Southeastern Correctional Institution (2012)

Transcription

CIIC Report: Southeastern Correctional Institution 1
Southeastern
Correctional
Institution
March 5, 2012
March 6, 2012
March 8, 2012
Darin Furderer,
Report Coordinator
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SECTION I. INSTITUTION OVERVIEW ................................................................................3
A. INSPECTION PROFILE ......................................................................................3
B. INSTITUTION DEMOGRAPHICS ....................................................................3
C. FISCAL REVIEW .................................................................................................5
SECTION II. INSPECTION SUMMARY ..................................................................................8
SECTION III. INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE EVALUATION .............................16
SECTION IV. KEY STATISTICS .............................................................................................18
A. USE OF FORCE ..................................................................................................18
B. ASSAULTS ...........................................................................................................19
C. INMATE DEATHS..............................................................................................19
D. INVESTIGATOR DATA ....................................................................................20
E. SECURITY THREAT GROUPS (STG) ............................................................21
F. INMATE SAFETY RATING .............................................................................21
SECTION V. EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS ..................................................................23
A. MEDICAL SERVICES .......................................................................................23
B. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES .......................................................................24
C. FOOD SERVICES ...............................................................................................25
D. OHIO PENAL INDUSTRIES (OPI) – Janitorial Shop ......................................... 24
E. HOUSING UNITS ...............................................................................................27
F. COMMISSARY ...................................................................................................29
SECTION VI. EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS ....................................................................30
A. PROGRAM EVALUATION ..............................................................................30
B. LIBRARY/LAW LIBRARY SERVICES ..........................................................31
C. RECREATION ....................................................................................................32
SECTION VII. INMATE COMMUNICATION ......................................................................34
A. INQUIRIES ..........................................................................................................35
SECTION VIII. APPENDIX ......................................................................................................36
A. SCHEDULES .......................................................................................................36
B. DATA TABLES ...................................................................................................39
C. INSPECTION CHECKLISTS............................................................................42
SECTION IX. GLOSSARY OF TERMS ....................................................................................73
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION INSPECTION COMMITTEE REPORT
ON THE INSPECTION AND EVALUATION OF
SOUTHEASTERN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
SECTION I. INSTITUTION OVERVIEW
A. INSPECTION PROFILE
Date of Inspection:
March 5, 2012
March 6, 2012
March 8, 2012
Type of Inspection:
Unannounced
CIIC Member and Staff Present:
Joanna Saul, Director
Darin Furderer, Inspector
Adam Jackson, Inspector
Jamie Hooks, Inspector
Carol Robison, Inspector
Michell Dunkle, Inspector
Facility Staff Present:
Warden Sheri Duffey
CIIC spoke with many additional staff at
their posts throughout the course of the
inspection.
Areas/Activities Included in the Inspection:
Housing Units
Inmate Dining Hall
Kitchen
Segregation
Educational Programs
Medical and Mental Health Services
Library
Recreation
Ohio Penal Industries – Janitorial Shop
B. INSTITUTION DEMOGRAPHICS
Southeastern Correctional Institution is a 1,377 acre facility, which opened in 1980.1 The site of
the Southeastern Correctional Institution was originally constructed in the mid-1800’s as the
Wilderness Youth Camp with one cottage.2 Over many years, the facility became the Fairfield
School for Boys (FSB) and the Boys Industrial School (BIS). 3 The camp was re-named several
1
Southeastern Correctional Institution website, available at http://www.drc.state.oh.us/public/sci.htm.
Correctional Institution Inspection Committee Report: On Site visit and Inspection at the Southeastern
Correctional Institution, December 12, 2008, available at http://www.ciic.state.oh.us/southeastern-correctionalinstitution/view-category.html.
3
Ibid.
2
times and in 1979, the Fairfield School for Boys was closed. The facility reopened in January
1980 as a reformatory for men. The institution took its current name of Southeastern
Correctional Institution in 1986.4
The facility is a Level 2 security (medium security) male institution serving Level 1 and 2
inmates.5 The institution’s budget is $26,702,221 and the daily cost per inmate is $55.01.6
The date of the most recent ACA accreditation was September 15-17, 2010.7 The facility was
100 percent compliant on mandatory standards and 98.85 percent compliant on non-mandatory
standards. The main areas of non-compliance were due to overcrowding. CIIC also reviewed
the most recent internal management audit conducted on June 21-22, 20118 by the DRC in order
to determine continuous compliance with ACA and Ohio standards. The facility was found to be
100 percent compliant on ACA mandatory standards, 98.29 percent compliant on ACA nonmandatory standards, and 96.9 percent compliant on Ohio standards. The primary areas of
noncompliance were in regard to the following: overcrowding; employee annual performance
review; administrative rounds in segregation and medical; appropriate documentation regarding
sexual assault allegations; documentation of mail forwarding procedures; documentation
regarding inmate’s earned credit; and necessary documentation from contractors.
The rated capacity for Southeastern Correctional Institution is 1,358. The inmate count as of
March 5, 2012 was 1,577, or approximately 116 percent of the rated capacity.10 The average age
of the inmate population was 28.8 years as of March 2012.11
Of the 345 total staff at Southeastern Correctional Institution as of March 1, 2012, 79.4 percent
were male and 20.6 percent were female. Of the total staff, 92.8 percent were classified as white,
5.8 percent as black, 1.4 percent as other.12
The following chart provides a comparison of both staff and inmate race demographics at the
facility and across the DRC.
4
Ibid.
Southeastern Correctional Institution website, available at http://www.drc.state.oh.us/public/sci.htm.
6
Ibid.
7
Commission on Accreditation for Corrections, “Standards Compliance Reaccreditation Audit,” September 15-17,
2010.
8
The internal management audit cover sheet lists June 21-22, 2011 as the audit date, but the subsequent page
headers list June 28-29, 2011 as the audit date.
9
There were 428 standards in compliance out of 436 applicable non-mandatory standards (98.2 percent). In one
section of the internal management audit it lists 98.2 and in another section the report states 98.6 percent compliance
for non-mandatory standards.
10
Southeastern Correctional Institution, Institutional Counts, March 5, 2012.
11
Ibid.
12
ODRC Workforce Composition – March 1, 2012, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction website,
http://www.drc.ohio.gov/web/Reports/staffing/March%202012.pdf
5
Chart 1
Staff and Inmate Comparison by Percentage of Race13
March 2012
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Staff White
Staff Black
Inmate White
Inmate Black
92.8
5.8
51.6
47.1
80
17.7
51.3
47.1
Institution
DRC
C. FISCAL REVIEW
CIIC’s fiscal evaluation focuses on three primary areas: (1) review of most recent fiscal audit;
(2) staffing, including overtime hours; and (3) cost savings initiatives.
Review of Fiscal Audit
Southeastern Correctional Institution provided the most recent fiscal audit performed by an
external auditor, dated January 23, 2012. The audit covered the period of August 1, 2010 through
October 31, 2011. There were three concerns noted in the fiscal audit:
There were a few inaccuracies with the Asset Management System (AMS) Fixed Asset
listing. Five of fifteen items selected for testing had been salvaged, but not removed
from the inventory. One item from the AMS listing was not found.
While reviewing the Cashier and Commissary Trust Accounting System (CACTAS)
Balance Sheets, it was noted that the following funds had negative Cash On Hand (COH)
balances as of October 31, 2011:
o
o
o
o
o
13
Industrial and Entertainment Fund
Industrial Arts Fund
Housing and Cafeteria Fund
Employee Activity Fund
Inmate Group Fund – P.U.P.S.
Ibid. and DRC Monthly Fact Sheet, February 2012.
(6.00)
(88.00)
(6.07)
(10,005.84)
(15,734.00)
Eleven new CACTAS sub-accounts were established within the Industrial and
Entertainment Fund. The Warden approved the establishment of the new accounts.
However, no evidence was presented for audit to indicate the new sub-accounts were
approved by the Division of Business Administration (DBA) Chief.
Staffing
Adequate staffing has a direct effect on the safety and security of an institution. Of the total
number of allotted positions, 26 are vacant.14 The vacancies consist of
Six corrections officers
Two food service coordinators
Two teachers
Two lieutenants
One warden’s assistant, account clerk supervisor, maintenance repair worker,
stationary engineer, treatment plant coordinator, activity therapy administrator,
captain, program specialist, secretary, corrections specialist, farm coordinator,
guidance counselor, administrative assistant, and nurse.
In addition, 13 staff were on leave on the date of the inspection. There were six employees on
disability leave, three employees on workers’ compensation, two employees on military leave,
one on paternity leave, and one on salary continuation.
Vacancies and employees on leave result in staff being mandated to work extra shifts; however
mandated shifts may vary from day to day and week to week. Overtime is calculated by hours.
In the six months prior to the inspection (September 2011 – February 2012), there were 7,338.8
hours worked as overtime hours.15 Of the total, 82.4 percent (6,047.73 hours) were in the area of
custody staff.
The following chart compares staffing across the DRC by the number of inmates per corrections
officer (based on the total amount of staff on the payroll, including staff on leave).
14
Southeastern Correctional Institution, staff vacancies, received March 5, 2012.
Southeastern Correctional Institution Overtime Breakdown by Staff Department, September 2011 – February
2012.
15
Chart 2
DRC Institutional Staffing: Number of Inmates per Corrections Officer16
January 2012
12
10
8.6
8
6
4
2
Level
4/5
Reception
Center
FMC
ORW
DCI
NEPRC
Level
3
CRC
LorCI
SOCF
OSP
Level
1/2
LeCI
ManCI
RCI
TCI
ToCI
WCI
ACI/OCF
BeCI
CCI
GCI
HCF
LoCI
MaCI
MCI
NCCI
NCI
PCI
RICI
SCI
0
Special*
Cost Savings Initiatives
In the 129th General Assembly biennium, one of CIIC’s goals is to identify cost savings across
the DRC. Staff relayed the following cost savings measures implemented at the Southeastern
Correctional Institution:17
Recycling of all trash led to the reduction of Rumpke Dumpsters. The trash bill
decreased from $96,000 to $5,000.
Recycling all trash has brought in a revenue of approximately $7,000 in the last six
months.
Composting food waste has not only assisted in the reduction of the trash bill, but it is
used as fertilizer for the field, thereby creating an additional cost savings due to a
decreased need to purchase fertilizer.
Reduction of the use of trash bags resulted in a savings of $40,000 last year.
Delamping most of the institution lowered the electric bill by five percent.
Lowering the steam temperature resulted in a six percent savings.
Installing push button showers has saved about five percent of water usage.
16
DRC Monthly Fact Sheet, “ODRC Workforce Composition,” January 1, 2012 and DRC Weekly Count, January 3,
2012.
17
Southeastern Correctional Institution, “Cost Savings Initiatives for 2011.”
SECTION II. INSPECTION SUMMARY
Overall, the inspection was very positive. The following is a summary of the inspection’s key findings. The DRC action plans in
response to the identified concerns follow the summary.
INCREASED
>10%
NO CHANGE
(WITHIN 10%)
AREA
Use of Force
DECREASED
>10%
KEY STATISTICS
X
COMMENTS
Total uses of force increased by 4.8 percent from 2009 to 2011.
Total inmate on inmate assaults increased by 39.3 percent from 2009 to
2011.
X
Compared to 2009 and 2010, in which zero suicide attempts were reported,
SCI’s total number of suicide attempts increased by one in 2011.
OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT
AREA
Medical Services
Mental Health Services
Food Services
Housing Units
ACCEPTABLE
EXCELLENT
Suicide Attempts
IN NEED OF
IMPROVEMENT
X
Assaults
X
X
X
X
COMMENTS
Operations
No concerns noted.
No concerns noted.
The only concern was in regard to the size of food portions; however, food
portions and calories are determined by the Operation Support Center, not
the individual institution.
Shower facilities in the housing units, specifically H3 and F2, need
improvement. Despite being reconditioned within the past month, the paint
in the H3 showers was already peeling due to a reported failure to let the
Commissary
Ohio Penal Industries
X
X
Program Evaluation
Library
Recreation
X
X
X
Officer Staffing
Inmate Grievance Procedure
X
Inmate Safety
X
X
Executive Staff Rounds
X
Shakedowns (Bunk Searches)
X
paint completely dry/set before turning on the water. In other housing units
there were minor concerns of chipped tiles and corroded sealant.
No concerns noted.
No concerns noted.
Programs
No concerns noted.
No concerns noted.
No concerns noted.
Staff Accountability
The institution reported very few vacancies.
In CY 2011, 15 percent of informal complaints received an untimely
response from staff. In addition, approximately 92 percent of grievance
dispositions were extended beyond the two week timeframe established in
administrative rule.
Overall, inmates at the institution said they felt safe. Of the 75 inmates
interviewed in the institution’s general population housing units, 92 percent
of the inmates reported that the institution is “safe” or “very safe.” The only
concern is due to the increased rate of assaults (see above section).
With the exception of the Deputy Warden of Operations, executive staff
rounds were not being conducted on a weekly basis through all housing
units. It is recommended that the Warden and executive staff develop an
accountability system to provide easy verification of staff rounds.
Concerns included the following: (1) there was disagreement and uncertainty
among housing unit officers as to how many shakedowns officers were
expected to perform each shift; (2) on some dates, only two shakedowns total
were recorded for both shifts, which is substandard; and (3) the shakedown
log – which was different than that seen at other institutions and recorded
shakedowns on a quarterly basis – was extremely confusing as an
accountability system. It is recommended that the Warden provide
training to housing unit officers to ensure consistent performance of
shakedowns and that the Warden and executive staff develop an
Officer Security Checks
AREA
Lack of Phones and
Microwaves
Food Services Cost Savings
Initiatives
Green Initiatives
improved accountability system for easy verification of shakedowns.
X
Staff appeared to adequately record officer security checks within the
housing units at appropriate intervals.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
COMMENTS
Inmates throughout the inspection commented on the lack of microwaves and phones in the
inmate housing units. They stated that the issue has created daily arguments and fights.
However, staff explained that they are working on increasing the number of phones in the
housing units to alleviate this concern.
Staff reported significant cost savings initiatives for food services. It was estimated that they
save $1,800 per month for making their own hamburger patties instead of purchasing prepackaged hamburgers, $2,500 per month for purchasing orange juice in bulk, and another $750
per month for making their own pancakes instead of purchasing pre-packaged pancakes. In
addition, food service staff has saved more than $1,000 since September 2011 when SCI began
using the five gallon milk dispensers instead of purchasing individual pouches.
Southeastern Correctional Institution has been cutting edge in its implementation of “green
initiatives,” which have lopped hundreds of thousands off of its utilities and operations costs.
The following is a list of the green initiatives:
De-lamped – used light-o-meter to determine appropriate lighting needs. In two months,
removed 1,200 lightbulbs from facility and lowered the electric bill by five percent.
Scaled back natural gas usage based on low demand time periods – after 9 pm when
demand for steam lowers, drops pressure from 120 pounds to nearly 60. In a year’s time,
saves $18,000 in costs for natural gas.
Water
o Began metering areas independently to measure usage – create competition
between housing units based on water usage
o Instituted shower times
o Required inspections through Administrative Duty Officer to check faucets,
showers, and urinals running water and leaks
o Required utilities crews to periodically walk water lines and check for leaks
Recycling and Composting
o Conducted waste audit
o Obtained compactor through partnership with local Community Action Agency
o Placed recycling bins in all buildings
o Began full trash sorting operations
o Eliminated trash bags
o Became Class II Composting facility
o Created inmate jobs and apprenticeships
o Diverted non-organic materials from landfill via recycling
o Diverted organic materials (kitchen waste) from landfill via composting
o Inmate jobs – “reclaimers” – in living units; inmate job is to continuously check
recycling bins to make sure that inmates are correctly sorting materials.
Green Initiatives:
Programming
See the cost savings initiatives (p.7) for more information on the results of the green initiatives.
Created jobs with recycling, composting, and trash sorting
Introduced Recovery and Recycling Apprenticeship – Department of Labor registered
apprenticeship
o 2,000 hours (year long), 20 inmates registering in next two years
Launched “Roots of Success” environmental literacy program to serve 200 inmates per
year, facilitated by certified trainer inmates
Creating community garden
o Creates additional inmate jobs
o Provides fresh produce for the local non-profits (food banks)
o Become first prison member of the Ohio Beekeeping Association
DRC RESPONSE/ACTION PLAN
Issue Problem noted by CIIC - Assaults
Total inmate on inmate assaults increased by 39.3 percent from 2009 to 2011.
Tasks
1. Expansion of staff rounds.
2. In-service training on Violence Reduction
3. Implementation of Reintegration Unit
4. Reorganization of units
Person Responsible
1. All Executive Staff
2. DWO, Major, Captain’s
3. DWO, UMA
4. Warden, DWO, Major, UMA
5.
6.
Comments: Violence Reduction remains a priority at SCI. Each day of in-service has dedicated time to focus on curtailing
violent acts. We are in the process of moving offenders to different units utilizing the unique layouts of each dorm to best
enhance security. We are working on unit coverage and stressing the importance of staff presence.
Issue Problem noted by CIIC - Suicide Attempts
Compared to 2009 and 2010, in which zero suicide attempts were reported, SCI’s total number of suicide attempts increased
by one in 2011.
Tasks
Person Responsible
1. Continued Risk Management Training.
1. Dr. Bowers, MH Supervisor
2. Complete Specialized SMHT Training specific for SCI staff to include Nurses, 2. Dr. Bowers, MH Supervisor
Recovery Service Coordinators, and Correctional Staff.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Comments: SCI strives to have zero suicide attempts and continues to educate staff and inmates on suicide prevention. Our
commitment to prevent suicides and suicide attempts in the future is maintained through QIC meetings, SPART initiatives,
in-service training, and inmate orientation.
Issue Problem noted by CIIC - Housing Units
Shower facilities in the housing units, specifically H3 and F2, need improvement. Despite being reconditioned within the past
month, the paint in the H3 showers was already peeling due to a reported failure to let the paint completely dry/set before
turning on the water. In the other housing units, there were minor concerns of chipped tiles and corroded sealant.
Tasks
Person Responsible
1. Determine the best product to be used on showers
1. Jeff Stanforth, BA3
2. Apply product to H3 and F2
2. Tom Ray, Maintenance Supervisor
3. Fixed chipped tiles and corroded sealant
3. Tom Ray, Maintenance Supervisor
4.
5.
6.
Comments: SCI has attempted several different paints and products on our showers. The most recent product appears to have
not been allowed to dry properly. We will paint the showers and allow for proper drying. The final product will be reviewed
for effectiveness.
Issue Problem noted by CIIC - Inmate Grievance Procedure
In CY 2011, 15 percent of informal complaints received an untimely response from staff. In addition, approximately 92
percent of grievance dispositions were extended beyond the two week timeframe established in administrative rule.
Tasks
Person Responsible
1. In-service training to reiterate the importance of timely ICR responses.
1. Charlie Adams, Inspector
2. Tracking of grievances statistics.
2. Warden, IIS
3. Action plan completed on 2011 Annual Report for timely ICR responses
3. Charlie Adams, Inspector
Comments: For part of the year the Inspector was also serving as the TWL Deputy Warden of Special Services as well as
providing coverage for the Investigator’s office. The Inspector’s use of grievance extensions ensured thorough and complete
investigations. Inmates were notified of the need for additional time to address concerns. Complaints were prioritized and
emergent matters dealt with promptly although a written response was issued later. The Inspector has fully resumed the
Inspector role and therefore the need for extensions has decreased. The Inspector regularly meets with the offender grievants
to ensure they understand the investigation process and the outcome and findings of the complaints
Issue Problem noted by CIIC - Executive Staff Rounds
Executive staff rounds were not being conducted regularly on a weekly basis through all housing units.
Tasks
Person Responsible
1. Perform quality assurance checks.
1. Warden, DWO, DWSS,
2. Expectations to be communicated at staff meetings.
2. Warden
3.
4.
5.
6.
Comments: Completing unit rounds has been discussed at great length. SCI will continue to stress the importance to have a
regular presence in the living units and to assure they sign the Employee Visit Record. In addition, if a staff member is
assuming multiple roles, they shall sign in indicated as such.
Issue Problem noted by CIIC - Shakedowns (Bunk Searches)
There was uncertainty among housing unit officers as to how many shakedowns officers were expected to perform each shift.
On some dates, only two shakedowns total were recorded for both shifts which is substandard. The shakedown log was
extremely confusing as an accountability system.
Tasks
Person Responsible
1. Creation/Utilization of electronic shakedown log
1. Mike Lockhart, Network Admin
2. Clarification on expected shakedowns. Create MOU between Unit and Shift
2. Unit Managers
Supervisors
3. Review of log to assure required shakedowns are completed
3. Unit Managers
4. Document shakedowns on front of count slips
4. Shift Supervisors
Comments: The creation of an electronic shakedown log will allow for simple identification of completes shakedowns. It will
also allow for quick and easy review by the Unit Manager to assure required shakedowns are completed. Post orders clearly
reflect number of shakedowns required. Unit Managers, however, will remind officer via written documentation.
SECTION III. INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE EVALUATION
Pursuant to Section 103.73 of the Ohio Revised Code, the CIIC is required to evaluate the inmate
grievance procedure18 at each state correctional institution. This evaluation generally includes a
review of grievance data, individual inmate interviews conducted by the CIIC inspection team
on-site during the inspection process, and shadowing the Institutional Inspector by a member of
the CIIC inspection team.19
In 2011, there were 55 grievances filed and 313 informal complaints received by the Inspector at
the facility.20 Of the 49 grievances completed, 75.5 percent were denied and 24.5 percent were
granted. The top three categories with the most grievances were Supervision with 16, Personal
Property with nine, and Healthcare with seven.21 The Inspector’s Activity Report for CY 2011 is
provided in Table 1 of the Appendix.
Timely staff responses to informal complaints have a large impact on inmates’ perception of the
effectiveness of the grievance procedure. While the DRC only requires an action plan for
untimely response rates above 15 percent, CIIC believes that an untimely response rate above 10
percent is unacceptable and five percent is both achievable and preferred. Of the total number of
informal complaints received in 2011, 15 percent were answered untimely at Southeastern
Correctional Institution. The following chart provides a comparison of untimely response rates
across the DRC in 2011.
Chart 3
Untimely Response Rates to Informal Complaints by DRC Institution
CY 2011
60
50
40
30
15
20
10
Level
1/2
18
Level
3
Level Reception
4/5
Center
Please see the Glossary for an explanation of the inmate grievance procedure.
Due to time constraints, the Inspector was not shadowed as part of the SCI inspection.
20
Institution Grievance Statistics for 2011, Southeastern Correctional Institution, March 5, 2012.
21
Ibid.
19
CMC
OCF
ORW
CRC
LorCI
SOCF
OSP
LeCI
ManCI
RCI
TCI
ToCI
WCI
ACI
BeCI
CCI
DCI/MEPRC
FPRC
GCI
HCF
LAECI
LoCI
MaCI
MCI
NCCI
NCCTF
NCI
NEPRC
PCI
RICI
SCI
0
Special
Chart 4
Percent of Grievance Dispositions Requiring Extensions by Institution
CY 2011
120
91.8
100
80
60
40
20
Level
1/2
Level
3
CMC
OCF
ORW
CRC
LorCI
SOCF
OSP
LeCI
ManCI
RCI
TCI
ToCI
WCI
ACI
BeCI
CCI
DCI/MEPRC
FPRC
GCI
HCF
LAECI
LoCI
MaCI
MCI
NCCI
NCCTF
NCI
NEPRC
PCI
RICI
SCI
0
Level Reception Special
4/5
Center
During the inspection, the CIIC inspection team interviewed 75 inmates. The following
responses were collected:
58.7 percent of inmates said they knew who the Inspector was
72 percent of inmates said that the grievance procedure was explained to them
78.7 percent of inmates said that they knew how to use the grievance procedure
38.5 percent of the inmates who said that they had filed an informal complaint at the
institution reported that the informal complaint was resolved fairly22
Positive points to highlight from the collected responses include the high number of inmates who
reported that they knew who the Inspector was, which may indicate that the Inspector is
frequently interacting with inmates on the compound, as well as the high number of inmates who
reported that they felt that informal complaints were resolved fairly.
Further information regarding inmates’ perception of the inmate grievance procedure, obtained
during a 2007 CIIC survey of inmates across the DRC, can be found in the CIIC Biennial Report
to the 129th General Assembly: Inmate Grievance Procedure, which is available on the CIIC
website (www.ciic.state.oh.us).
22
CIIC also asks inmates regarding the fairness of grievance and grievance appeals, but only six inmates reported
having filed a grievance and only three inmates reported filing a grievance appeal while at the institution, therefore,
the information is not of sufficient use.
SECTION IV. KEY STATISTICS
A. USE OF FORCE
In 2011, the facility reported 130 use of force23 incidents.24 Of the total, 77.7 percent incidents
involved black inmates and 22.3 percent involved white inmates. Compared to 2009, in which
124 uses of force were reported, total uses of force increased by 4.8 percent in two years. Tables
2 and 3 of the Appendix provide an explanation of use of force and a breakdown of the use of
force incidents in 2011.
In 2011, chemical agents (mace) were used 26 times.25 This is 3.7 percent less than chemical
agents were used in 2009, where chemical agents were used 27 times.26 In the six months prior
to the inspection date (Sept. 2011 – Feb. 2012), chemical agents were used 10 times.27
Chart 5
Use of Force by Institution
CY 2011
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
130
200
Level
1/2
23
Level
3
FMC
OCF
ORW
CRC
LorCI
SOCF
OSP
LeCI
ManCI
RCI
TCI
ToCI
WCI
ACI
BeCI
CCI
DCI
FPRC
GCI
HCF
LaECI
LoCI
MaCI
MCI
NCCI
NCI
NCCTF
NEPRC
PCI
RICI
SCI
0
4/5
Center
Further information regarding use of force incidents can be found in the Glossary.
Use of Force Monthly Reports, Southeastern Correctional Institution, January – December 2011.
25
Significant Incident Summary reports provided by Southeastern Correctional Institution, January – December
2011.
26
2009.
27
2011.
24
B. ASSAULTS
In 2011, there were 78 reported inmate on inmate assaults.28 Of the total, 92.3 percent were
physical assaults, 6.4 percent were harassment assaults, and 1.3 percent were sexual assaults.29
Total inmate on inmate assaults increased by 39.3 percent from 2009 to 2011.
The institution also reported 23 inmate on staff assaults.30 Of the total, 91.3 percent were
physical assaults and 8.7 percent were harassment assaults.31 Total inmate on staff assaults
increased by 4.5 percent from 2009 to 2011. Tables 4 and 5 provide a snapshot of the assault
data at Southeastern Correctional Institution from 2009 to the date of inspection. The following
chart provides a comparison of the number of assaults at the institution over time.
Number of Assaults
Chart 6
Total Assaults
CY 2009 - 2012 YTD
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
-
2009
2010
2011
2012 YTD
Inmate on Staff
22
31
23
6
Inmate on Inmate
56
58
78
15
C. INMATE DEATHS
The institution experienced the following deaths since January 2011:
zero homicides
zero suicides
one unexpected death
zero expected deaths (generally due to natural causes or terminal illnesses)
28
Ibid.
Ibid.
30
Ibid.
31
Ibid.
29
The DRC shares data on suicide attempts with CIIC. In 2011, the DRC reported 57 attempted
suicides.32 Of the total, the Southeastern Correctional Institution reported one suicide attempt.
In comparison, the facility reported zero suicide attempts in 2009 and 2010. The following chart
provides a breakdown of the suicide attempts by institution in 2011.
Chart 7
Suicide Attempts by Institution33
CY 2011
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1
Level
1/2
Level
3
CMC
OCF
ORW
CRC
LorCI
SOCF
OSP
LeCI
ManCI
RCI
TCI
ToCI
WCI
ACI
BeCI
CCI
DCI/MEPRC
FPRC
GCI
HCF
LAECI
LoCI
MaCI
MCI
NCCI
NCCTF
NCI
NEPRC
PCI
RICI
SCI
0
4/5
Center
D. INVESTIGATOR DATA
The role of the Institutional Investigator is an essential component to ensuring the safety and
security of the institution. Investigators are generally focused on investigating illegal substances,
assaults, or issues regarding the professional misconduct of staff members. Investigator-initiated
investigations do not constitute the total number of investigations conducted regarding
contraband or any other matter in the institution, which may be initiated by other staff persons.
In 2011, the Investigator initiated 216 investigations. The majority of the activity involved
background investigations and investigations into rule 17 (STG) violations.34
Table 6 in the Appendix provides a breakdown of cases by type.
32
Monthly Reports on Attempted Suicides, Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. January-December 2011.
CIIC Annual Report, January 2012.
33
Ibid.
34
Investigator’s Monthly Caseload, January 2011 through December 2011.
E. SECURITY THREAT GROUPS (STG)
As of December 2011, there were 490 STG-affiliated inmates, which is 31 percent of the
institutional population.35 In comparison, 18 percent of the total DRC population was identified
as having some form of STG affiliation in 2011.36 The following chart provides a breakdown of
DRC institutions by percentage of the inmate population identified as having STG affiliation.
Chart 8
STG Members by Percent of Inmate Population
2011
60
50
40
31
30
20
10
Level
1/2
Level
3
CMC
OCF
ORW
CRC
LorCI
SOCF
OSP
LeCI
ManCI
RCI
TCI
ToCI
WCI
ACI
BeCI
CCI
DCI
FPRC
GCI
HCF
LAECI
LoCI
MaCI
MCI
NCCI
NCCTF
NCI
NEPRC
PCI
RICI
SCI
0
4/5
Center
STG-affiliated inmates are broken up into three groups based on their participation level.37
There were five inmates listed as disruptive (level 3), 81 inmates listed as active (level 2), and
404 inmates listed as passive (level 1).38
F. INMATE SAFETY RATING
CIIC uses three factors to determine inmate safety: (1) inmate safety ratings, collected by the
CIIC inspection team as part of inspection procedures; (2) the number of medical referrals as a
result of injuries sustained by inmates based on an assault, forced move, disturbance, or other
incident; and (3) the number of reported disturbances. Overall, inmate safety at Southeastern
35
Correctional Institution Inspection Committee, Security Threat Group Brief, January 2012. Total population from
the DRC website Southeastern Correctional Institution, accessible at http://www.drc.state.oh.us/public/sci.htm.
36
Ibid.
37
Types of participation that determine STG classification levels range from having STG-affiliated tattoos or
paraphernalia, to actively inciting a riot.
38
Personal communication from the DRC Operation Support Center, December 7, 2011.
Correctional Institution is rated by the CIIC inspection team as safe, with some reservations due
to the increase in the rate of assaults from 2009 to 2011 (see above section on assaults).
Inmate Safety Ratings. Inmates were asked to rate their level of safety from other inmates on a
scale ranging from “very safe” to “very unsafe.” Of the 75 inmates interviewed in the
institution’s general population housing units, 92 percent of the inmates reported that the
institution is safe or very safe. The most commonly selected rating was safe, with 60 inmate
responses.
Medical Referrals.39 The institution reported one medical referrals for inmate injuries sustained
as a result of an incident at the institution in CY 2011. The institution reported no medical
referrals as a result of an incident at the institution in CY 2009 or CY 2010.40
Disturbances.41 The institution reported three disturbances in CY 2011, which is an increase
from zero reported in CY 2009.42
39
A medical referral is defined as an inmate receiving treatment at an outside medical facility due to an incident that
occurred at the institution, including assaults, forced cell moves, restraints, officer use of OC spray, and
disturbances.
40
Significant Incident Summary, Jan. 2009- Dec. 2009 and Jan. 2011- Dec. 2011, Southeastern Correctional
Institution.
41
A disturbance is defined as a violent incident involving four or more inmates.
42
Significant Incident Summary, Jan. 2009- Dec. 2009 and Jan. 2011- Dec. 2011, Southeastern Correctional
Institution.
SECTION V. EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS
A. MEDICAL SERVICES
CIIC’s inspection of medical services in a correctional facility focuses on four primary areas:
cleanliness of facilities, staffing, access to medical staff, and staff/inmate communication. The
inspection includes information collected from interviews with the Healthcare Administrator
(HCA), observations of the facilities and focus group discussions.43 Overall, the CIIC inspection
team rated medical services at Southeastern Correctional Institution as EXCELLENT, with no
areas in need of improvement.
Facilities
Medical facilities at Southeastern Correctional Institution include four exam rooms, nine
infirmary beds (including two safe cells) and a dental clinic. There is also a record area/nurses
station, four staff offices and a lab. The HCA explained that there is only room for two dental
chairs in the existing dental clinic but this is being addressed through construction plans resulting
from the Fussell settlement.44 Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated the facilities as excellent.
Staffing
Adequate staffing has a clear and direct connection to patient care. At the time of the inspection,
the facility had no vacancies. According to the HCA, one nursing vacancy is anticipated in two
weeks due to an employee making a lateral transfer to another institution.
Access to Medical Staff
Access to medical staff is evaluated based on several factors: (1) time period between inmate
submission of a health service request form and appointment with medical staff; (2) time period
between referral to the doctor and appointment with the doctor; (3) response times to kites and
informal complaint forms; and (4) current backlogs for nurse sick call, doctor sick call, and
chronic care clinic.
Based on a review of data provided by institutional staff, the average time period between
submission of a health service request form and appointment with nursing staff was within 24
hours. The average time period between referral to the doctor and appointment with the doctor
was within 48 hours. The average response time to kites was within three days, with 470 kites
answered in the last six months. Three kites were awaiting a response at the time of the
inspection. A total of 20 informal complaints were received in the last six months and none were
pending a response at the time of the inspection. There is no current backlog for Nurse or Doctor
Sick Call. There is no backlog of chronic care appointments with 384 patients and a 2.5% no
show/AMA rate.
43
One focus group is comprised of staff and two, of inmates (one group of chronic care and one group of general
medicine patients).
44
For more information on Fussell, please see the CIIC brief on Fussell v. Wilkinson, available on the CIIC website
(www.ciic.state.oh.us).
Staff/Inmate Communication
A focus group of staff was conducted and problems presented included the need to have several
blood pressure cuffs, a pulse oximeter, and crutches replaced. They reported that these items are
currently functional but are getting older or worn. Staff also identified some problems in
communication with custody staff while trying to call for inmates in the dorm and in determining
what constitutes an emergency situation. For example, staff reported that they will be told that an
inmate has an emergency need to see medical and then presents with symptoms of a cold.
Positively, the staff was proud of the work that they are doing with the inmates, especially in
keeping lines of communication open and the level of care they provide. They reported that they
were able to attend training as requested and felt that the implementation of collegial review has
made medical services run more “smoothly” at the facility while still providing necessary care.
Many inmates write to CIIC in regards to their healthcare needs. However, no medical related
communication was received regarding medical services at the facility between September 1,
2011 and March 1, 2012.
During the inspection, CIIC also conducted two focus groups of inmates (both chronic care and
general medicine patients). Concerns were expressed about the length of time before seeing the
optometrist and dentist. Inmates also reported frequent disagreement with the physician’s
diagnosis and treatment recommendations. Some inmates felt that suspected staph infections
were not taken seriously by the medical staff.
Positively, both chronic care and general medicine inmates described positive interactions with
the nursing staff at the facility.
Further information regarding medical services can be found in the inspection checklist in the
Appendix.
B. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
CIIC’s inspection of mental health services in a correctional facility focuses on four primary
areas: cleanliness of facilities, staffing, access to mental health staff, and inmate communication.
The inspection includes information gathered from interviewing the Mental Health Manager and
observation of the facilities. Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated mental health services as
EXCELLENT, with no areas in need of improvement.
Facilities
Mental health facilities at Southeastern Correctional Institution include five crisis cells (two in
medical, three in segregation), eleven offices, two classrooms and a records room. One of the
crisis cells is not currently used since the existing bed needs to be replaced by a moduform bed to
improve safety. Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated the facilities as excellent in terms of
overall cleanliness and orderly appearance due to lack of clutter and debris.
Staffing
Adequate staffing has a clear and direct connection to patient care. At the time of the inspection,
the facility had one psychiatrist and six psychology/social work staff, including two
independently licensed providers. There were no vacancies.
Access to Mental Health Staff
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 time to kites and informal complaint forms, and (4) current backlogs.
Based on a review of data provided by institutional staff, the average time period between
submission of a mental health referral and appointment with mental health staff was five days or
less with 275 referrals received in the last six months. The average response time for kites was
within seven days with a total of 582 received in the last six months. There was no backlog of
referrals or kites at the time of the inspection. No Informal Complaints were received in the last
six months. The average time period between referral to the psychiatrist and the appointment
was within two weeks.
Inmate Communication
Many inmates write to CIIC in regards to their mental health needs. However, no mental health
related communication was received regarding mental health services at the facility between
September 1, 2011 and March 1, 2012.
Further information regarding mental health services can be found in the inspection checklist in
the Appendix.
C. FOOD SERVICES
The overall inspection of the Southeastern Correctional Institution food services consisted of the
dining hall, the kitchen preparation area, the loading dock, and attending the general meal. CIIC
also attended the general meal period and spoke with staff regarding the inmate workforce.
The Southeastern Correctional Institution food service was considered EXCELLENT based on
the overall cleanliness of the dining hall and the quality of the meal. In addition, the kitchen prep
area and loading dock were also clean. The only concern was in regard to several inmates’
complaints regarding inadequate portions of the meal; however, it is noted that portion sizes are
determined by a dietitian in the DRC Operation Support Center, not the institution.
In 2011, CIIC received 174 concerns regarding food services from DRC inmates.45 However,
CIIC did not receive any correspondence from inmates at Southeastern Correctional Institution
regarding food service concerns.46
45
CIIC Database “Contacts and Concerns,” January 1, 2011 – December 31, 2011.
Meal
Pursuant to Section 103.73 of the Ohio Revised Code, a general meal period was attended on the
day of the Inspection. As of 2011, the cost per inmate meal at Southeastern Correctional
Institution was $0.98.47 In comparison, the average DRC cost per inmate meal for FY 2011 was
$1.07.48 The menu consisted of meatloaf, potatoes, spinach, pears, white bread, and cake. CIIC
considered the meal to be acceptable. Staff rated the meal as acceptable as well.49 However, most
inmates considered the meal unacceptable due to size of the meatloaf patty. CIIC observed that
the meatloaf patties resembled hamburgers and they appeared to be smaller than the meatloaf
seen at other institutions.
Dining Hall
On the day of the inspection, the atmosphere in the dining hall was calm. There is one officer
assigned to the dining hall during each meal period. However, other officers provide assistance
as needed. There is often an average of four officers at each meal period. Inmates were racially
segregated at most tables, which may indicate racial tension. The cleanliness of the dining hall
was rated excellent. Inmate food service workers were clearing the tables and mopping the floor
before the first housing unit entered.
Kitchen Prep Area
The conditions of the kitchen prep area were acceptable. Staff were in the process of cleaning the
counters and floor after recently serving the lunch meal. According to staff, Southeastern
Correctional Institution passed its most recent health inspection in November 2011. The
institution is inspected twice a year and is next scheduled to receive an inspection in March
2012.50 The fire equipment was fully operational and last inspected in February 2012.51
The kitchen consisted of five tilt grilles, five kettles, four coolers, three freezers, two rotating
ovens, and one combination oven. There were no maintenance concerns.52
Inmate Workers
There were 198 inmates assigned to food service. The inmates are assigned to food service by
their unit staff when they arrive at the institution. Inmates earn a monthly wage of $18 per
month.53 Inmates receive performance evaluations after their first 30 days. Inmates can receive
46
Ibid.
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, personal communication, January 7, 2012.
48
Ibid.
49
Southeastern Correctional Institution Staff Daily Food Service Evaluation, Monday March 5, 2012. A rating of
“good” by institution staff is equivalent to “acceptable.”
50
Southeastern Correctional Institution, personal communication, March 5, 2012.
51
Ibid.
52
53
Ibid.
47
wage increases to $22 Food Service Worker II respectively. Inmates can receive additional wage
increases if promoted to a Cook ($22 per month) or a Cook 754 ($24 per month) position.55
Incentive Program
During inspections and in separate correspondence to CIIC, inmates have relayed that working in
food service is considered a punishment.56 As a result, some institutions have developed
incentive programs to make food service more attractive to inmates. Southeastern Correctional
Institution did not have an incentive program. However staff does permit inmate food service
workers to receive double meal portions.
Loading Dock
The loading dock was clean and clear of any debris. CIIC observed the dumpster and trash
compactor were placed next to the loading dock. In previous inspections, CIIC has relayed
concerns regarding the placement of the trash compactors at the institutions. CIIC has found that
institutions with pests and vermin concerns often have their trash compactors next to or on top of
their loading dock. Staff relayed that the institution does not have any pest issues. Reportedly,
the facility is exterminated once per week.57
Cost Savings
As previously mentioned in the Inspection Summary, the food service staff has created several
cost savings initiatives for the Southeastern Correctional Institution. By purchasing orange juice
in bulk ($2,500 savings) and discontinuing the purchase of pre-packaged hamburgers ($1,800
savings) and pancakes ($750 savings), food service created an estimated total monthly cost
savings of $5,050.58 In addition, the food service staff also saved more $1,000 by purchasing
milk in five gallon milk dispensers as opposed to plastic pouches that most DRC institutions
use.59 CIIC commended the food staff for their cost savings efforts which should be considered
as a blueprint for other institutions to follow.
Additional information regarding the inspection of food services is available on the food service
checklist located in the Appendix.
D. OHIO PENAL INDUSTRIES (OPI) – Janitorial Shop
CIIC’s inspection of the Ohio Penal Industries (OPI) at Southeastern Correctional Institution
consisted of a visual inspection of the facilities and an interview of the Shop Manager. Overall,
CIIC rated OPI as EXCELLENT, with no areas in need of improvement.
54
Cook “7” represents the pay grade for inmates who are promoted to a highest cook position.
Ibid.
56
“Evaluation of Correctional Food Services.” http://www.ciic.state.oh.us/food-services/view-category.html.
February 14, 2011
57
58
Ibid.
59
Ibid.
55
Southeastern Correctional Institution’s OPI shop consists of the manufacturing of institutional
janitorial, laundry, and personal care products, which are used in all ODRC institutions.60 In
addition to mixing the various cleaning chemicals, the inmates also screen print the information
on the plastic containers for the chemicals.
The shop currently employs 57 inmates who work approximately 6.5 hours per day. Staff
relayed that they have over 90 products, but are working to increase their product line by
introducing economy and industrial liquid laundry soap. In addition, staff also explained that
production could be increased and stated they are working to increase profitability by turning
overflow chemicals into a profit. In FY 2011 the janitorial operations reported a profit of
198,899.61
For more information regarding the SCI OPI shops please refer to the checklist in Appendix.
E. HOUSING UNITS
CIIC inspects every housing unit within each correctional institution, which includes a visual
inspection of all areas, interviews with inmates within those housing units, and a review of
documentation to ensure staff accountability. Inmates at Southeastern Correctional Institution
are housed in housing units F, H, I, and M, and are provided double bunks in buildings designed
as open dormitories. Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated housing at the facility as
ACCEPTABLE, with concerns noted in regard to the condition of showers of the general
housing units, and facility conditions in the segregation unit.
Housing Unit Conditions
Of the six general population housing units, the overall level of cleanliness was rated as
acceptable due to issues noted in the showers/restrooms as well as general clutter in the bunk
areas. However, the level of cleanliness for units I and M was rated as excellent.
Each dormitory is unique in its design and consequently has different restroom/shower
arrangements and amenities. On the date of the inspection, there was one inoperable shower and
one inoperable urinal. The average level of restroom cleanliness was rated as acceptable, due to
the general wear and tear as well as age of the facilities. The average level of shower cleanliness
was rated as in need of improvement, due to paint peeling in the H3 showers as well as minor
issues of chipped tiles and corroded sealant in other housing unit shower areas.
Segregation Unit
The segregation count on the day of the inspection was 83 with 41 inmates under Local Control
(LC) status, 21 inmates in Security Control (SC) and 21 inmates under Disciplinary Control
(DC). The cleanliness of the segregation unit was rated as in need of improvement, based on
chipped floors in the cells, old and chipped tiles at the base of the showers, and clogged vents.
60
61
Overview of OPI Shops and Farms, Shop Summary 2011.
Ohio Penal Industries, FY 11 Shop Financials.
F. COMMISSARY
Each institution maintains and operates a commissary for inmates to purchase food/snacks,
hygiene products, and other small items.62 CIIC’s inspection of the commissary in a correctional
facility focuses on three primary areas: facilities/inventory, inmate access to the commissary, and
financials. Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated the commissary as EXCELLENT, with no
areas in need of improvement.
Facilities/Inventory
The commissary facilities at Southeastern Correctional Institution were clean and well
maintained. There were no reported issues with pests or rodents and staff explained that the
exterminator visits once per week. The inventory was neatly organized and stored properly.
Access to Commissary
Inmates at Southeastern Correctional Institution are permitted to shop any day of the week,
except during state pay weeks, and may spend $75 per week.63 Throughout the inspection there
were no concerns from inmates regarding their access to the commissary.
Financials
From July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011 the commissary transferred $60,555.04 to the
inmate Industrial and Entertainment fund.64
Inmate Communication. Many inmates write to CIIC regarding various concerns. The past six
months (September 2011 – February 2012), there have been no inmate concerns regarding the
commissary at SCI.65
Further information regarding the commissary can be found in the inspection checklist in the
Appendix.
62
To order commissary items, the inmates must turn in their commissary sheet, which is a form indicating items
they wish to purchase. From there an inmate worker will fill the order, staff will charge the inmate account, and
items will be given to the inmate. The profits are placed in the institution’s Industrial and Entertainment (I and E)
funds, which are reinvested back into the institution. All inmate property must fit within a 2.4 cubic foot storage
box.
63
64
Commissary Institution Income Statement, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.
65
Information based on CIIC “Contacts and Concerns” for Southeastern Correctional Institution relayed from
September 2011 – February 2012.
SECTION VI. EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS
A. PROGRAM EVALUATION
Ohio Revised Code Section 103.73 requires CIIC to evaluate an educational or rehabilitative
program as part of each inspection. CIIC’s evaluation of educational programs in a correctional
facility focuses on four primary areas: facilities, staffing, access to programs, and quality of
programs. Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated academic and vocational programming at the
facility as EXCELLENT, with zero areas in need of improvement.
Facilities
Educational facilities at Southeastern Correctional Institution are housed in one section of the
main administration building. The school wing occupies a primary hallway with classrooms on
both sides and offices and the library at the end of the area. All classrooms are well-lit from
large windows on the exterior walls. Safety and security are reportedly not an issue within the
school; although teachers are provided with devices to call for assistance in case needed.
Correctional officers in the school walk rounds every 15 minutes and also occupy a centralized
desk/station. Classroom size, ventilation, and temperature were excellent. Overall, the CIIC
inspection team rated the facilities as excellent.
Staffing
At the time of the inspection, the facility was operating with four academic teachers, two careertechnology (vocational) teachers, and two career-technology teacher vacancies. In addition to
teachers, the facility has one Principal, one Librarian, and one Intervention/Special Education
Specialist. A Guidance Counselor position is soon to be filled. Separate from the full-time
teaching and administrative staff, there are seven contracted instructors who work for Hocking
College in providing some post-secondary options.66 The current staffing levels were considered
to be adequate.
Access to Programming
Access to programming is evaluated based on the current waitlist. As of the January 2012
education monthly report submitted from Southeastern Correctional Institution to CIIC, there
were 484 inmates enrolled in academic programming and 307 inmates on the academic waitlist,
a ratio of 1.0 inmate academic enrollee to 0.6 inmates on academic wait list.67 In comparison,
there were 6,810 inmates enrolled in January 2012 academic programming across the DRC.68
There were a total of 7,140 inmates on the statewide academic waitlist for January 2012,
producing a ratio of 1.0 inmate academic enrollee to 1.05 inmates on the academic wait list.69
Access to academic programming is considered better at Southeastern Correctional Institution
than the state average for institutions of similar security classification level.
66
Requested data. Southeastern Correctional Institution, March 6, 2012.
Ohio Central School System Monthly Enrollment Reports, Southeastern Correctional Institution, January 2012.
68
This total does not include the monthly enrollment number for North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility.
69
Ohio Central School System Monthly Enrollment Reports, DRC institutions, January 2012.
67
Quality of Programming
The quality of programming is evaluated based on two factors: (1) outcome measures, including
GED passage rates and program completion rates, and (2) an on-site observation of an academic
or vocational program during the inspection. The Southeastern Correctional Institution was rated
acceptable70 for outcome measures and on-site observations.
Outcome Measures: In FY 2011, ending June 2011, there were 59 inmates reported to have
received a GED at the facility, while the academic enrollment for the period was posted at 1,162
inmates. The 1,162 inmate academic enrollment is a large number compared to institutions of
similar security classification levels. While the education programs at Southeastern Correctional
Institution produced 59 GED completers in FY 2011, an average of 65.7 inmates received a GED
at institutions of similar security levels during the same time period. In addition to GED
completers, there were 389 inmates at Southeastern Correctional Institution who completed and
received a certificate in an academic or vocational program in FY 2011.
On-Site Observation: During the inspection, a member of the CIIC inspection team observed the
following programs: GED and Carpentry. Key findings included well-managed classrooms that
engaged multiple inmate tutors, small groups working in teams on projects, individualized
instruction, well-documented safety procedures, and numerous types of instructional strategies
applicable to the content being taught.
Further information regarding the educational program observations can be found in the program
checklists in the Appendix.
B. LIBRARY/LAW LIBRARY SERVICES
CIIC’s inspection of the library at each correctional facility focuses on the following areas:
facilities, materials, and access. Overall, CIIC rated the library at Southeastern Correctional
Institution as EXCELLENT, with no areas in need of improvement.
Facilities
The library area at Southeastern Correctional Institution is a reasonable size for the number of
books, reportedly functions well, and is highly valued by the inmates. The Librarian has
designed plans for future growth by rearranging the existing front desk and adjacent space and
opening up floor space so that more inmates may use the library.
The Southeastern Correctional Institution library facilities were inspected by CIIC staff and
found to be well-organized. The library was a bright, clean area with tall stacks of books around
the perimeter of the library and short stacks, tables, and chairs in the center area. The library
70
Quality of programming includes both outcome measures and on-site observations. Outcome measures are
obtained from institutional monthly reports of the Ohio Central School System. The on-site observations rate
instructional leader/teacher attributes, including such components as encouraging participation, redirecting inmates’
negative behavior, and affirming students’ positive efforts.
staff includes a full-time librarian position. There are approximately 10 inmates assigned to
work in the library. There are three computers (Westlaw equipped) and two typewriters
available for inmate use.
Materials
The Southeastern Correctional Institution library has a collection of approximately 8,938 total
items.71 During February 2012, inmates frequented the library 2,166 times and generated 1,569
transactions of materials. The use of library materials was 0.72 items per capita during February
2012.72 The per capita availability of library materials, based on the institution’s total inmate
population of 1,576 inmates and a total number of 8,938 items in the general library in February
2012 was 5.67 items per inmate. The library includes approximately 500 ethnic-based
publications for African-American and Hispanic inmates. New ethnic materials are added
through donations or purchases. An inter-library loan system exists, but reportedly is rarely
used. In February 2012, inmates made zero requests through the inter-library loan program.73
Access to the Library and Law Library
Access to both main library and law library remains a primary issue of concern for CIIC, as
numerous letters have indicated inmates’ dissatisfaction with the number of hours allowed,
particularly when inmates wish to perform legal research.
According to the Library Monthly Report, the Southeastern Correctional Institution was open for
a total of approximately 151 hours during the month of February 2012.74 There were reportedly
2,166 inmate visits to the library during February 2012. There were reportedly 14,338 inmates
cumulatively served by the library during visits for the six month period from September 2011
through February 2012.
Further information regarding the inspection of the library and the library schedule can be found
in the Appendix.
C. RECREATION
Evaluation of recreational facilities is based on three factors: facilities, activities, and access. CIIC
rated recreation facilities and services at Southeastern Correctional Institution as EXCELLENT,
with no areas in need of improvement.
Facilities
The conditions of the recreational facilities appeared to be clean and orderly. It was relayed that
equipment is cleaned and sanitized on a regular basis by inmate workers assigned to the
71
Library Monthly Report, Southeastern Correctional Institution, February 2012.
Ibid. This calculation was based on a population of 2,166 inmate visits to the library.
73
Library Monthly Report, Southeastern Correctional Institution, February 2012.
74
Ibid.
72
recreation department.75 Reportedly, all recreational equipment is in good working order and the
institution is preparing to add additional weight machines that were no longer in use at a different
institution.76
Activities
There are a large number of different recreational activities available to inmates at the facility,
which include intramural sports leagues,77 varsity and junior varsity sports leagues,78 and
traditional activities available at most institutions, such as basketball, billiards, corn hole, weight
machines, ping pong, a music room, among others. Staff relayed that the institution is currently
in the process of adding an arts and crafts room for inmate use that should be operating within
two months.79
Access
Access to recreation remains an issue of concern for CIIC, as numerous letters regarding various
DRC institutions have indicated inmates’ dissatisfaction with hours allowed. Access and
recreation hours were not frequently mentioned as an area of concern by inmates during CIIC’s
interviews in each housing unit. Recreation staff also relayed that the number of inmate
complaints received by the recreation department is quite low.80
75
Ibid.
77
Staff relayed that there is a high level of inmate participation in the intramural sports leagues available, for
example estimating that approximately 600 inmates participated in both the intramural basketball and softball
leagues.
78
Staff relayed that inmates must try out to participate in the varsity sports league. The varsity teams compete
against local teams from the community.
79
80
Ibid.
76
SECTION VII. INMATE COMMUNICATION
Interviews of the inmate population are a critical component of each inspection. In an effort to
encapsulate inmates’ concerns, inmates interviewed during the inspection were asked the
following question: “What do you feel is inmates’ biggest concern at this institution?” Of the 75
inmates interviewed 20 inmates stated “nothing” or that they did not know – this is actually a
very positive indicator, as usually inmates have a very clear opinion on their concerns at an
institution. Of the remaining inmates, the top three reported concerns fell into the following
categories: (1) too much controlled movement/not enough recreation (ten inmates); (2) not
enough telephones (eight inmates); and (3) food portions/taste (eight inmates).
In CY 2011, CIIC received 14 contacts from or regarding inmates at Southeastern Correctional
Institution, of which 34 concerns were reported. The institution ranked 28th among all DRC
institutions for total number of contacts – the low number being another positive indicator.81 The
top three concerns reported to CIIC regarding Southeastern Correctional Institution were:
RIB/Hearing Officer (6), Inmate Grievance Procedure (4), and Non-Grievable (4).
Chart 9
2011 CIIC Contacts with Institutional Breakdown (DRC)82
300
250
200
150
100
50
14
Level
1/2
Level
3
CMC
OCF
ORW
CRC
LorCI
SOCF
OSP
LeCI
ManCI
RCI
TCI
ToCI
WCI
ACI
BeCI
CCI
DCI/MEPRC
FPRC
GCI
HCF
LaECI
LoCI
MaCI
MCI
NCCI
NCI
NCCTF
NEPRC
PCI
RICI
SCI
0
Level Reception
4/5
Center Special
The following chart provides a breakdown of the top three reported concerns regarding the
facility in 2011.
81
82
CIIC Database of Contacts and Concerns, January - December 2011.
Ibid.
Chart 10
Breakdown of Top Three Reported Concerns (Southeastern Correctional Institution)83
CY 2011
3
2
1
0
RIB/Hearing Officer
Inmate Grievance Procedure
Non-Grievable
A. INQUIRIES
Written inquiries are conducted for the most serious concerns communicated to CIIC such as
personal safety, medical, and use of force. CIIC conducted no written inquiries regarding
inmates at Southeastern Correctional Institution since January 2011.
83
Ibid.
SECTION VIII. APPENDIX
A. SCHEDULES
B. DATA TABLES
Table 1.
Inspector’s Report
CY 2011
Grievance Numbers
Total Number of Grievances Filed During Year
Total Number of Inmates Who Filed Grievances During Year
Highest Number of Grievances Filed by Single Inmate
55
48
5
Grievances on Hand at Beginning of This Period
Grievances Received during this period
Total
3
55
58
Grievances Completed During This Period
Grievances on Hand at End of This Period
Total
49
9
58
ICR Summary
Number of Informal Complaints Received
Number of Informal Complaint Responses Received
Number of Informal Complaint Responses Untimely
313
308
47
Granted
Granted – Problem Corrected
Granted – Problem Noted, Correction Pending
Granted – Problem Noted, Report/Recommendation to the Warden
Subtotal Granted
W
B
O
Total
2
0
1
3
2
1
6
9
0
0
0
0
4
1
7
12
7
5
5
1
0
2
0
20
3
1
12
0
1
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
6
17
1
1
2
0
37
0
0
0
0
1
24
43.6
5
31
56.4
0
0
0
6
55
100
Denied
Denied – No Violation of Rule, Policy, or Law
Denied – Staff Action Was Valid Exercise of Discretion
Denied – Insufficient Evidence to Support Claim
Denied – False Claim
Denied – Failure to Use Informal Complaint Procedure
Denied – Not within the Scope of the Grievance Procedure
Denied – Not within Time Limits
Subtotal Denied
Withdrawn at Inmate’s Request
Pending Disposition
TOTALS
Percent
Extensions
40
5
45
14-Day Extensions
28-Day Extensions
Total
Table 2.
Use of Force with Racial Breakdown
CY 2011
Use of Force Incidents
Percentage
Action Taken on Use of Force Incidents:
Assigned to Use of Force Committee for Investigation
Logged as “No Further Action Required”
Referred to the employee disciplinary process
Referred to the Chief Inspector
Number of investigations not completed within 30 days
and extended
Black
White
Other
Total
101
77.7
29
22.3
0
0
130
100
3
98
0
0
1
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
126
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Black
White
Other
Total
5
3
11
26
11
3
3
3
9
8
13
6
101
3
2
2
3
2
5
2
2
0
4
4
0
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
5
13
29
13
8
5
5
9
12
17
6
130
Number of extended investigations from previous month that were:
Completed
0
Not Completed
0
Table 3.
Use of Force with Racial and Monthly Breakdown
CY 2011
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
Table 4.
Assaults: Inmate on Inmate
CY 2009 to CY 2012 YTD
Category of Assault
2009
Physical Assault
45
Harassment Assault
11
Sexual Assault
0
Total
56
2010
44
13
1
58
2011
72
5
1
78
2012 YTD
15
0
0
15
Table 5.
Assaults: Inmate on Staff
CY 2009 to CY 2012 YTD
Category of Assault
Physical Assault
Harassment Assault
Sexual Assault
Inappropriate Contact
Total
2010
20
11
0
0
31
2011
21
2
0
0
23
2012 YTD
6
0
0
0
6
2009
10
7
3
2
22
Table 6.
Investigator Monthly Report Summary by Type of Investigation
CY 2011
Investigations
Cases Initiated
Drugs (Staff/Inmate)
4
Drugs (Inmate/Visitor)
27
Drugs (Mail/Package)
0
Drugs (Staff)
3
Drugs (other)
8
Positive Urinalysis
19
Staff/Inmate Relationship
4
Staff Misconduct
2
Assault-(Inmate on Staff)
4
Assault (Inmate on Inmate)
19
Sexual Assault (Inmate on Inmate)
4
Other:
47
Background Investigations
75
Total
216
C. INSPECTION CHECKLISTS
SECTION IX. GLOSSARY OF TERMS
A
Administrative Assistant (AA) – Staff member who is an assistant to the Warden and
typically responsible for reviewing RIB (Rules Infraction Board) decisions and RIB appeals.
Adult Basic Education (ABE)/Literacy – Literacy classes are for student with reading levels
at 226 and below the CASAS. The ABE/Literacy Unit consist of two afternoon sessions.
Students attend school approximately 1 ½ hours each day on Monday – Thursday. Students
work individually or in small groups with tutors and focus on improving their reading and
math skills. All tutors in the ABE/Literacy Unit are certified through a 10 hour training
course.
B
Brunch – Served on weekends as a cost savings initiative.
Bureau of Classification – Office located at the DRC Operation Support Center responsible
with the ultimate authority for inmate security levels, placement at institutions, as well as
transfers.
Bureau of Medical Services – Office located at the DRC Operation Support Center
responsible for direct oversight of medical services at each institution.
Bureau of Mental Health Services – Office located at the DRC Operation Support Center
responsible for direct oversight of Mental Health Services at each institution.
C
Case Manager – Staff member responsible for assisting inmates assigned to their case load
and conducting designated core and authorized reentry programs.
Cellie/Bunkie – An inmate’s cellmate or roommate.
Chief Inspector – Staff member at the DRC Operation Support Center responsible for
administering all aspects of the grievance procedure for inmates, rendering dispositions on
inmate grievance appeals as well as grievances against the Wardens and/or Inspectors of
Institutional Services.
Classification/Security Level – System by which inmates are classified based on the
following: current age; seriousness of the crime; prior offenses; most recent violence (not
including the current offense); gang activity before going to prison; and present and past
escape attempts.
Close Security – See Level 3
Computer Voice Stress Analysis (CVSA) – A device, which electronically detects, measures,
and charts the stress in a person’s voice following a pre-formatted questionnaire. Used as a
truth seeking device for investigations.
Conduct Report/Ticket – Document issued to inmate for violating a rule.
Contraband – items possessed by an inmate which, by their nature, use, or intended use, pose
a threat to security or safety of inmates, staff or public, or disrupt the orderly operation of the
facility. items possessed by an inmate without permission and the location in which these
items are discovered is improper; or the quantities in which an allowable item is possessed is
prohibited; or the manner or method by which the item is obtained was improper; or an
allowable item is possessed by an inmate in an altered form or condition.
D
Deputy Warden of Operations (DWO) – Staff member at each institution in charge of
monitoring the Major, custody staff, the Unit Management Administrator, Unit Managers,
Case Managers, and the locksmith. Other areas include count office, mail/visiting, Rules
Infraction Board, segregation unit, and recreation. The Deputy Warden of Operations is also
responsible for reviewing use of force reports and referring them to a Use of Force
Committee when necessary for further investigation.
Deputy Warden of Special Services (DWSS) – Staff member at each institution in charge of
monitoring education, the library, inmate health services, recovery services, mental health
services, religious services, Ohio Penal Industries, and food service.
Disciplinary Control (DC) – The status of an inmate who was found guilty by the Rules
Infraction Board and his or her penalty is to serve DC time. An inmate may serve up to 15
days in DC.
F
Food Service Administrator – An employee within the Office of Administration Services
educated in food service management and preparation, to manage DRC food service
departments.
G
GED/PRE-GED – Pre-GED classes are for those who have a reading score between a 227
through 239 on level C or higher of the CASAS test. GED classes are for those who have a
reading score of 240 on level C or higher on the CASAS test. Students attend class 1 ½
hours each day, Monday – Thursday. Students study the five subjects measured by the GED.
In addition to class work, students are given a homework assignment consisting of a list of
vocabulary words to define and writing prompt each week. All GED and Pre-GED tutors are
certified through a 10-hour training course.
General Population (GP) – Inmates not assigned to a specialized housing unit.
H
Health Care Administrator (HCA) – The health care authority responsible for the
administration of medical services within the institution. This registered nurse assesses,
directs, plans, coordinates, supervises, and evaluates all medical services delivered at the
institutional level. The HCA interfaces with health service providers in the community and
state to provide continuity of care.
Hearing Officer – The person(s) designated by the Managing Officer to conduct an informal
hearing with an inmate who received a conduct report.
Hooch – An alcoholic beverage.
I
Industrial and Entertainment (I and E) Funds – Funds created and maintained for the
entertainment and welfare of the inmates.
Informal Complaint Resolution (ICR) – The first step of the Inmate Grievance Procedure
(IGP). Inmates submit ICRs to the supervisor of the staff member who is the cause of the
complaint. Staff members are to respond within seven calendar days. Timeframe may be
waived for good cause.
Inmate Grievance Procedure (IGP) – The inmate grievance procedure is a three step
administrative process, established in DRC Administrative Rule 5120-9-31. The grievance
procedure allows for investigation and nonviolent resolution of inmate concerns. The first
step is an informal complaint resolution, which the inmate submits to the supervisor of the
staff person or department responsible for the complaint. The second step is a notification of
grievance, submitted to the Inspector. The final step is an appeal of the Inspector’s
disposition to the Chief Inspector at the DRC Operation Support Center.
Inspector of Institutional Services (IIS) – Staff person at the institution in charge of
facilitating the inmate grievance procedure, investigating and responding to inmate
grievances, conducting regular inspections of institutional services, serving as a liaison
between the inmate population and institutional personnel, reviewing and providing input on
new or revised institutional policies, procedures and post orders, providing training on the
inmate grievance procedure and other relevant topics, and any other duties as assigned by the
Warden or Chief Inspector that does not conflict with facilitating the inmate grievance
procedure or responding to grievances.
Institutional Separation – An order wherein two or more inmates are not assigned to general
population in the same institution due to a concern for the safety and security of the
institution, staff, and/or other inmates.
Intensive Program Prison (IPP) – Refers to several ninety-day programs, for which certain
inmates are eligible, that are characterized by concentrated and rigorous specialized treatment
services. An inmate who successfully completes an IPP will have his/her sentence reduced to
the amount of time already served and will be released on post-release supervision for an
appropriate time period.
Interstate Compact – The agreement codified in ORC 5149.21 governing the transfer and
supervision of adult offenders under the administration of the National Interstate
Commission.
K
Kite – A written form of communication from an inmate to staff.
L
Local Control (LC) – The status of an inmate who was referred to the Local Control
Committee by the Rules Infraction Board. The committee will decide if the inmate has
demonstrated a chronic inability to adjust to the general population or if the inmate's
presence in the general population is likely to seriously disrupt the orderly operation of the
institution. A committee reviews the inmate's status every 30 days for release consideration.
The inmate may serve up to 180 days in LC.
Local Separation – An order wherein two or more inmates are not permitted to be assigned to
the same living and/or work area, and are not permitted simultaneous involvement in the
same recreational or leisure time activities to ensure they are not in close proximity with one
another.
N
Notification of Grievance (NOG) – The second step of the Inmate Grievance Procedure
(IGP). The NOG is filed to the Inspector of Institutional Services and must be responded to
within 14 calendar days. Timeframe may be waived for good cause.
M
Maximum Security – See Level 4
Medium Security – See Level 2
Mental Health Caseload – Consists of offenders with a mental health diagnosis who receive
treatment by mental health staff and are classified as C-1 (SMI) or C-2 (Non-SMI).
Minimum Security – See Level 1
O
Ohio Central School System (OCSS) – The school district chartered by the Ohio Department
of Education to provide educational programming to inmates incarcerated within the Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.
Ohio Penal Industries (OPI) – A subordinate department of the Department of Rehabilitation
and Correction. OPI manufactures goods and services for ODRC and other state agencies.
P
Parent Institution – The institution where an inmate is assigned to after reception and will be
the main institution where the inmate serves his or her time. The parent institution is subject
to change due to transfers.
Protective Control (PC) – A placement for inmates whose personal safety would be at risk in
the General Population (GP).
R
Reentry Accountability Plan (RAP) – Plan for inmates, which includes the static risk
assessment, dynamic needs assessment, and program recommendations and participation.
Residential Treatment Unit (RTU) – The Residential Treatment Unit is a secure, treatment
environment that has a structured clinical program. All offenders enter at the Crisis and
Assessment Level (Level 1). This level is designed to assess conditions and provide structure
for the purpose of gaining clinical information or containing a crisis. The disposition of the
assessment can be admission to the treatment levels of the RTU, referral to OCF, or referral
back to the parent institution.
Rules Infraction Board (RIB) – A panel of two staff members who determine guilt or
innocence when an inmate receives a conduct report or ticket for disciplinary reasons.
S
Security Control (SC) – The status of an inmate who is pending a hearing by the Rules
Infraction Board for a rule violation, under investigation or pending institutional transfer and
needs to be separated from the general population. Inmates may be placed in SC for up to
seven days. The seven day period can be extended if additional time is needed.
Security Level/Classification – System by which inmates are classified based on the
following: current age; seriousness of the crime; prior offenses; most recent violence (not
including the current offense); gang activity before going to prison; and present and past
escape attempts.
Level 1A Security (Minimum) – The lowest security level in the classification
system. Inmates classed as Level 1 have the most privileges allowed. Inmates in
Level 1 who meet criteria specified in DRC Policy 53-CLS-03, Community Release
Approval Process, may be eligible to work off the grounds of a correctional
institution. Level 1A inmates may be housed at a correctional camp with or without a
perimeter fence and may work outside the fence under periodic supervision. Level
1A replaces the classification previously known as “Minimum 1 Security.”
Level 1B Security (Minimum) – The second lowest level in the classification system.
Level 1B inmates may be housed at a correctional camp with a perimeter fence and
may work outside of the fence under intermittent supervision. However, Level 1B
inmates who are sex offenders are not permitted to work or house outside of a
perimeter fence. Level 1B inmates may not work off the grounds of the correctional
institution. Level 1B replaces the classification previously known as “Minimum 2
Security.”
Level 2 Security (Medium) – A security level for inmates who are deemed in need of
more supervision than Level 1 inmates, but less than Level 3 inmates. Level 2
replaces the classification previously known as “Medium Security.”
Level 3 Security (Close) – This is the security level that is the next degree higher than
Level 2, and requires more security/supervision than Level 2, but less than Level 4.
Level 3 replaces the classification previously known as “Close Security.”
Level 4 Security (Maximum) – This is the security level that is the next degree higher
than Level 3, and requires more security/supervision than Level 3, but less than Level
5. It is the security level for inmates whose security classification score at the time of
placement indicates a need for very high security. It is also a classification for those
who are involved in, but not leading others to commit violent, disruptive, predatory or
riotous actions, and/or a threat to the security of the. Level 4 replaces the
classification previously known as “Maximum Security.”
Level 4A Security (Maximum) – A less restrictive privilege level, which inmates may
be placed into by the privilege level review committee with the Warden/Designee’s
approval, after a review of the inmate’s status in level 4.
Level 4B Security (Maximum) – The most restrictive privilege level assigned to an
inmate classified into level 4.
Level 5 Security (Supermax) – A security level for inmates who commit or lead
others to commit violent, disruptive, predatory, riotous actions, or who otherwise
pose a serious threat to the security of the institution as set forth in the established
Level 5 criteria. Level 5 replaces the classification previously known as “High
Maximum Security.”
Level 5A Security (Supermax) – A less restrictive privilege level, which inmates may
be placed into by the privilege level review committee with the Warden/Designee’s
approval, after a review of the inmate’s status in level 5.
Level 5B Security (Supermax) – The most restrictive privilege level assigned to an
inmate classified into level 5.
Security Threat Group (STG) – Groups of inmates such as gangs that pose a threat to the
security of the institution.
Separation – See Institutional Separation and Local Separation
Seriously Mentally Ill (SMI) – Inmates who require extensive mental health treatment.
Shank – Sharp object manufactured to be used as a weapon.
Special Management Housing Unit (SMHU)/Segregation – Housing unit for those assigned
to Security Control, Disciplinary Control, Protective Control, and Local Control.
Supermax Security – See Level 5
T
Telemedicine – A two-way interactive videoconferencing system that allows for visual and
limited physical examination of an inmate by a physician specialist while the inmate remains
at his/her prison setting and the physician specialist remains at the health care facility. It also
includes educational and administrative uses of this technology in the support of health care,
such as distance learning, nutrition counseling and administrative videoconferencing.
Transitional Control – Inmates approved for release up to 180 days prior to the expiration of
their prison sentence or release on parole or post release control supervision under closely
monitored supervision and confinement in the community, such as a stay in a licensed
halfway house or restriction to an approved residence on electronic monitoring in accordance
with section 2967.26 of the Ohio Revised Code.
Transitional Education Program (TEP) – Learn skills to successfully re-enter society.
Release dated within 90-180 days.
U
Unit Management Administrator (UMA) – Staff member responsible for overseeing the
roles, responsibilities and processes of unit management staff in a decentralized or
centralized social services management format. The UMA may develop centralized processes
within unit management, while maintaining the unit based caseload management system for
managing offender needs. The UMA shall ensure that at least one unit staff member visits the
special management areas at least once per week and visits will not exceed seven days in
between visits.
Unit Manager (UM) – Staff member responsible for providing direct supervision to assigned
unit management staff and serving as the chairperson of designated committees. Unit
Managers will conduct rounds of all housing areas occupied by inmates under their
supervision.
Use of Force – Staff is authorized to utilize force per DRC Policy 63-UOF-01 and Administrative
Rule 5120-9-01, which lists six general circumstances when a staff member may use less than deadly
force against an inmate or third person as follows:
1. Self-defense from physical attack or threat of physical harm.
2. Defense of another from physical attack or threat of physical attack.
3. When necessary to control or subdue an inmate who refuses to obey prison rules,
regulations, or orders.
4. When necessary to stop an inmate from destroying property or engaging in a riot or
other disturbance.
5. Prevention of an escape or apprehension of an escapee.
6. Controlling or subduing an inmate in order to stop or prevent self-inflicted harm.
Administrative Rule 5120-9-02 requires the Deputy Warden of Operations to review the
use of force packet prepared on each use of force incident, and to determine if the type
and amount of force was appropriate and reasonable for the circumstances, and if
administrative rules, policies, and post orders were followed. The Warden reviews the
submission and may refer any use of force incident to the two person use of force
committee or to the Chief Inspector. The Warden must refer an incident to a use of force
committee or the Chief Inspector. The Warden must refer an incident to a use of force
committee or the Chief Inspector in the following instances:
Factual circumstances are not described sufficiently.
The incident involved serious physical harm.
The incident was a significant disruption to normal operations.
Weapons, PR-24 strikes or lethal munitions were used.
W
Warden – Top administrator at each correctional institution.
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Institution Acronyms
Allen Correctional Institution ..................................
Belmont Correctional Institution .............................
Chillicothe Correctional Institution .........................
Correctional Reception Center ................................
Dayton Correctional Institution ...............................
Franklin Medical Center ..........................................
Grafton Correctional Institution ..............................
Hocking Correctional Facility .................................
Lake Erie Correctional Institution ...........................
Lebanon Correctional Institution .............................
London Correctional Institution ..............................
Lorain Correctional Institution ................................
Madison Correctional Institution .............................
Mansfield Correctional Institution...........................
Marion Correctional Institution ...............................
Noble Correctional Institution .................................
North Central Correctional Complex.......................
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility ..........
Northeast Pre-Release Center ..................................
Oakwood Correctional Facility................................
Ohio Reformatory for Women.................................
Ohio State Penitentiary ............................................
Pickaway Correctional Institution ...........................
Richland Correctional Institution ............................
Ross Correctional Institution ...................................
Southeastern Correctional Institution ......................
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility........................
Toledo Correctional Institution................................
Trumbull Correctional Institution ............................
Warren Correctional Institution ...............................
ACI
BeCI
CCI
CRC
DCI
FMC
GCI
HCF
LaeCI
LeCI
LoCI
LorCI
MaCI
ManCI
MCI
NCI
NCCC
NCCTF
NEPRC
OCF
ORW
OSP
PCI
RiCI
RCI
SCI
SOCF
ToCI
TCI
WCI

Southeastern Correctional Institution (2012)

Transcription

Similar documents

Forensic Corrections Services Brochure

GWINNETT COUNTY SHERIFF`S DEPARTMENT

WVDOC Presentation June 9, 2015 - West Virginia Department of

department of public safety report to the 2014 legislature act 193

KITSAP COUNTY SHERIFF`S OFFICE

DPS Prisons

JAILS DIVISION

Southern Ohio Correctional Facility Follow

PDF - UC Books To Prisoners

Purposeful Incarceration