveniles
21. The care from our staff
22. More programs and activities
23. The racist C/O’s toward African American inmates
24. The staff and programming
SORRC Open-Ended Responses
–
I don’t know
The mental health staff is great
Nothing
–
Short duration
There is none other than time being served
I’ve been here, Lorain and Belmont! I can say only that some time is being
served. Nothing else.
9. N/A
10. A/C in my cell
11. It’s temporary
12. CO’s on time for work
13. None
14. –
15. –
16. Access to programs
17. The nurse practitioner is very caring and tries to help in any way possible, as
long as you have a positive attitude wit her.
18. –
19. N/A
20. –
21. –
22. –
23. Don’t know
24. –
25. CO being on time for work
26. There is none
27. None
28. N/A
29. Staying clean
30. Some form of recreation every day
31. Reasonably safe
32. Nonet hat I have seen
33. There isn’t any positive aspect
34. I get to sit in my cell for 21 hours a day. I read my Bible a lot.
35. –
36. I think all CO and staff need to have a class to show them how to work with
inmates.
37. Recreation
38. I like the visiting here are longer here
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
39. NA
40. We all have a bed, clothes, and three meals
41. Release date
42. You grow patient
43. The cadre program
44. Somewhat safe
45. The discipline with which it is run. I am a former Marine and the structure is
welcomed, versus LORCI.
46. Rec
47. One positive aspect about this prison is that on Tuesday and Friday some
inmates get to help clean and use the phone when we have outside rec
48. I can visit with my family and friend who support me a great deal
49. None
50. –
51. You know you’re in prison
52. None
53. None
54. Clean
55. None
56. Keeping inmates on keep separate from people you had problems with on the
outs
57. None
58. Easy to keep to yourself. “stay out the way”
59. Clean
60. TV at inside rec
61. Staff too aggressive
62. Secure
63. Clean
64. Visits are great
65. –
66. –
67. They are strict but safe here for us. They should not manhandle over little things
and rough guys up
68. Rehabilitation and time to think about my action
69. –
70. Nothing!
71. My toilet works
72. Safety is fair here – they keep decent eye on you
73. Haven’t seen one
74. –
75. Quiet
76. There are not that many fights due to controlled movement
77. –
78. Education
79. Safe, sound is amazing so quiet
80. –
81. –
82. It’s clean
83. Shower 7 days a week
84. –
85. Cleanliness
86. Sex offenders are segregated and that make me feel safer
87. I don’t know
88. –
89. I’m still alive
90. Cleaning
91. –
92. It’s quiet
93. –
94. –
95. Visiting is done very well here
96. That there isn’t gang activity
97. The church program is great
98. –
99. Church services
100.
Introspective thought of events that brought me here. Strengthening
relationship with wife
101.
Window opens
102.
None
103.
The prison kept clean
104.
There is none!
105.
Don’t know
106.
Nothing positive here
107.
Phone time
108.
–
109.
Commissary
110.
–
111.
Quiet
112.
–
113.
Nothing!
114.
CO more calmer and understanding than several years before
115.
Not shit!!
1. –
2. One man cell and a TV for every inmate for the cell and a key for the cell
3. COs who don’t know how to interact with inmates. Some COs do not need to
work in the block
4. That the staff cannot just put their hands on the weak people, they do not do it to
all
–
Retrained guards
COs to stop mentally and physically abusing inmates
Less harassing of inmates. Never been treated worse in my life. Unreal the way
they talk to and handle inmates
9. IDK
10. Equal opportunity
11. Me leave!
12. COs reprimanded. More rec time. Able to use phones every day
13. More rec time each day
14. Not having to visit to receive money
15. Guards being to boss on 2nd shift
16. New food service
17. I’d like to see Aramark leave and one of their competitors such as Sodexo come
in and improve the quality of the food
18. –
19. N/A
20. –
21. –
22. –
23. –
24. More 80% good days
25. CO being more understanding and rec. And do not look at every inmate as the
worse inmate.
26. Edible food – caring staff. Not this slop! The dog eats better!
27. Quality staff. Better food.
28. Understanding
29. More help with mental health and little longer time with rec, plus help finding jobs
when getting ready to leave
30. More time than 1 hour for outside rec
31. Nicer COs, more phones, more time for rec. More phone calls, more programs
for sex offenders
32. Rehabilitation
33. Longer outside recreation
34. I feel the vulgar language of the staff should stop. They should set an example
for the inmates, not create an environment of filth
35. A lot of things are broken like microwave, two showers, washing machine. All the
phones don’t turn on and JPay phone don’t work
36. The staff here does not talk to you and always want put their hands on people
here
37. Better food
38. I will like to see more respect from staff and I like to see more not to be treating
by staff
39. Cells need to be cooler always too hot. Faster ride out times.
40. More movement and access to go outside more
41. COs to be trained in humanity
5.
6.
7.
8.
42. More access to phones. The phones almost never work in unit B4
43. COs stop abusing inmates. More programs (vocational) for sex offenders.
44. CO nicer to you and more phones, more time for rec, more phone $ for your
phone calls, and more friends for visitor lists, more programs for sex offenders
45. I would prefer to be able to keep and use my radio brought from LORCI
46. –
47. I would change the restocking on commissary. A lot of times stuff that we want
to buy is already gone. I think this prison should restock more often.
48. Positiveness in COs working
49. No comment
50. –
51. Rec activities and time
52. COs talk to you better. The COs treat you like shit, plus need more rec, and
program. They need to move SORRC.
53. The wait to get to your parent institution
54. More time to eat
55. Rec, food and treatment
56. Spending more money at commissary and going to a prison closer to home
57. Food
58. Equalness
59. –
60. More rec time
61. Staff be less aggressive
62. Food service
63. More recreation
64. How the COs respond to medical problems and the extensive use of force
65. –
66. Food
67. The violent force used by COs – it is not all, just some. I.e. guy was beaten and
maced for not stop eating on June 29 breakfast, taken to hole, was OK
68. How the COs treat inmates
69. Maps so you don’t get lost
70. Everything!
71. More programs being offered to sex offenders
72. Less violent COs – saw guy get jaw broken by CO for not following order – he
wasn’t doing anything dangerous either or hurting anybody
73. COs treating us like we’re people too. Instead of cattle.
74. –
75. Case Managers and staff do jobs and help inmates
76. Staff rehire, hire people who don’t want to control people who really looks at the
inmates as people, and not convicts
77. –
78. Food portion
79. Food better, and be out 8 hours a day. Come out 7 am – 3 pm (downstairs) or
3:15 pm – 9 pm (upstairs)
80. More rec time and more phones
81. Programs available to inmates
82. Food and staff not treating people with sex offense like crap
83. Treat better, verbally and physically
84. The tough act the COs put on and threats
85. Race sensitivity. The CO haven’t been around black people and they act racist
86. I would like to have more time out of my cell or TV in my cell. I feel punished for
good behavior.
87. –
88. Time in reception to shorten. Or take better care of veterans!
89. Take better care of veterans
90. Food service replaced
91. –
92. Some staff could do better at their job and stop trying to take short cuts.
Supervisory staff could do a better job investigating informals
93. Them not shining the light in my face every ½ hour at night time when they make
their rounds
94. –
95. More activities/programs/rec time
96. It is safer due to COs abuse
97. Being out the cell more because we only come out one or two hours and we only
get one hour of outside rec and be in our cell for the rest of the day and don’t
shower for 5 to 6 hours later.
98. –
99. More outside rec
100.
Substantive access to law library
101.
More outside rec
102.
COs
103.
One change I hope to ride out soon to my parent
104.
More respect and activities/programs offered
105.
Don’t know
106.
The way we are treated by the COs too quick to beat you down and mace
you
107.
More time out of the cells
108.
–
109.
More rec and better food
110.
–
111.
Quality and quantity of food. More time at outdoor rec. 1 hr not enough.
Need radio or something to do. Able to buy socks and underwear. Been here
going on 5 months – too long for reception
112.
Not being locked up in the cell without being able to get out for activities,
ample recreation or mentoring programs, which don’t exist in B3 whatsoever
113.
Who knows
114.
Church services offered for those who practice Wicca and Norse religions,
commissary limit to $100.00, salt/pepper shakers for the tables instead of
packets. Legal service packets to be given to inmates that don’t have money
instead of waiting 30 days.
115.
Seeing first shift COs in 4B CRC get fired. I’m sick of hearing “Num Nuts”
all day
Segregation Open-Ended Responses
1. –
2. The church services
3. Programs
4. It is pretty laidback and if you want to you can stay out the way
5. Don’t know
6. It’s quiet. Not much violence.
7. There is none
8. It is small
9. They seem to want to help
10. Can’t think of any
11. Information availability
12. None
13. Don’t know
14. Not a single thing
15. Commissary
16. I don’t want to come back
17. None at all this prison is racist and needs to be seriously inspected
18. –
19. Family support
20. They can be nice when they want to be!
21. It’s clean for the most part outside the cells
22. –
23. Not as out of control as some prisons are
24. –
25. I can’t give you one your staff make it very hard they lie too much
26. Reformation of the spirit
27. N/A
28. –
29. –
30. N/A
–
Staff who do not assault/encourage assault of inmates because of crime/offense
–
Easier access to programs such as Victims Awareness
Don’t know
The staff to treat inmates like normal people
If we get in the hole, we get a fair chance at the RIB Board. They will [does not
complete]
8. Food service
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
9. Less COs assaulting inmates
10. Stop physical and verbal abuse of prisoners. Stop abuse of authority by staff and
officers
11. Protective custody inmates are treated like they are disciplinary without any
privileges while they go through the process here. It’s very unfair to sit in here for
months.
12. The doors open
13. Don’t care
14. More cameras so you can see when a CO or more than one beats upon inmate
cuz they can get away with it!
15. Dealing with higher commissary prices – we need higher state pay
16. People to not come back to the way COs treat you
17. Fairness
18. Weekly outside food buys
19. Staff member stop hurt us and get away with it by lie on inmates
20. The COs stop hurting inmates they think they’re above every one
21. Family and friends should not have to visit to send money! Anyone should be
able to send us money. Some of us don’t have family with proper paperwork
22. –
23. Maybe college be offered and more trade skill programs offered
24. The way COs treat inmates
25. Your staff stop beating people up and lying on us to get us in seg and our appeal
don’t even get looked at
26. Never coming back
27. The way staff treat inmates here, and the way they handle problems here
28. The COs need to stop using excessive force
29. COs beating on inmates and lying about them
30. COs treat inmates like people instead of animals
B. OFFICER SURVEY
A survey was handed to every first shift officer seen by CIIC staff, as well as every
officer who reported to second shift roll call. Surveys were also given to third shift staff
by the shift supervisor.
CIIC received back 69 completed surveys, or 22.3 percent of the total officer population.
The following pages provide the raw data and the open-ended responses.
CRC Staff Survey Open-Ended Responses
What is one positive aspect of this facility?
1. You have the opportunity to make a difference.
2. Strong [?] security
3. N/A
4. Parking
5. It’s consistent.
6. –
7. CO’s work well together.
8. The amount of time off I can take!!
9. It’s clean!!!
10. –
11. Seniority
12. I like my partner. He is the reason I come to work.
13. I like my partner, he’s my best friend. Everyone else sucks.
14. There are some good co-workers. Warden retiring soon.
15. Officers working together.
16. Not sure.
17. Camaraderie among the officers.
18. The ride to and from work! White shirts do their job!
19. –
20. A paycheck.
21. –
22. The only thing that saves the institution is we are a reception center.
23. –
24. That it’s still open.
25. Extensive training opportunities.
26. –
27. –
28. –
29. Security.
30. Better than most institutions.
31. –
32. –
33. The control we have with security and response times to man downs.
34. Good Second Shift supervisors.
35. Co-workers.
36. Close to home.
37. –
38. –
39. The inmates still don’t have the keys yet!
40. –
41. –
42. –
43. Nothing.
44. The control.
45. Fairly safe environment.
46. –
47. Having a job.
48. –
49. –
50. Security.
51. The pay.
52. –
53. –
54. –
55. –
56. Nothing.
57. –
58. –
59. It’s never had an escape.
60. Not much mandated overtime.
61. N/A
62. –
63. My co-workers.
64. –
65. –
66. Select staff.
67. –
68. N/A
69. The ability officers have to make the operations at CRC work.
What is one change that you would make?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Overtime consist of four hours.
Consistency.
N/A
Administration promoting people they know not by qualifications.
That for once, the administration would not try and change anything just to leave
their mark on this institution.
6. –
7. Stop taking & give more. Our pay & retirement.
8. Make discipline fair across the board. Warden/ Labor Relations Officer, pick and
choose who to discipline! This is a major problem that needs to be addressed
ASAP!
9. Most of the administration, it’s a good-ole-boy system here!!!
10. –
11. Finish painting job. Fix roof.
12. Supervisor accountability.
13. Equal rights between all staff! Accountability for supervisors!
14. New administration that is competent (AA, Unit Manager, LRO, Adm Captain).
15. All Deputy Wardens.
16. Stop wasting all the money!
17. New administration, ones that appreciate & care about their staff.
18. Unit 1, 2, 3 and AA don’t do their job.
19. –
20. New chairs that last.
21. –
22. Supervisors need to use the firm, fair, and consistent method with staff. STOP
FAVORITISM.
23. –
24. Start from scrap!
25. Six-month probation instead of one year.
26. –
27. –
28. –
29. Better training dealing with conflict & speech.
30. Let the supervisors supervise.
31. –
32. –
33. Morale!! Supervisors should lead by example and be firm and fair across the
shift.
34. Better communication unit manager and staff.
35. Treat all the same.
36. Administration, unit staff, everything.
37. –
38. –
39. Stronger security!
40. –
41. Investigator and his way of doing job.
42. –
43. Administration/unfair discipline. The separation between custody and noncustody.
44. Food option for overtime officers.
45. Better communication in roll call.
46. Leadership
47. –
48. More security staff.
49. –
50. Discipline
51. Not go to podium pick.
52. –
53. –
54. Whatever it will take to boost morale and not sure what that is.
55. –
56. Administration.
57. –
58. Roll call with information on use of force or incidents of the last 72 hours with
injury report.
59. Do a payout and retire. Retirement in corrections needs to be same as deputies
with 25 and out.
60. New training [?] OJT
61. N/A
62. –
63. Consistency. Rules change when it suits the administration.
64. –
65. –
66. Select staff.
67. Bring back overtime. Quit with harsh punishment.
68. N/A
69. Bring back strong leadership like M. Oppy.
C. INSTITUTIONAL CHECKLISTS
D. 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 al 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 5120-931. 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 selfinflicted 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 ..................................
Richland Correctional Institution ......................
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 Reintegration Center.......................
Ohio Reformatory for Women .........................
Ohio State Penitentiary ...................................
Pickaway Correctional Institution ....................
Richland Correctional Institution ......................
Ross Correctional Institution ...........................
Southeastern Correctional Complex-HCF
Southeastern Correctional Complex-SCI ........
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility .................
Toledo Correctional Institution .........................
Trumbull Correctional Institution ......................
Warren Correctional Institution ........................
AOCI
BECI
CCI
CRC
DCI
FMC
RICI
LAECI
LECI
LOCI
LORCI
MACI
MANCI
MCI
NCI
NCCC
NERC
ORW
OSP
PCI
RICI
RCI
SCC-HCF
SCC-SCI
SOCF
TOCI
TCI
WCI
E. ENDNOTES
i
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Correctional Reception Center website. Accessed at
http://www.drc.ohio.gov/Public/crc.htm
ii
Correctional Reception Center Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Status Report. Provided July 6, 2015
iii
Commission on Accreditation for Corrections. Standards Compliance Accreditation Audit. May 18-20,
2015. p.2.
iv
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, “Institution Counts: CRC,” provided on July 6, 2015.
v
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, “Institution Counts: CRC,” provided on July 6, 2015.
vi
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Accessed at http://www.drc.ohio.gov/web/Reports/
staffing/June%202015.pdf
vii
Commission on Accreditation for Corrections. p.26.
viii
Bureau of Internal Audits and Standards Compliance, Full Internal Management Audit for Correctional
Reception Center, March 25, 2015.
ix
Ibid.
x
Significant Incident Summary reports provided by the Correctional Reception Center for the following
period: January 2014 – December 2014.
xi
Ibid.
xii
xiii
xiv
Ibid.
xv
xvi
Serious Misconduct in DRC Prisons, 2015 Annual Report, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction, March 2015.
xvii
Ibid.
xviii
Ibid.
xix
Ibid.
xx
Information provided by the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, October 21, 2014.
xxi
Ibid.
xxii
Information provided by the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, March 13, 2015.
xxiii
Ibid.
xxiv
xxv
xxvi
Monthly use of force reports submitted by each institution to CIIC.
xxvii
xxviii
Information provided by the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, January 24, 2014.
xxix
xxx
Correctional Reception Center, staff interviews and survey results, July 6-7, 2015.
xxxi
Ibid.
xxxii
Ibid.
xxxiii
Information provided by the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, January 12, 2015.
xxxiv
Ibid.
xxxv
Serious Misconduct in DRC Prisons, 2015 Annual Report, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction, March 2015.
xxxvi
PREA Audit:
Auditor’s Summary Report Adult Prisons and Jails.
Accessed at
http://drc.ohio.gov/web/PREA/CRC_PREA_MAY2015.pdf.
xxxvii
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Recovery Services FY 2014 Annual Report.
xxxviii
Correctional Reception Center Health Inspection, March 24, 2015.
xxxix
Correctional Reception Center Inspection Overview by the DRC Food Service Contract Monitor,
conducted on February 2015.
xl
Correctional Reception Center, personal communication, July 6, 2015.
xli
Ibid.
xlii
Correctional Reception Center Internal Management Audit Report, March 17-19, 2015.
xliii
Correctional Reception Center Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Status Report. Provided July 6, 2015.
xliv
Ibid.
xlv
xlvi
xlvii
Ibid.
xlviii
Ibid.
xlix
Information provided by the Office of Budget Planning and Analysis on April 27, 2015.
l
Ibid.
li
Ohio Standards- Fiscal Testing Report January 2015 through September 2015, Correctional Reception
Center, Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Office of Acquisition and Contract Compliance Fiscal
Audits Section, provided on July 15, 2015.
lii
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Office of Acquisition and Contract Compliance Fiscal
Audits Section, Correctional Reception Center Report of Audit conducted March 4, 2014 through April 3,
2014. Report Finalized on May 5, 2015.
liii
Correctional Reception Center Report of Audit Response. Submitted on May 29, 2015.
liv
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Total Institutional Overtime Fiscal Year 2015, Correctional
Reception Center provided July 2015.
lv
Ibid.
lvi
Ibid.
lvii
Ibid.
lviii
Correctional Reception Center Property Reimbursements CY 2014, provided July 2015.
lix
DRC Property Reimbursements CY 2010-2013, Correctional Reception Center, August 2014.
lx
Ibid.
lxi
CY 2014 Inspector Activity Reports, Correctional Reception Center, provided July 2015
lxii
Correctional Reception Center, staff communication, July 2015.
lxiii
ODRC Sustainability Audit Annual Review, Correctional Reception Center, provided July 2015.
lxiv
Correctional Reception Center, staff communication, July 6-7, 2015.
lxv
Correctional Reception Center, staff interviews conducted on July 7, 2015.
lxvi
Ibid.
lxvii
CY 2014 DRC Performance Evaluations, Correctional Reception Center, provided July 7, 2015.
lxviii
CY 2013 DRC Performance Evaluations, Correctional Reception Center, January 2014.
lxix
Correctional Reception Center, staff survey results, July 6-8, 2015.
lxx
Correctional Reception Center Correctional Institution, FY 2015 Annual Training Report, provided on
July 7, 2015.
lxxi
DRC Correctional Reception Center turnover report: July 7, 2014 through July 7, 2015. provided by
CRC staff on July 7, 2015.
lxxii
Ibid.
lxxiii
Correctional Reception Center Vacancy List, July 2015.
lxxiv
Ibid.

Correctional Reception Center - Correctional Institution Inspection

Transcription

Similar documents

GWINNETT COUNTY SHERIFF`S DEPARTMENT

KITSAP COUNTY SHERIFF`S OFFICE

DPS Prisons

JAILS DIVISION

Photo exhibit offers look into the lives of prisoners

Grand Welcome 19 Annual Day of India Vision Foundation celebrated

Communicable Disease in the LA County Jail

Our Prison System

Chronology of the 1993 Lucasville Prison Riot page 8

Inside FCI Fairton Jason Gerhard An enormous amount of money is