Hocking Correctional Facilityciic.state.oh.us/docs/hocking_correctional_facility_2012.pdf ·...

CIIC Report: Hocking Correctional Facility 1

Hocking

Correctional

Facility

May 14, 2012

May 15, 2012

May 22, 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 ..................................................................................9

SECTION III. INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE EVALUATION .............................18

SECTION IV. KEY STATISTICS .............................................................................................20

A. USE OF FORCE ..................................................................................................20

B. ASSAULTS ...........................................................................................................20

C. INMATE DEATHS ..............................................................................................21

D. INVESTIGATOR DATA ....................................................................................22

E. SECURITY THREAT GROUPS (STG) ............................................................22

F. INMATE SAFETY RATING .............................................................................23

SECTION V. EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS ..................................................................25

A. MEDICAL SERVICES .......................................................................................25

B. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES .......................................................................26

C. FOOD SERVICES ...............................................................................................27

D. HOUSING UNITS ...............................................................................................30

E. COMMISSARY ...................................................................................................30

SECTION VI. EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS ....................................................................32

A. PROGRAM EVALUATION ..............................................................................32

B. LIBRARY/LAW LIBRARY SERVICES ..........................................................33

C. RECREATION ....................................................................................................35

SECTION VII. INMATE COMMUNICATION ......................................................................37

SECTION VIII. APPENDIX ......................................................................................................39

A. FULL LIST OF PROGRAMS ............................................................................39

B. SCHEDULES .......................................................................................................40

C. DATA TABLES ...................................................................................................45

D. INSPECTION CHECKLISTS ............................................................................48

SECTION IX. GLOSSARY OF TERMS ....................................................................................73


CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION INSPECTION COMMITTEE REPORT

ON THE INSPECTION AND EVALUATION OF

HOCKING CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

SECTION I. INSTITUTION OVERVIEW

A. INSPECTION PROFILE

Date of Inspection: May 14, 2012

May 15, 2012

May 22, 2012

Type of Inspection: Unannounced

CIIC Member and Staff Present: Mercedes Sutyak, Legislative Aide to State

Senator Edna Brown

Joanna Saul, Director

Darin Furderer, Inspector

Carol Robison, Inspector

Adam Jackson, Inspector

Facility Staff Present: Warden Samuel Tambi

CIIC spoke with many additional staff at

their posts throughout the course of the

inspection.

Areas/Activities Included in the Inspection:

Housing Units

Segregation

Kitchen

Inmate Dining Hall

Medical Services

Mental Health Services

Commissary

B. INSTITUTION DEMOGRAPHICS

Hocking Correctional Facility is an 18.3 acre facility, which opened in 1983.1 The facility is a

Level 2 security (medium security) male institution serving Level 1 inmates and 2 inmates. The

institution’s budget is $14,227,154 and the daily cost per inmate is $82.10.2

The most recent American Correctional Association (ACA) audit of the facility was conducted

on May 16-17, 2011.3 The facility was 100 percent compliant on mandatory standards and 99.5

1 Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction: Hocking Correctional Facility website. Accessed at

www.drc.state.oh.us/public/hcf.htm. 2 Ibid.


percent compliant on non-mandatory standards. The main areas of non-compliance were due to

overcrowding.

The report of the most recent Internal Management Audit (IMA),4 conducted on March 8-9,

2011, was also reviewed. According to the report, the institution had a 100 percent compliance

rate for all mandatory standards, a 99.1 percent compliance rate for non-mandatory standards,

and a 96.8 percent compliance rate for Ohio standards.5 The areas of non-compliance were

related to overcrowding, noise levels, and exceeding 14 hours between evening meals and

breakfast meals in segregation. Ohio standards found in non-compliance were regarding failure

to provide documentation of personal property inventories and lack of documentation for inmates

being trained in the proper use of chemicals.

The rated capacity for Hocking Correctional Facility is 298. The inmate count as of May 15,

2012 was 478,6 or 160.4 percent of the rated capacity. The average age of the inmate population

was 63.2 years as of May 15, 2012.7

Of the 148 total staff at Hocking Correctional Facility as of May 1, 2012, 66.9 percent were male

and 33.1 percent were female. Of the total staff, 87.2 percent were classified as white, 10.1

percent as black, and 2.7 percent as other.8

The following chart provides a comparison of both staff and inmate race demographics at the

facility and across the DRC.

3 Commission on Accreditation for Corrections, Standards Compliance Reaccreditation Audit, Hocking Correctional

Facility, May 16-17, 2011. 4 Hocking Correctional Facility Internal Management Audit. The Internal Management Audits (IMAs) of the Ohio

Department of Rehabilitation check for both ACA standards, as well as “Ohio Standards” that are developed by the

Department. 5 Ibid.

6 “Institution Counts,” Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, May 15, 2012.

7 Ibid.

8 ODRC Workforce Composition – May 1, 2012. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction website.

Accessed at http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/Reports/staffing/May%202012.pdf.


Chart 1

Staff and Inmate Comparison by Percentage of Race9

May 1, 2012

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

Hocking Correctional Facility provided the most recent fiscal audit performed by an external

auditor, dated April 4, 2011. The audit covered the period of December 1, 2009 through October

29, 2010. There were no major concerns noted in the fiscal audit.

Staffing

Adequate staffing has a direct effect on the safety and security of an institution. Of the total

number of allotted positions, seven are vacant.10

The vacancies consist of three corrections

officers, two registered nurses, one case manager, and one principal.

In addition, two staff were on leave on the date of the inspection. The two employees on

extended leave included one food service coordinator and one registered nurse.

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

9 Ibid. and Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Monthly Fact Sheet for May 2012, accessed at

http://drc.ohio.gov/web/Reports/FactSheet/May%202012.pdf. 10

Personal communication, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, June 1, 2012.

Staff White Staff Black Inmate White Inmate Black

Institution 87.2 10.1 77.2 21.3

DRC 80 17.8 51.4 46.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


the six months prior to the inspection (November 2011 through April 2012), there were 3,861.7

hours worked as overtime hours.11

The majority of the hours (91 percent) were worked by

corrections officers.

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). Based on the

chart, Hocking Correctional Facility has a relatively low inmate to staff ratio.

Chart 2

DRC Institutional Staffing: Number of Inmates per Corrections Officer

January 2012

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 Hocking

Correctional Facility:12

Transfer of 100 to 125 of our top most medically expensive inmates. Statistics reviewed

included:

o Transportation costs

o Correction officer overtime cost related to transports

o Scheduled medical appointments outside the institution

o Emergency squad runs

o ER transports

11

Personal communication, Hocking Correctional Facility, May 15, 2012. 12

Personal communication, Hocking Correctional Facility, May 14, 2012.

6.7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

AC

I/O

CF

BeC

I

CC

I

GC

I

HC

F

Lo

CI

MaC

I

MC

I

NC

CI

NC

I

PC

I

RIC

I

SC

I

LeC

I

Man

CI

RC

I

TC

I

To

CI

WC

I

SO

CF

OS

P

CR

C

Lo

rCI

FM

C

OR

W

DC

I

NE

PR

C

Level

1/2

Level

3

Level

4/5

Reception

Center Special*


o Urgent Care transports

o Pharmaceutical costs

It is estimated this has saved HCF over $750,000 Fiscal Year to Date. It must be noted

that overall savings to ODRC isn’t this much as receiving institution, (FMC) will incur

costs but not as high as HCF due to their location and mission.

Abolishment of staff positions and replacing with temporary services personnel:

o MH Secretary

o Medical Secretary

o H.I.T

o MH Nurse

Annual savings estimated at $300,000 plus

Reduction in utility expenses:

o Lighting with energy efficient bulbs

o Water flow reducers – less water but greater pressure

o Extended times between flushes on urinals

o Installed computerized thermostats/sensors to manage institutional temperatures

o Replaced water meter with latest technology meter that provides a more accurate

usage

o Installed lower horsepower energy efficiency water pumps

o Installed ceiling insulation

o Operate only one of two institutional boilers at a time to reduce energy

o De-lamping within regulated guidelines

o Occupancy sensors to turn lights on/off

o Contract washer and dryer service with energy efficient/water efficient

washers/dryers

Annual savings for FY 2012 is on track to exceed five percent around $30,000

Reduction in refuse bills by recycling:

o Cardboard

o Plastics

o Metal Cans

o Scrap metals

HCF estimates we have reduced the amount of refuse placed in the refuse stream by 44

percent. Cost savings due to reduced refuse invoices is estimated to be approximately

$4,000 annually. We are in the process of implementing paper recycling and food waste

composting which will significantly increase cost savings. HCF does this in partnerships

with SCI, which has room and facilities for recycling and composting.

Changed electrical service from AEP to First Energy starting February 2012:

o Evaluation completed by CAM/OSC

Cost savings anticipated at $5,000 to $6,000 annually

Utilized Job Order Contracts (JOC) to complete capital projects:

o DAS/state procurement implemented to state Job Order Contracts


o HCF has been approved for two projects (windows and doors) (HVAC control

system improvements)

o Contracts eliminate cost for engineering services, can be completed quickly

We estimate HCF will save over $200,000 of capital money

Maintenance bathroom remodeling projects:

o Original capital request was for $322,500

o We were asked to complete the projects in-house utilizing HCF’s Maintenance

Department

o Projects were scaled back to not include total replacement of entire plumbing

systems

Estimated cost savings to HCF after completion of visiting restrooms, B-Dorm restroom,

and ½ of C-Dorm restroom still in process of remodeling is greater than $75,000


SECTION II. INSPECTION SUMMARY

Overall, the inspection was very positive. The following is a summary of the key findings from the inspection. The DRC response

and action plans follow the summary.

KEY STATISTICS

AREA

DE

CR

EA

SE

D

>1

0%

NO

CH

AN

GE

(WIT

HIN

10%

)

INC

RE

AS

ED

>1

0%

COMMENTS

Use of Force X The facility reported only six use of force incidents in 2011, a 40 percent

decrease in comparison to 2009, in which ten uses of force were reported.

Assaults X There were four inmate-on-staff assaults in 2011, compared to zero in 2009.

Although there were zero inmate-on-inmate assaults in 2011, in comparison

to one in 2009, there have been two thus far in 2012.

Suicide Attempts X The facility reported zero suicide attempts in 2011, a decrease from the one

in 2009.

OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT

AREA

EX

CE

LL

EN

T

AC

CE

PT

AB

LE

IN N

EE

D O

F

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

COMMENTS

Operations

Medical Services X Overall, it was the most positive medical services inspection in any facility

that CIIC has inspected in 2012 to date. Of note is the positive rapport

between the institutional physician and the inmates.

Mental Health Services X No concerns noted in regard to current services. However, the mental health

caseload population is in the process of being transferred to another facility

and some inmates relayed concerns regarding the transfer.


Food Services X Overall, food services was considered to be excellent. However, the most

frequently relayed concern by interviewed inmates pertained to food portions

and quality. It is noted that the menu is set by the Operation Support Center

and not the institutional staff.

Housing Units X Overall, the showers were considered to be the most attractive of any DRC

institution. Bunk areas and dayrooms were clean.

Commissary X No concerns noted.

Programs

Program Evaluation X The only concerns pertained to the physical location of the literacy unit

classroom and the percentage of GED completers.

Library X No concerns noted.

Recreation X No concerns noted.

Staff Accountability

Officer Staffing X The facility reported only three corrections officer vacancies.

Inmate Grievance Procedure X Positive points include the high number of inmates (84.2 percent) who said

that they knew who the Inspector was – this is the highest percentage that

CIIC has seen in this biennium. Equally important, a high number of

inmates reported that the grievance procedure was explained to him and that

they believed that informal complaints were resolved fairly at Hocking

Correctional Facility.

Inmate Safety X Only four of the 38 inmates interviewed reported that inmates were unsafe at

the facility.

Executive Staff Rounds X Most staff documented weekly rounds in the housing units, with the

exception of the Inspector (see the inspection checklists). However, this may

be due in part to CIIC staff’s difficulty in deciphering signatures in the sign-

in logs.

Shakedowns (Bunk Searches) X Shakedowns are being inconsistently performed in the institution. For

example, on C unit, 89 of the expected 120 shakedowns had been performed

in April; 40 of the expected 56 shakedowns had been performed in May as of

the date of the inspection.

Officer Security Checks X No concerns noted.


ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

AREA COMMENTS

Overcrowding Inmates relayed concerns about the level of overcrowding at the institution. On the day of the

inspection, the population was 160.4 percent of the facility’s rated capacity.


DRC RESPONSE/ACTION PLANS

Issue Problem noted by CIIC: There were four inmate-on-staff assaults in 2011, compared to zero in 2009. Although there were

zero inmate-on-inmate assaults in 2011, in comparison to one in 2009, there have been two thus far in 2012.

Tasks

1. Conduct In-Service Training on Use of Force stressing the importance of

calling for assistance if and when possible.

2. Enforcing stricter RIB penalties for this type of behavior.

3. Increase availability of Unit Staff in the units. These hours will include

evenings and weekends.

4. Conduct Staff training on Conflict Resolution.

5. Provide more violence oriented programming for inmates. This will

include Mental Health Professionals to facilitate.

6. Post violence assessments for staff to review. This will include “hot

spots” so staff are aware of the areas that need additional attention.

7. Make the appropriate security recommendations when necessary within

the three tier system for violent inmates.

8. Addressing inmate idleness through the wellness approach.

Persons Responsible

1. Chief of Unit Management

2. Lieutenant/RIB Chairperson

3. Training Officer

4.

Comments:

Issue Problem noted by CIIC: Education

The only concerns in programming pertained to the physical location of the literacy unit classroom and the percentage of

GED completers.

Tasks

1. Review location of literacy units.

2. Review of GED completers.

Persons Responsible

1. Angela Adams, Principal SSA 8

2. Carol Upchurch, Deputy Warden

Comments:

1. The average age for inmates at HCF is 65: Reviewed location of literacy units located in the inmates' living areas on the

2nd

and 3rd

floors. Students would not have to leave their living area to go to school and both floors have elevators.

2. All students' HS/GEDs are requested by reception; however, many of our students have HS/GED we cannot verify


because the institutions are no longer accessible ie. burned down, no longer a school etc.

3. Students don't want a GED if they already have a HS diploma. If a student says they have a HS diploma ODE will not

permit them to get a GED diploma.

Issue Problem noted by CIIC: Institutional Inspector Rounds

Most staff documented weekly rounds in the housing units, with the exception of the Inspector (see the inspection

checklists). However, this may be due in part to CIIC staff’s difficulty in deciphering signatures in the sign-in logs.

Tasks

1. Make sure signature is legible.

2. At HCF, the LRO is the IIS also. When making rounds ensure that when

signing in both titles are listed.

Persons Responsible

1. Alice Bartlett, Inspector/LRO

Comments: The problem stems from the fact that the IIS has dual roles as the Inspector and the Labor Relations

Officer. She has been conducting rounds but signing in as the LRO or ADO.

Issue Problem noted by CIIC: Number of untimely informal complaint resolution responses. HCF’s percentage of untimely

responses for 2011 was 12.4. The CIIC believes it should be below 10 percent and ideally 5 percent.

Tasks

1. Continue to send out notice that ICRs are coming due.

2. Send a copy of notice to supervisors for follow-up.

Persons Responsible

1. Alice Bartlett, Inspector/LRO

Comments: From Jan 1, 2012 to May 28, 2012 HCF has had 95 ICR's 8 of which have been answered untimely. This

equates to 8.4 percent of the total respones for 2012 so far. The IIS Will continue to aggressively monitor responses

and implement follow up notices on all ICR's.


Issue Problem noted by CIIC: Shakedowns

Shakedowns are being inconsistently performed in the institution. For example, on C unit, 89 of the expected 120

shakedowns had been performed in April; 40 of the expected 56 shakedowns had been performed in May as of the date of

the inspection.

Tasks

1. Monitor inmate shakedown logs on the housing units.

2. Spot check inmate shakedown logs on the housing units.

Persons Responsible

1. Shift Supervisors


Comments:

DRC Security Policy 310-SEC-01 Inmate and Physical Plant searches clearly defines the frequency with which inmate bed

areas are to be searched. Paragraph B, sub-paragraph 9 indicates that "Each institution specific local post order shall indicate

the local procedure that ensures that at a minimum each inmate's cell or bed area is searched at least once per calendar

quarter."

HCF local post orders indicate that officers assigned to the A-Dorm housing unit conduct at least one (1) shakedown of an

inmate bed area on each of the first and second shifts. Also by our local post orders officers assigned to the B & C-Dorm

housing units are required to conduct at least two (2) shakedowns of inmate bed areas on each of the first and second shifts.

A thorough review of the shakedown logs of all three housing units was performed on Tuesday, May 29, 2012. The logs

indicated that the following shakedowns had been completed as of that date;

A-Dorm - 42 of 52 shakedowns completed for the quarter (April 2012-June 2012).

B-Dorm - 104 of 214 shakedowns completed for the quarter (April 2012-June 2012).

C-Dorm - 86 of 214 shakedowns completed for the quarter (April 2012-June 2012).

Considering that, by local post orders two (2) shakedowns are conducted daily on the A-Dorm housing unit and four (4)

shakedowns are completed daily on each of the B & C-Dorm housing units the following number of shakedowns could

possibly be conducted per average quarter;

A-Dorm - 180 shakedowns per average quarter.

B-Dorm - 360 shakedowns per average quarter.

C-Dorm - 360 shakedowns per average quarter.

At the current rate of shakedowns, considering the local post orders are being followed, the housing units are on track to

complete the following number of shakedowns for this calendar quarter (April 2012-June 2012);


A-Dorm - 108 shakedowns completed for the quarter (April 2012-June 2012).

B-Dorm - 232 shakedowns completed for the quarter (April 2012-June 2012).

C-Dorm - 214 Shakedowns completed for the quarter (April 2012-June 2012).

Clearly, all of the dorms are scheduled to complete all of the minimum required shakedowns by the end of the calendar

quarter per DRC policy. However, the issue remains that the number of shakedowns required by local procedures are not

being met. Shift supervisor have been tasked with aggressively monitoring housing unit shakedowns with periodic reviews

by the Chief of Unit Management.

It should also be noted that routine bed searches are conducted daily in segregation as well as for cause searches conducted

sporadically.

Issue Problem noted by CIIC: Inmates relayed concerns about the level of overcrowding at the institution. On the day of the

inspection, the population was 160.4 percent of the facility’s rated capacity.

Tasks

1. Continue, expand and implement programming to address inmate idleness

2. Implementation of the “Ohio Plan.”

Persons Responsible


Comments:

In an effort to address overcrowding concerns at HCF many programs and processes have been adapted to facilitate

successful offender reentry. HCF has and will continue to implement the following procedures to assist with successful

return to the community:

• Reentry approved programming to address the eight core domains of criminality.

• Ensure that ample programming space is available for reentry programs, mental health programs, recovery services

programs, education programs and career technology programs.

• Release preparation programming to educate offenders about the basic skills required to seek and maintain gainful

employment, support families, establish support networks and advance educational opportunities.

• Classify offenders to employment opportunities within the facility that teach them job skills that are useful in real life

situations.

• In the event that offenders are seeking job skills that are not available at HCF, facilitate their transfer to facilities

where they may obtain those additional job skills.

• Ensure that annual security classifications are conducted in order to facilitate appropriate offender transfer to lower

security level facilities.


Additionally, several programs are available to offenders at HCF which include:

• PROVE – A Domestic Violence Support Group

• Responsible Life Skills

• Victim Awareness

• From the Inside Out

• Inside-Out Prison Exchange Program

• CBT / IOP – Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

• Canine Companions for Independence Program

• Avalon – Pound Rescue Program

• ACT – Action, Communication and Tolerance

• AA / NA

• Anger Management

• Beyond Anger

• Cage Your Rage

• Assertiveness

• Chair Aerobics

• American Red Cross Chapter

• Vietnam Veterans of America Chapter

• Literacy / ABE

• Pre-GED and GED

• TEP – Transitional Education Program

• Vocational Horticulture Program

• Vocational Building Maintenance Program

• Hocking College – Higher Level Education Program

• Various Apprenticeship Programs

• Career Development

• Reentry / Job Fair

• Release Preparation

• KAIROS – Faith Based Initiative

These initiatives are not likely to produce immediate local results and therefore additional measures are in place to assist in

mitigation of the concerns regarding overcrowding. As stated above, ample programming space is available and offenders


have access to a variety of services. Further, all offenders with the exception of those in segregation have full access to the

indoor and outdoor recreational facilities which include a basketball court, putt-putt golf course, shuffleboard courts,

horseshoe pits, a walking track, wiffle-ball, volleyball, table games and other organized activities. Support services, i.e.

Mental Health, Recovery Services, and Religious Services are available and readily accessible to the offender population.

Medical and Mental Health staff are available 24 hours seven days a week. Offenders are provided ample opportunity to

participate in programming both inside and out of the living areas, limiting congestion in any one area. General population

offenders can spend an average of 12 to 14 hours a day out of the living units attending school and/or programming,

working, or participating in recreational activities which all help to alleviate crowding within the housing units.

Facility staff ensures each inmate is assigned to meaningful, full-time jobs or program assignment. HCF also operates

various vocational education programs. There has been no evidence that the current level of crowding has any adverse effect

on HCF’s operations, nor has it negatively impacted the quality of life for its offenders. The level of violence at this facility

is relatively low with the majority being minor incidents. There has been an increase in inmate-on-staff assaults but this may

be due to the recent shift in our inmate population.

There are seven cells available in the Special Management Housing Unit. Of these seven cells, five are equipped with double

bunks. A review of the segregation population revealed that 101 inmates were housed in special management status from

January 2011 to December 2011. Over this same time period segregation population rates fluctuated from a maximum of 13

inmates per month to a minimum of 4 inmates per month. The average monthly number of inmates housed in segregation

was 8.4 inmates. The average monthly number of general population inmates was 473 inmates. This equates to roughly 1.77

percent of the inmate population being housed in segregation each month over a twelve month period.

In comparison, a review of the 2010 segregation population revealed that 124 inmates were housed in special management

status from January 2010 to December 2010. Over this time period segregation population rates fluctuated from a maximum

of 18 inmates per month to a minimum of 7 inmates per month. The average monthly number of inmates housed in

segregation was 10.3 inmates. The average monthly number of general population inmates was 481 inmates. This equates to

roughly 2.14 percent of the inmate population being housed in segregation each month over a twelve month period.

Although overcrowding continues to be an issue, improvements have been realized as indicated in the data listed above.

Utilizing segregation rates to gauge quality of life issues indicates that the average population and rate of segregation

placement has dropped from the previous year. This can be attributed to significant legislative, programming and vision

changes realized over the past year. Effective staff supervision of the offender population and increased opportunities for

programming contribute to a safe, orderly living environment and positively affects the daily lives of our offenders.


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 procedure13

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.14

In 2011, there were 68 grievances filed and 210 informal complaints received by the Inspector at

the facility.15

Of the 68 grievances completed, 91.2 percent were denied, 7.4 percent were

granted, and 1.5 percent were withdrawn by the inmate.16

The top three categories with the most

grievances were Health Care with 28, Personal Property with nine, and Supervision with four.17

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, 12.4 percent were answered untimely at Hocking

Correctional Facility. 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

13

Please see the Glossary for an explanation of the inmate grievance procedure. 14

CIIC did not shadow the Inspector at HCF due to time and resource constraints. 15

Institution Grievance Statistics, Hocking Correctional Facility, January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. 16

Ibid. 17

Ibid.

12.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

AC

I

BeC

I

CC

I

DC

I/M

EP

RC

FP

RC

GC

I

HC

F

LA

EC

I

Lo

CI

MaC

I

MC

I

NC

CI

NC

CT

F

NC

I

NE

PR

C

PC

I

RIC

I

SC

I

LeC

I

Man

CI

RC

I

TC

I

To

CI

WC

I

SO

CF

OS

P

CR

C

Lo

rCI

CM

C

OC

F

OR

W

Level

1/2

Level

3

Level

4/5

Reception

Center Special


Chart 4

Percent of Grievance Dispositions Requiring Extensions by Institution

CY 2011

During the inspection, the CIIC inspection team interviewed 38 inmates. The following

responses were collected:

84.2 percent of inmates said they knew who the Inspector was

97.4 percent of inmates said that the grievance procedure was explained to them

89.5 percent of inmates said that they know how to use the grievance procedure

46.2 percent of the inmates who said that they had filed an informal complaint at the

institution (13 inmates) reported that the informal complaint was resolved fairly18

Positive points to highlight are the high number of inmates who said that they knew who the

Inspector was – this is the highest percentage that CIIC has seen in this biennium. Equally

important is the number of inmates who reported that the grievance procedure was explained to

him and that they believed that informal complaints were resolved fairly at Hocking Correctional

Facility.

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).

18

CIIC also asks questions regarding the perceived fairness of grievance dispositions and appeal responses, but an

insufficient number of inmates reported having filed either document at the institution and therefore the data

collected is not significant.

17.6

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

AC

I

BeC

I

CC

I

DC

I/M

EP

RC

FP

RC

GC

I

HC

F

LA

EC

I

Lo

CI

MaC

I

MC

I

NC

CI

NC

CT

F

NC

I

NE

PR

C

PC

I

RIC

I

SC

I

LeC

I

Man

CI

RC

I

TC

I

To

CI

WC

I

SO

CF

OS

P

CR

C

Lo

rCI

CM

C

OC

F

OR

W

Special Reception

Center

Level

3

Level

4/5 Level

1/2


SECTION IV. KEY STATISTICS

A. USE OF FORCE

In 2011, the facility reported six use of force19

incidents.20

Of the total, one involved a black

inmate and five involved white inmates. Compared to 2009, in which 10 uses of force were

reported, total uses of force decreased by 40 percent in two years. In the six months prior to the

inspection date, the institution reported three uses of force. Tables 2 and 3 of the Appendix

provide a breakdown of the use of force incidents in 2011.

Chemical agents have not been used in the previous three years as of the date of the inspection.21

Chart 5

Use of Force by Institution

CY 2011

B. ASSAULTS

In 2011, there were zero reported inmate on inmate assaults compared to one physical inmate on

inmate assault in 2009.22

19

Further information regarding use of force incidents can be found in the Glossary. 20

Use of Force Monthly Reports, Hocking Correctional Facility, January – December 2011. 21

Significant Incident Summary reports provided by Hocking Correctional Facility for the following periods:

January 2009 – December 2009, January 2010 – December 2010, and January 2011 – December 2011. 22

Significant Incident Summary, January 2011 – December 2011.

6 0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

AC

I

BeC

I

CC

I

DC

I

FP

RC

GC

I

HC

F

LaE

CI

Lo

CI

MaC

I

MC

I

NC

CI

NC

I

NC

CT

F

NE

PR

C

PC

I

RIC

I

SC

I

LeC

I

Man

CI

RC

I

TC

I

To

CI

WC

I

SO

CF

O

SP

CR

C

Lo

rCI

FM

C

OC

F

OR

W

Level

1/2

Level

3

Level

4/5

Reception

Center Special


The institution reported four inmate on staff assaults in 2011 of which two were physical and two

were harassment assaults. The total number of inmate on staff assaults increased by four from

2009 to 2011. Tables 4 and 5 provide a snapshot of the assault data at Hocking Correctional

Facility from 2009 to the date of inspection. The following chart provides a comparison of the

number of assaults at the institution over time.

Chart 6

Total Assaults

CY 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 YTD

C. INMATE DEATHS

The institution experienced the following deaths in CY 2011:

Zero homicides

Zero suicides

One unexpected death

Nine expected deaths (generally due to natural causes or terminal illnesses)

The unexpected death occurred in January 2011. The patient was a chronic care inmate who

abruptly died of natural causes.

The DRC shares data on suicide attempts with CIIC. In 2011, the DRC reported 57 attempted

suicides.23

Hocking Correctional Facility reported zero suicide attempts in 2011. Suicide

attempts decreased by one from 2009 to 2011.24

The following chart provides a breakdown of

the suicide attempts by institution in 2011.

23

Monthly Reports on Attempted Suicides, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. January 2011 –

December 2011. 24


December 2009 and January 2011 – December 2011.

2009 2010 2011 2012 YTD

Inmate on Staff - 3 4 1

Inmate on Inmate 1 - - 2

-

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

Nu

mb

er

of

Ass

ault

s


Chart 7

Suicide Attempts by Institution25

CY 2011

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 79 investigations. The majority of the activity involved

background investigations.26

Table 6 in the Appendix provides a breakdown of cases by type.

E. SECURITY THREAT GROUPS (STG)

As of December 2011, there were 14 identified STG-affiliated inmates, which was three percent

of the institutional population.27

In comparison, 18 percent of the total DRC population was

identified as having some form of STG affiliation in 2011.28

The following chart provides a

breakdown of DRC institutions by percentage of the inmate population identified as having STG

affiliation.

25


December 2011. 26

Investigator’s Monthly Caseload reports, May 2011 – April 2012. 27

Correctional Institution Inspection Committee, Security Threat Group Brief, January 2012. Total population from

the DRC website North Central Correctional Institution, accessible at http://www.drc.state.oh.us/public/ncci.htm. 28

Ibid.

0 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

AC

I

BeC

I

CC

I

DC

I/M

EP

RC

FP

RC

GC

I

HC

F

LA

EC

I

Lo

CI

MaC

I

MC

I

NC

CI

NC

CT

F

NC

I

NE

PR

C

PC

I

RIC

I

SC

I

LeC

I

Man

CI

RC

I

TC

I

To

CI

WC

I

SO

CF

OS

P

CR

C

Lo

rCI

CM

C

OC

F

OR

W

Level

1/2

Level

3

Level

4/5

Reception

Center Special


Chart 8

STG Members by Percent of Inmate Population

2011

STG-affiliated inmates are broken up into three groups based on their participation level.29

There were zero inmates listed as disruptive (level 3), one inmate listed as active (level 2), and

13 inmates listed as passive (level 1).

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 Hocking

Correctional Facility is rated by the CIIC inspection team as VERY SAFE.

Inmate Safety Ratings. Inmates were asked to rate the safety level of inmates at the facility by

choosing “very safe,” “safe,” “unsafe,” or “very unsafe.” Of the 38 inmates interviewed in the

institution’s general population housing units, only four inmates reported that the safety level of

inmates at the facility is unsafe or very unsafe. Of the total, 36.8 percent rated inmate safety as

“safe” and 52.6 percent rated inmate safety as “very safe.”

Medical Referrals.30

The institution reported zero medical referrals for inmate injuries

sustained as a result of an incident at the institution in 2011.31

29

Types of participation that determine STG classification levels range from having STG-affiliated tattoos or

paraphernalia, to actively inciting a riot.

3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

AC

I

BeC

I

CC

I

DC

I

FP

RC

GC

I

HC

F

LA

EC

I

Lo

CI

MaC

I

MC

I

NC

CI

NC

CT

F

NC

I

NE

PR

C

PC

I

RIC

I

SC

I

LeC

I

Man

CI

RC

I

TC

I

To

CI

WC

I

SO

CF

OS

P

CR

C

Lo

rCI

CM

C

OC

F

OR

W

Special Level

1/2

Level

3

Level

4/5

Reception

Center


Disturbances.32

The institution reported zero disturbances in 2011.33

30

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. 31

Significant Incident Summary. January 2011 – December 2011. Hocking Correctional Facility. 32

A disturbance is defined as a violent incident involving four or more inmates. 33

Significant Incident Summary. January 2011 – December 2011. Hocking Correctional Facility.


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. CIIC

staff, as non-medical laypersons with corrections experience, cannot make determinations

regarding the quality of medical care at a facility. The inspection includes information collected

from interviews with the Healthcare Administrator (HCA), observations of the facilities and

focus group discussions.34

Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated medical services as

EXCELLENT, with no areas in need of improvement.

Facilities

Medical facilities at Hocking Correctional Facility include five offices, four examination rooms,

six infirmary beds, a records area, a waiting area, and two bathrooms. Overall, the CIIC

inspection team rated the facilities as excellent in terms of overall cleanliness and orderly

appearance. An inmate did raise a concern regarding the lack of a medical isolation area (such as

a cell) if an inmate had an infectious disease or otherwise needed to be secluded. Staff relayed

that one of the cells in segregation also functions as a crisis cell and can be used as a medical

isolation cell.

Staffing

Adequate staffing has a clear and direct connection to patient care. At the time of the inspection,

the facility had fifteen nurses, 1.5 physicians/advanced level providers, and two other staff (non-

clerical). Staff reported zero vacancies.35

Staff also reported several contract staff, including a

secretary, a health information technician, a dentist, a dental hygienist, as well as other ancillary

service providers. Medical staff reportedly have worked together for years and have an excellent

working relationship.

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 medical staff

was within the same day, or the next day at the latest. The average time period between referral

to the doctor and appointment with the doctor was within the next day. The average response

time to kites was three to four days. The average response time to informal complaints was three

34

One focus group is comprised of staff and two of inmates (one group of chronic care and one group of non

chronic care/general medicine patients). 35

See the medical services inspection checklist in the Appendix of the report.


to four days. The current backlogs for Nurse Sick Call, Doctor Sick Call, and chronic care

clinics were all zero, which is excellent.

Staff and Inmate Communication

A focus group of staff was conducted with three of the nurses available. Staff did not have any

burning issues to communicate.

In addition, two focus groups of inmates were held: one of inmates enrolled in chronic care

clinics and one of inmates not enrolled in chronic care clinics. Inmates in both groups relayed

that institutional overcrowding has led to staff being overwhelmed. Both groups relayed that

they were satisfied with medical services and that the doctor was excellent – at least one inmate

in both groups independently used the word “thorough” to describe her. Inmates relayed that

they are seen quickly for their medical problems and that staff are friendly. The only concerns

were reported medication stoppages (that refills need to be ordered seven days in advance, but it

takes ten days to receive them), which is a problem across the DRC currently, that inmates on

reduced income struggle to purchase over-the-counter medications through the Commissary, and

that medical care is often reactive rather than proactive/preventative. Overall, it was the most

positive inmate communication regarding medical services that CIIC has experienced in any of

its 2012 inspections to date.

Many inmates write to CIIC in regards to their healthcare needs. In 2011, inmates at Hocking

Correctional Facility relayed only 11 concerns regarding healthcare at the facility. The primary

concerns included allegations of improper/inadequate medical care, delay/denial of medications,

medical co-pay, and disagreeing with the diagnosis/treatment.

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.

CIIC staff, as laypersons with corrections experience, cannot make determinations regarding the

quality of mental health care at a facility. 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 Hocking Correctional Facility include two crisis cells, five offices, one

conference room, and one records area. All areas were considered to be clean and organized.


Staffing

Adequate staffing has a clear and direct connection to patient care. At the time of the inspection,

the facility had two independently licensed non-psychiatry staff, zero state

psychiatrists/advanced level providers, and one other, non-clerical staff.36

Staff relayed that

staffing has changed in the facility due to a mission change – all inmates on the mental health

caseload are being transferred out of Hocking Correctional Facility to Franklin Medical Center,

to reduce the costs of round trips to Columbus for care. Staff reportedly will remain at the

institution and assist with “wellness” groups that are part of the DRC’s mental health

reorganization.

Access to Mental Health Staff

Access to mental health staff is evaluated based on several factors: (1) time period between

referral and appointment with the psychologist or psychiatrist; (2) response times to kites and

informal complaint forms; and (3) current backlogs. According to institutional staff, the average

time period between referral to the psychologist or psychiatrist and the appointment was within

72 hours. The average response time to kites was three to five days. The average response time

to informal complaints was five days. Staff reported zero backlogs.

Inmate Communication

Many inmates write to CIIC in regard to their mental health needs. Since January 2011, CIIC has

received only seven concerns from inmates at Hocking Correctional Facility regarding mental

health care, three of which pertained to an inmate’s assignment to a Residential Treatment Unit

(RTU).

Further information regarding mental health services can be found in the inspection checklist in

the Appendix.

C. FOOD SERVICES

The overall inspection of the Hocking Correctional Facility 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 Hocking Correctional Facility food service was considered EXCELLENT based on the

quality of the meal, and the overall cleanliness of the dining hall, kitchen, and loading dock. In

addition to the cleanliness, the institution did not have any visible facility maintenance concerns.

The floors of the dining hall and kitchen prep area were not in need of any repairs and were clear

of any debris.

36

See the mental health services checklist in the Appendix.


In 2011, CIIC received 174 concerns regarding food services from DRC inmates.37

However,

CIIC only received correspondence from two inmates at Hocking Correctional Facility regarding

food service concerns.38

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 Hocking Correctional Facility was

$0.84.39

In comparison, the average DRC cost per inmate meal for FY 2011 was $1.07.40

The

menu consisted of chicken salami as the main entrée, broccoli, mixed vegetables, potatoes,

chocolate pudding, applesauce, and wheat bread. The vegetarian entrée consisted of soy and

noodles. CIIC considered the meal to be acceptable. The vegetarian entrée, vegetables, and

potatoes were cooked at the appropriate temperatures. Salt and pepper were provided for inmates

to add seasoning to the meal. Inmates also considered the quality of the meals at Hocking

Correctional Facility to be acceptable.

The servers provided ample portion sizes that appeared to be sufficient for the institution

population. In 2011, food portions comprised 17.8 percent of the 174 food service concerns that

CIIC received from inmates. However, no inmates at the Hocking Correctional Facility relayed

concerns regarding the size of the meal portions.

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. The cleanliness of the dining hall was

considered excellent as the food service staff cleaned the tables in preparation for the next

housing unit. The tables and floor were clear of any debris.

Kitchen Prep Area

The conditions of the kitchen prep area were acceptable based on the cleanliness of the kitchen

appliances and the equipment. Staff were in the process of cleaning the counters and floor as

they continued to prepare the lunch meal. There were only small food particles on one of the

kitchen prep counters.

The kitchen consisted of six coolers, two ovens, two skillets, one freezer, and one kettle. In

addition to the appliances in the kitchen prep area, Hocking Correctional Facility also had one

small cooler on the serving line that was used to store the food served during the meal.

37

CIIC Database “Contacts and Concerns”, January 1, 2011 – December 31, 2011. 38

CIIC Database “Contacts and Concerns” for the Hocking Correctional Facility, January 1, 2011 – December 31,

2011. 39

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, personal communication, January 7, 2012. 40

Ibid.


During the inspection, CIIC observed one cooler that was inoperable. A maintenance request was

submitted to repair the cooler. According to staff, the institution submitted a request to the DRC

Operation Support Center to purchase a new oven, kettle, and skillet.41

Hocking Correctional Facility passed its most recent health inspection in February 2011. The fire

equipment was fully operational and last inspected in May 2012.42

Inmate Workers

There were 72 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

and receive performance evaluations after their first 90 days.43

Inmates can receive additional

wage increases if promoted to higher level positions such as a cook ($21 per month) or as an

aide, which allows some inmates to work in the dry storage area.44

Incentive Program

During inspections and in separate correspondence to CIIC, inmates have relayed that working in

food service is considered a punishment.45

As a result, some institutions have developed

incentive programs to make food service more attractive to inmates. Hocking Correctional

Facility did not have an incentive program. However, it should be noted that staff did not believe

that inmates at Hocking Correctional Facility considered working in food service to be a

punishment.46

Loading Dock

An inmate porter had recently washed the dock with a hose to ensure it was clear of debris. CIIC

observed the dumpster and trash compactor were to be several feet away from 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. According to staff, the

institution has not had any serious pests concerns such mice. Reportedly, the facility is

exterminated once a month.47

Additional information regarding the inspection of food services is available on the food service

checklist located in the Appendix.

41

Hocking Correctional Facility, personal communication, May 22, 2012. 42

Ibid. 43

Ibid. 44

Ibid. 45

“Evaluation of Correctional Food Services.” http://www.ciic.state.oh.us/food-services/view-category.html.

February 14, 2011 46


Ibid.

http://www.ciic.state.oh.us/food-services/view-category.html


D. 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. The housing units at Hocking Correctional Facility

are broken up into three dormitories A-Dorm, B-Dorm, and C-Dorm. A-Dorm is the smallest of

the three and is primarily reserved for inmates who require the use of wheelchairs as it is on the

first floor of the three-story dormitory building. Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated housing at

the facility as EXCELLENT, with no areas in need of improvement.

Housing Unit Conditions

Of the three general population dormitories, the level of cleanliness for bunk areas was rated as

excellent, based on a high level of overall cleanliness. The level of cleanliness for dayrooms was

rated as excellent, based on overall cleanliness and lack of clutter, debris, or trash.

Each dormitory has a variance in shower and restroom facilities due to size and renovations. On

the date of the inspection, there were no inoperable showers, seven inoperable toilets, and two

inoperable urinals. The average level of restroom cleanliness was rated as excellent, due to

overall cleanliness. The average level of shower cleanliness was rated as excellent, due to recent

renovations, which include brown tile, bronze fixtures, and an immaculate appearance. The CIIC

inspection team considered the showers to be the most attractive that they had seen in any DRC

facility. The Warden stated that the remodeling of the showers was completed by the inmates

and was inexpensive due to material donations and inmate labor.

Segregation Unit

The segregation count on the day of the inspection was three with two inmates under Security

Control (SC) status and one inmate under Local Control (LC). The cleanliness of the segregation

unit was rated as excellent.

E. COMMISSARY

Each institution maintains and operates a commissary for inmates to purchase food/snacks,

hygiene products, and other small items.48

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.

48

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.


Facilities/Inventory

The commissary at Hocking Correctional Facility is relatively small, but appears to be adequate

in size to meet the needs of the population. The area was very clean and inventory was neatly

organized. According to the most recent fiscal audit, there were no major issues with inventory

accuracy.49

Staff relayed that they did not have any issues with pests or rodents and stated that

the exterminator visits every two weeks.

Access to Commissary

Inmates at Hocking Correctional Facility are permitted to shop at the commissary once per week

and may spend $75 per visit.50

Throughout the inspection there were no concerns from inmates

regarding their access to the commissary.

Financials/Review of Fiscal Audit

The average net profit margin for the Hocking Correctional Facility commissary is 16 to 18

percent.51

The Income Statement reflects that the commissary transferred $22,971.95 dollars to

the Industrial and Entertainment (I and E) fund from July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.52

Staff relayed that the nine inmates who work in the commissary make on average $19 a month.53

Staff explained that the commissary would be more efficient/profitable if they had additional

mandates on inventory to ensure consistency between institutions.54

It was relayed that the

institution’s vendors are located mostly in Ohio.

The review of the fiscal audit reports that the commissary had a net income of $40,647.72 (11.99

percent) from December 1, 2009 through October 29, 2010.55

The reported shortage during the

audit period for HCF was $87.78.56

Inmate Communication

In CY 2011, there was only one inmate concern regarding the commissary, which pertained to

the reported denial of commissary privileges at HCF.57

Further information regarding the commissary can be found in the inspection checklist in the

Appendix.

49

Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Bureau of Fiscal Operations and Fiscal Audits, Hocking

Correctional Institution, All Funds, December 1, 2009 through October 29, 2010. 50


Ibid. 52

Commissary Institution Income Statement, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. 53


Ibid. 55

Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Bureau of Fiscal Operations and Fiscal Audits, Hocking

Correctional Institution, All Funds, December 1, 2009 through October 29, 2010. 56

Ibid. 57

Information based on CIIC “Contacts and Concerns” for Hocking Correctional Facility relayed from January 2011

– December 2011.


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 programming, and quality of

programming. Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated academic and vocational programming at

Hocking Correctional Facility as ACCEPTABLE, with the physical location of the literacy unit

classroom and the percentage of GED completers as the two components in need of

improvement.

Facilities

Educational facilities at Hocking Correctional Facility are comprised of classrooms both within

housing units and separate facilities. The classrooms were clean, well-lit and ventilated, and of

adequate size for current enrollments. Security is provided by the unit correctional officer on

shift. Teachers are all equipped with a man-down instrument and there is a spider security

system in place. Due to the physical location of the observed literacy classroom within the unit

setting, the overall educational facilities were acceptable.

Staffing

At the time of the inspection, the academic faculty serving Hocking Correctional Facility

educational programs consisted of two full-time academic teachers and one career-technology

teacher. There were no academic or career-technology teacher vacancies. In addition to DRC

teachers, the facility has one Principal, two Librarians, and one Guidance Counselor. There are

no Education Specialists, no School Administrators, and no Administrative Support Staff.

Separate from the full-time DRC staff, there is one contracted instructor employed by a

community college to provide post-secondary instruction to qualified inmates. The current

staffing level among instructors is considered to be acceptable; however, additional staff,

changes in the allocated use of space, or changes in schedules could reportedly aid in increasing

inmate access to educational programs.

Access to Programming

Access to programming is evaluated based on the current waitlist. As of the April 2012, there

were 61 inmates enrolled in academic programming and 88 inmates on the academic waitlist, a

ratio of 1.0 inmate academic enrollee to 1.4 inmates on academic wait list.58

In comparison, for

April 2012, there were 7,018 inmates enrolled in academic programming across the DRC and

7,127 inmates on the academic waitlist, a ratio of 1.0 inmate academic enrollee to 1.02 inmates

on the academic wait list.59

Since the ratio between enrollee and waitlisted inmate at Hocking

Correctional Facility is within one percent of the state-wide average, access to programming is

rated as acceptable. Hocking Correctional Facility staff and administration have considered how

58

Ohio Central School System Monthly Enrollment Reports, Hocking Correctional Facility, April 2012. 59

Ohio Central School System Monthly Enrollment Reports, DRC institutions, April 2012.


an increase in student enrollment might be achieved. Suggestions have included making greater

use of space that is currently not wholly allocated for educational purposes.

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 overall rating for quality of programming at

Hocking Correctional Facility was acceptable. The rating for outcome measures was in need of

improvement, while the rating for on-site observations was excellent.

Outcome Measures: In FY 2011, ending June 2011, there were 2 inmates who received a GED

at the Hocking Correctional Facility, amounting to 3.0 percent of the 67 inmates enrolled year to

date in pre-GED and GED courses. In comparison, at all institutions serving as Security Level

1/2 institutions during the same time period, 21.7 percent of pre-GED and GED enrollees

received the GED.60

The percentage of GED completers at Hocking Correctional Facility is

approximately 13.8 percent of the percentage of GED completers realized in all Level 1/2

institutions, which is an indicator for need of improvement at Hocking Correctional Facility.

Including the two GEDs passed, there were 37 inmates at Hocking Correctional Facility 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 a

Literacy class in the Literacy Housing Unit. Observations included excellent examples of

instruction, including the teacher’s interactive opening exercise, individualized instruction,

guided instruction, use of tutorial assistants, verbal and visual strategies to relay content and

steps in a solution, and an interactive closing activity with interdisciplinary value. Inmates were

actively engaged in the instructional period and content. The observed instructor was excellent

in showing respect for the students and in creating an environment conducive to group and

individualized instruction that incorporated instruction designed to tap the prior knowledge and

cognitive strengths of adult learners as senior-age students, with an institutional average age of

63.2 years. While the copyrighted materials were somewhat dated with a 1994 copyright, the

core literacy content remains acceptable. Students were very responsive to the instructional

strategies and were engaged in their learning process. Observations of the classroom instruction

indicated an excellent rating.

A full list of Academic/Vocational, Recovery Service, and Unit programs can be found in

Appendix A. Further information regarding the educational program observations can be found

in the program checklists in the Appendix

B. LIBRARY/LAW LIBRARY SERVICES

Each institution has a library and a law library. The CIIC evaluation of an institutional library

focuses on three factors: facilities, materials, and access. Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated

the library at Hocking Correctional Facility as EXCELLENT, with no areas of concern noted.

60

Ohio Central School System Monthly Enrollment Reports, DRC Institutions, June 2011.


The library area at Hocking Correctional Facility is compact and reportedly well-used. While the

square footage of the space is small, the attendance records indicated the daily use to be

approximately 40 or more inmates. Inmates reportedly most frequently access the Hocking

library for fiction and newspaper reading. At this institution, legal work is third in priority,

followed by reentry research. The law library is a room adjacent to the main library and is

equipped with one computer installed with Lexus Nexus.

Facilities

The Hocking Correctional Facility library was inspected by CIIC staff and found to be

acceptable. A satellite library collection was noted in the literacy unit. The library staff includes

one full-time librarian and one full-time Assistant Librarian. Eleven inmates are assigned to

work as library aides. There are three computers and three typewriters available for inmate use.

Materials

The Hocking Correctional Facility library currently maintains a collection of approximately

8,850 total items.61

During April 2012, inmates frequented the library 3,168 times and generated

2,888 transactions of materials. The average per visit use of library materials for April 2012 was

0.91 items.62

The per capita availability of library materials, based on the institution’s total inmate population

of 470 inmates and the total number of 8,850 items in the general library in April 2012 was 18.8

items per inmate.63

An inter-library loan system is reportedly used every month. In April 2012, inmates made 7

requests through the inter-library loan system.64

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 Hocking Correctional Facility library was open for a total of approximately 206

hours during the month of April 2012.65

There were reportedly 3,168 inmate visits to the library

during April 2012. There were reportedly 18,785 inmates cumulatively served by the library

during visits for the six month period from November 2011 through April 2012.

Further information regarding the inspection of the library and the library schedule can be found

in the Appendix.

61

Library Monthly Report, Hocking Correctional Facility, April 2012. 62

Ibid. This calculation was based on a population of 470 inmates and 3,168 visits to the library. 63

Library Monthly Report, Hocking Correctional Facility. April 2012. 64

Ibid. 65

Ibid.


C. RECREATION

Evaluation of recreational facilities is based on three factors: facilities, activities, and access. CIIC

rated recreation facilities and services at Hocking Correctional Facility as EXCELLENT, with no

areas in need of improvement

Facilities

The condition of the Recreation Department at Hocking Correctional Facility was clean and

well-maintained, with all equipment and machines in excellent working condition. There are 32

inmates who serve as recreation workers. There were no outstanding work orders and all

equipment in the weight cage was new as of February 2012.

While there are no field sports because there is no land for a field, there is a large partially-

grassed outdoor area surrounding the buildings for inmates to recreate outdoors. The majority of

recreation options are inside the facility. The facility operates two gymnasiums. One gym is

equipped for basketball and table-top recreation activities, and it doubles as the chapel and

auditorium for programs and staff meetings. The other gym is equipped with a variety of athletic

equipment. Inmates have access to a kiosk to download music for a fee on their personal MP3

players. All equipment is stored in a safe and secured manner in locked cages when not in use.

There are no Class A tools, so there is no need for routine use of a chit system. All equipment is

inventoried and cleaners are kept under lock, but are available upon request and sign-out.

Activities

There are numerous recreational activities for inmates at Hocking Correctional Facility. These

activities include the following options:

Pool tables (2) Fooseball Air hockey

Treadmills (2) Exercise bicycles (2) Universal machines (11)

Shuffleboard Cards Chess and checkers

Corn hole Whiffle ball Videos

Tournament games (on dorms) Intramural teams – various Music room: drums, keyboard,

guitars, amps

Access

Access to equipment is assured through the use of time limits placed on equipment. For example,

there is a 30 minutes time limit placed on equipment, so that inmates are not permitted to remain

on a machine for extended periods of time, preventing others from using the machine. This

system ensures that wheelchair-bound inmates have equal access to a majority of the recreation

equipment.

Schedules are posted outside the inmate dining hall and in each housing unit. Schedules indicate

that the recreation department is open seven days per week, with access of approximately 12

hours per day Monday through Saturday and two hours on Sundays.


Further information regarding recreational services at Hocking Correctional Facility can be

found in the Appendix.


SECTION VII. INMATE COMMUNICATION

Inmates interviewed during the inspection were asked what they believed inmates’ biggest

concern at the institution was. Of the 38 inmates interviewed, the top three concerns relayed by

inmates fell into the following categories: (1) food portions and quality (nine inmates); (2)

overcrowding and privacy (seven inmates); and (3) transfer as a result of reclassification of

mental health inmates (four inmates).

In CY 2011, CIIC received 24 contacts from or regarding inmates at Hocking Correctional

Facility, of which 98 concerns were reported. The institution ranked 23rd

among all DRC

institutions for total number of contacts.66

The top two concerns reported to CIIC regarding

Hocking Correctional Facility were: Supervision (13) and Health Care (11).

Chart 9

2011 CIIC Contacts with Institutional Breakdown (DRC)67

The following chart provides a breakdown of the top two reported concerns regarding Hocking

Correctional Facility in CY 2011.

66

CIIC Database of Contacts and Concerns, January 1, 2011- December 31, 2011. 67

Ibid.

24

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

AC

I

BeC

I

CC

I

DC

I/M

EP

RC

FP

RC

GC

I

HC

F

LaE

CI

Lo

CI

MaC

I

MC

I

NC

CI

NC

I

NC

CT

F

NE

PR

C

PC

I

RIC

I

SC

I

LeC

I

Man

CI

RC

I

TC

I

To

CI

WC

I

SO

CF

OS

P

CR

C

Lo

rCI

CM

C

OC

F

OR

W

Level

1/2

Level

3

Level

4/5

Reception

Center Special


Chart 10

Breakdown of Top Two Reported Concerns (Hocking Correctional Facility)68

CY 2011

68

Ibid.

0

1

2

3

4

5

Supervision Health Care


SECTION VIII. APPENDIX

A. FULL LIST OF PROGRAMS


B. SCHEDULES


C. DATA TABLES

Table 1.

Inspector’s Report CY 2011

Grievance Numbers

Total Number of Grievances Filed During Year 68

Total Number of Inmates Who Filed Grievances During Year 43

Highest Number of Grievances Filed by Single Inmate 12

Grievances on Hand at Beginning of This Period 0

Grievances Received during this period 68

Total 68

Grievances Completed During This Period 68

Grievances on Hand at End of This Period 0

Total 68

ICR Summary

Number of Informal Complaints Received 210

Number of Informal Complaint Responses Received 197

Number of Informal Complaint Responses Untimely 26

Granted W B O Total

Granted – Problem Corrected 5 0 0 5

Granted – Problem Noted, Correction Pending 0 0 0 0

Granted – Problem Noted, Report/Recommendation to the Warden 0 0 0 0

Subtotal Granted 5 0 0 5

Denied

Denied – No Violation of Rule, Policy, or Law 26 5 0 31

Denied – Staff Action Was Valid Exercise of Discretion 12 2 0 14

Denied – Insufficient Evidence to Support Claim 8 3 0 11

Denied – False Claim 0 2 0 2

Denied – Failure to Use Informal Complaint Procedure 0 0 0 0

Denied – Not within the Scope of the Grievance Procedure 1 1 0 2 Denied – Not within Time Limits 2 0 0 2

Subtotal Denied 49 13 0 62

Withdrawn at Inmate’s Request 1 0 0 1

Pending Disposition 0 0 0 0

TOTALS 55 13 0 68

Percent 80.9 19.1 0 100


Extensions

14-Day Extensions 11 28-Day Extensions 1

Total 12

Table 2.

Use of Force with Racial and Monthly Breakdown

CY 2011

Black White Other Total

January 0 0 0 0

February 0 0 0 0

March 0 0 0 0

April 0 0 0 0

May 0 0 0 0

June 0 0 0 0

July 0 2 0 2

August 0 0 0 0

September 0 1 0 1

October 1 2 0 3

November 0 0 0 0

December 0 0 0 0

Total 1 5 0 6

Table 3.

Use of Force with Racial Breakdown

CY 2011

Black White Other Total

Use of Force Incidents 1 5 0 6

Percentage 16.7 83.3 0 100

Action Taken on Use of Force Incidents:

Assigned to Use of Force Committee for Investigation 1 3 0 4

Logged as “No Further Action Required” 0 2 0 2

Referred to the employee disciplinary process 0 0 0 0

Referred to the Chief Inspector 0 0 0 0

Number of investigations not completed within 30 days

and extended 0 0 0 0

Number of extended investigations from previous month that were:

Completed 0 1 0 1

Not Completed 0 0 0 0


Table 4.

Assaults: Inmate on Inmate

CY 2009 to CY 2012 YTD

Category of Assault 2009 2010 2011 2012 YTD

Physical Assault 1 0 0 2

Harassment Assault 0 0 0 0

Sexual Assault 0 0 0 0

Total 1 0 0 2

Table 5.

Assaults: Inmate on Staff

CY 2009 to CY 2012 YTD

Category of Assault 2009 2010 2011 2012 YTD

Physical Assault 0 0 2 0

Harassment Assault 0 1 2 1

Inappropriate Contact 0 1 0 0

Sexual Assault 0 1 0 0

Total 0 3 4 1

Table 6.

Investigator Monthly Report Summary by Type of Investigation

CY 2011

Investigations Cases Initiated

Drugs (Staff/Inmate) 0

Drugs (Inmate/Visitor) 1

Drugs (Mail/Package) 0

Drugs (Staff) 1

Drugs (other) 0

Positive Urinalysis 0

Staff/Inmate Relationship 2

Staff Misconduct 3

Assault-(Inmate on Staff) 3

Assault (Inmate on Inmate) 1

Sexual Assault (Inmate on Inmate) 1

Other: 4

Background Investigations 63

Total 79


D. 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 Oakwood Correctional Institution ................. AOCI

Belmont Correctional Institution ............................. BeCI

Chillicothe Correctional Institution .........................

CCI

Correctional Reception Center ................................ CRC

Dayton Correctional Institution ............................... DCI

Franklin Medical Center .......................................... FMC

Grafton Correctional Institution .............................. GCI

Hocking Correctional Facility ................................. HCF

Lake Erie Correctional Institution ........................... LaeCI

Lebanon Correctional Institution ............................. LeCI

London Correctional Institution .............................. LoCI

Lorain Correctional Institution ................................

LorCI

Madison Correctional Institution ............................. MaCI

Mansfield Correctional Institution ........................... ManCI

Marion Correctional Institution ............................... MCI

Noble Correctional Institution ................................. NCI

North Central Correctional Complex....................... NCCC

Northeast Pre-Release Center .................................. NEPRC

Ohio Reformatory for Women................................. ORW

Ohio State Penitentiary ............................................ OSP

Pickaway Correctional Institution ........................... PCI

Richland Correctional Institution ............................ RiCI

Ross Correctional Institution ................................... RCI

Southeastern Correctional Institution ...................... SCI

Southern Ohio Correctional Facility ........................ SOCF

Toledo Correctional Institution................................ ToCI

Trumbull Correctional Institution ............................ TCI

Warren Correctional Institution ............................... WCI

Hocking Correctional Facilityciic.state.oh.us/docs/hocking_correctional_facility_2012.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of Hocking Correctional Facilityciic.state.oh.us/docs/hocking_correctional_facility_2012.pdf ·...