CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 1

Allen Oakwood Correctional

Institution

April 30, 2012 May 1, 2012 May 3, 2012 May 7, 2012

Joanna Saul, Report Coordinator CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 2

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 ...... 17

SECTION IV. KEY STATISTICS ...... 20 A. USE OF FORCE ...... 20 B. ASSAULTS ...... 21 C. INMATE DEATHS ...... 21 D. INVESTIGATOR DATA ...... 22 E. SECURITY THREAT GROUPS (STG) ...... 23 F. INMATE SAFETY ...... 24

SECTION V. EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS ...... 25 A. MEDICAL SERVICES ...... 25 B. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ...... 27 C. FOOD SERVICES ...... 28 D. HOUSING UNITS ...... 30 E. COMMISSARY ...... 32 F. OHIO PENAL INDUSTRIES (OPI) – GARMENT ...... 33

SECTION VI. EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS ...... 35 A. PROGRAM EVALUATION ...... 35 B. LIBRARY/LAW LIBRARY SERVICES ...... 36 C. RECREATION ...... 38

SECTION VII. INMATE COMMUNICATION ...... 39

SECTION VIII. APPENDIX ...... 41 A. FULL LIST OF MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS ...... 41 B. SCHEDULES ...... 42 C. DATA TABLES ...... 45 D. INSPECTION CHECKLISTS ...... 50

SECTION IX. GLOSSARY OF TERMS ...... 93

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 3

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION INSPECTION COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE INSPECTION AND EVALUATION OF ALLEN OAKWOOD CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

SECTION I. INSTITUTION OVERVIEW

A. INSPECTION PROFILE

Date of Inspection: April 30, 2012 May 1, 2012 May 3, 2012 May 7, 2012

Type of Inspection: Unannounced

CIIC Staff Present: Joanna Saul, Director Darin Furderer, Inspector Jamie Hooks, Inspector Adam Jackson, Inspector Carol Robison, Inspector Orlando Sacco, Inspector

Facility Staff Present: Warden John Coleman

CIIC spoke with many additional staff at their posts throughout the course of the inspection.

Areas/Activities Included in the Inspection:

Housing Units Educational Programming Segregation Ohio Penal Industries Kitchen Commissary Inmate Dining Hall Recreation Medical Services Residential Treatment Units Mental Health Services

B. INSTITUTION DEMOGRAPHICS

Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution is a consolidation of two formerly separate facilities: Allen Correctional Institution and Oakwood Correctional Facility. The former Allen Correctional Institution is a 78 acre facility, which opened in 1987.1 The facility is a Level 2

1 Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction: Allen Correctional Institution website. Accessed at www.drc.state.oh.us/public/aci.htm. CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 4 security (medium security) male institution serving Level 1 and 2 inmates. The institution’s FY 2012 budget is $29,485,225 and the daily cost per inmate is $62.71.2

C Unit (the former Oakwood Correctional Facility) previously served as the prison system’s mental health hospital. In 2011, this population was transferred out of the facility to the Allen compound. C Unit now serves as the prison system’s sole Protective Control unit.3 C Unit also houses Level 1 general population inmates. C Unit is an 18 acre facility that was opened as a correctional facility in 1994.4 The institution’s FY 2012 budget is $20,982.652.5

The most recent American Correctional Association (ACA) audit of the facility was reported on September 24, 2009. The facility was reportedly 100 percent compliant for mandatory standards and 99.32 percent compliant on non-mandatory standards.6 Areas of noncompliance were due to overcrowding and night-time noise levels.

The most recent Internal Management Audit (IMA)7 report was also reviewed. According to the report, which pertained to the re-inspection of the facility on November 18, 2010, all standards previously in noncompliance had been addressed, with one standard (pertaining to annual written performance evaluations of staff) pending compliance, and three standards in noncompliance that were “beyond the control of the facility.”8

The rated capacity for Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution is 1,035. The inmate count as of May 1, 2012 was 1,596,9 or 154 percent of the rated capacity. The average age of the inmate population was 43.5 years as of May 1, 2012.10

Of the 497 total staff at Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution as of April 1, 2012, 71.8 percent were male and 28.2 percent were female. Of the total staff, 78.1 percent were classified as white, 19.5 percent as black, and 2.4 percent as other.11

2 Ibid. 3 “Protective Control Housing” is defined in DRC Policy 55-SPC-03 as “A housing unit or area segregated from general population for the purpose of protecting those inmates who face a significant and verified risk of harm from a specific person, other inmate, or group of inmates. The unit operations shall include programs and services comparable to those offered to general population inmates.” 4 The institution was previously owned by the Department of Mental Health when it opened in 1953. It was later jointly owned by the Department of Mental Health and the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction in 1994 before being completely turned over to the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction in 1996. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction: Oakwood Correctional Facility website. Accessed at www.drc.state.oh.us/public/ocf.htm. 5 Ibid. 6 Interoffice communication, Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution, September 24, 2009. 7 The Internal Management Audits (IMAs) of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction are performed in the interim years between American Correctional Association audits. The IMAs check for both ACA standards, as well as “Ohio Standards” that are developed by the Department. 8 Audit Reinspection Report, Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution, November 18, 2010. 9 “Institution Counts,” Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, May 1, 2012. 10 Ibid. 11 ODRC Workforce Composition – April 1, 2012. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction website. Accessed at http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/Reports/staffing/April%202012.pdf. CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 5

The following chart provides a comparison of both staff and inmate race demographics at the facility and across the DRC.

Chart 1 Staff and Inmate Comparison by Percentage of Race12 April 1, 2012

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Staff White Staff Black Inmate White Inmate Black Institution 78.1 19.5 59.1 39.5 DRC 80 17.7 51.3 47

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

Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution provided the most recent fiscal audit performed by an external auditor, dated August 16, 2011. The audit covered the period of January 15, 2011 through July 8, 2011. There were no major concerns highlighted in the report.

Staffing

Adequate staffing has a direct effect on the safety and security of an institution. Of the total number of allotted positions, 25.5 are vacant.13 The vacancies consist of the following:

Assistant Principal Correctional Food Service Coordinator (4 positions) Maintenance Repair Worker 3 (2 positions)

12 Ibid. and Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Monthly Fact Sheet for April 2012, accessed at http://drc.ohio.gov/web/Reports/FactSheet/April%202012.pdf. 13 Personal communication, Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution, May 30, 2012. CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 6

Penal Industries Manager 1 Business Administrator 2 Correctional Records Mgmt Officer (2 positions) Correctional Records Mgmt Supervisor Nurse 1 (3 positions) Psych/MR Nurse Psychology Assistant 2 Mental Health Administrator 4 Correctional Captain Assistant Correctional Commissary Manager Health Planning Administrator 4 Correctional Nurse Practitioner (Part-time) Licensed Practical Nurse (3 Positions) Correctional Program Specialist

In addition, 36 staff were on leave on the date of the inspection and ten staff were on extended leave.

Vacancies and employees on leave result in staff being mandated to work extra shifts; however mandated shifts may vary from day to day and week to week. Overtime is calculated by hours. In the six months prior to the inspection (November 2011 through April 2012), there were 7,551.05 hours worked as overtime hours.14 The majority of the hours (76.4 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, it appears that Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution has a very low (positive) inmate to staff ratio.

14 Personal communication, Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution, May 1, 2012. CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 7

Chart 2 DRC Institutional Staffing: Number of Inmates per Corrections Officer January 2012

12

10

8

6 5.5

4

2

0

TCI

PCI SCI

CCI NCI RCI DCI

GCI

MCI

WCI

RICI

HCF

OSP

CRC

LeCI

FMC

LoCI

ToCI

BeCI

MaCI

NCCI

ORW

LorCI

SOCF

ManCI NEPRC

ACI/OCF Level Level Level Reception 1/2 3 4/5 Center Special*

Cost Savings Initiatives

In the 129th General Assembly biennium, one of CIIC’s goals is to identify cost savings across the DRC. Staff relayed the following cost savings measures implemented at the Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution:15

Recycling cardboard, plastic, scrap metal/iron, reduction in utilities consumption, reducing thermostat settings in non-24/7 areas during non-operational hours during heating season and removing air conditioning from main housing units and gym at OCF during summer months, Pharmacy Returns Program and currently exploring the cost saving benefits of solid food waste removal.

Since July of 2011, when recycling efforts started to be tracked, recycling of cardboard has brought the institution $1,834.80 in revenue. Plastic contributed $116.25 in revenue during the period. Likewise, scrap metal/iron generated $2,330.20 during the same period. In addition, the recycling of the above items diverted additional tonnage from the normal trash and also reduced the number of trash dumpster pulls, creating an additional savings of $9,186.86.

During CY11, Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution reduced utility consumption by 7.1 percent in comparison to CY10. The greatest single utility reduction was in electric

15 Ibid. CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 8 consumption during the period. Electric was reduced by 8.1 percent during this timeframe. The main reason for the reduction in electric was the de-lamping of qualified lighting throughout the institutions. Gas and water increased slightly over the same period. AOCI is currently exploring ideas on how to reduce gas and water consumption within the institutions.

Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution has participated in a pharmacy returns program that has generated more than $50,000.00 in savings over the past few fiscal years. This program provides for the reverse distribution of outdated/unusable medications to the manufacturers that, in turn, provide revenue back to the institution for the medications.

AOCI just completed its first solid food waste audit and plans on entering into a plan wherein the solid food waste will be diverted from the trash dumpster at a reduced cost of over $6.00 per ton, and also creates one less pick-up per month of the trash dumpster, resulting in an estimated savings of approximately $615.00 per month. CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 9

SECTION II. INSPECTION SUMMARY

Overall, the inspection was positive. The following provides a summary of the key findings from the inspection. Immediately following the summary is the DRC response/action plans in response to the identified CIIC concerns.

KEY STATISTICS

)

D

D

HANGE >10%

>10%

INCREASE

NO C NO

DECREASE 10% WITHIN AREA ( COMMENTS Use of Force X Total uses of force increased by 10.9 percent between 2009 and 2011, from 64 to 71, respectively. Assaults X Total inmate-on-inmate assaults increased by 9.1 percent between 2009 and 2011; inmate-on-staff assaults decreased by 15.4 percent. Suicide Attempts X Suicide attempts decreased from 2009 to 2011, from three to one at the former Oakwood Correctional Facility, and from one to zero at Allen Correctional Institution.

OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT

IN NEED OF OF NEED IN

EXCELLENT ACCEPTABLE AREA IMPROVEMENT COMMENTS Operations Medical Services X Concerns included the following: staffing (reportedly the institution is experiencing a loss of its experienced, long-term staff and it is also challenged by staff calling off down to the minimum number of staff allowed), access (inmates reportedly have to wait for long periods to see the doctor and staff reported a high number of inmates on the chronic CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 10

care backlog), and inmate communication (delays in medication). Mental Health Services X No concerns noted. Food Services X On the ACI side, inmates’ primary concern pertained to the reported lack of food portions and quality. Inmates reported that there were poor substitutes for entrees. For example, meatloaf was substituted for the breakfast pizza on a recent day. On the day of the inspection, the CIIC team had difficulty consuming the food served. Housing Units X The housing units on the Allen Correctional Institution compound were considered to be excellent. However, there were maintenance concerns in the shower and restroom facilities on 5A/B that need to be addressed.

While the housing units on C Unit were also clean, serious security concerns were raised on East 2, which houses Protective Control inmates, due to the fact that the majority of inmates had obstructed the locks to their doors and had vent coverings, in addition to other concerns. Due to the high security nature of the PC unit, officers need to perform improved security checks. Commissary X No concerns noted. Programs Program Evaluation X The only concern was the low percentage of GED completers. The observed programs were considered to be excellent by the CIIC inspection team. Library X The library on the Allen side was considered to be excellent; however, it should be noted that a concern was relayed from a Protective Control inmate on C Unit (former Oakwood) due to reportedly limited access on that unit. Recreation X Similar to the above, the only concern is due to C Unit access, as the recreational facilities are shared between the general population and the Protective Control inmates, who cannot mix due to security concerns. Staff Accountability Inmate Grievance Procedure X A low number of inmates reported knowing who the Inspector was and the Inspector has not documented weekly rounds in housing units; these two issues may be related. Inmate Safety X Only seven of the 113 inmates interviewed stated that inmates were unsafe CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 11

or very unsafe at the institution. Executive Staff Rounds X Executive staff, with the exception of the Inspector, appeared to be documenting weekly rounds in housing units. Shakedowns (Cell Searches) X Shakedowns were not consistent on the RTUs or on C Unit (see inspection checklists in the Appendix). Officer Security Checks X Officers documented rounds in appropriate intervals.

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 12

DRC RESPONSE/ACTION PLANS

Issue Problem noted by CIIC - Use of Force Total uses of force increased by 10.9 percent from 2009 to 2011, from 64 to 71, respectively.

Tasks Person Responsible 1. Increased staffing presence within the specialized housing units (i.e. 1. Warden, DWO, Health Planning RTU/SCDU/Dementia) of the institution. Administrator

Comments: An average of 75 percent of our use of force incidents occur on our specialized housing units. The increase in psychiatric attendants, state tested nursing assistants, and mental health clinicians should improve offender communications and behaviors on the units thus resulting in less UOF incidents. Also, in 2011, 48% of our UOF involved repeat offenders in contrast to 2009 when only 37.5% of the UOF involved repeat offenders. For example, in 2011, 19 of the UOF incidents involved only 5 different inmates.

Issue Comment noted by CIIC - Assaults Total inmate-on-inmate assaults increased by 9.1% between 2009 and 2011. Response: While our actual assaults only increased by 2 from 2009 to 2011, we continue to look at ways to reduce prison violence. Trends are monitored and referred for Back to Basics topics as needed. The increase may be attributed to more accurately tracking incidents on the part of staff.

Issue Problem noted by CIIC – Inmate Grievance Procedure A low number of inmates reported knowing who the Inspector was and the Inspector has not documented weekly rounds in housing units; these two issues may be related. Tasks Person Responsible 1. Warden Coleman has given direction on rounds. 1. Warden, Inspector

Comments: The Inspector is new to her position has noted in the CIIC report. This may attribute to the offenders not knowing who she is.

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 13

Issue Problem noted by CIIC - Medical Services Concerns included the following: staffing (reportedly the institution is experiencing a loss of its experienced, long-term staff and it is also challenged by staff calling off down to the minimum number of staff allowed), access (inmates reportedly have to wait for long periods to see the doctor and staff reported a high number of inmates on the chronic care backlog), and inmate communication (delays in medication). Tasks Person Responsible 1. Complete filling of vacant medical positions. 1. Warden, DWSS, HPA, HCMAS 2. ALP & CCC scheduling plan initiated. 2. DWSS, HPA, HCA 3. Scheduling process will be reviewed and assessed for delay of services and 3. DWSS, HPA, HCA, LRO corrective action taken as needed. 4. HSR forms to be date/time stamped and monitored for 4. DWSS, HPA,HCA, AHCA timeliness/appropriateness. 5. Medication Stoppage 5. DWSS, HPA, HCA, AHCA, Training of LPNs on pharmacy intake process. LPN’s, Central Pharmacy Work with Central Pharmacy to improve the process. Reduce the medication refill times.

Comments: Two of the three nurse vacancies are being filled. The other position is being requested to be fill. LPN interviews have been conducted and are pending acceptance of positions. Prior to the CIIC inspection AOCI identified issues with Chronic Care backlogs. As of 5/14/2012, the actual backlog is 5.8% based upon the 2 week grace period allowed by BOMS.

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 14

Issue Problem noted by CIIC - Shakedowns Shakedowns were not consistent on the RTU’s or on C-Unit (see inspection checklists in the Appendix). Tasks Person Responsible 1. Weekly rounds will include check of shakedown logs to ensure 1. DWO, Major, UMA, Unit compliance Managers, Shift Commanders 2. Officers non-complaint in shakedowns will be verbally instructed to 2. DWO, Major, UMA, Unit complete shakedowns at the time of inspection Managers, Shift Commanders 3. Recommend discipline for officers who continue non-compliance 3. DWO, Major, LRO Comments: Staff will be reminded during operations department meetings, monthly department head meetings and monthly executive staff meetings to ensure housing unit shakedowns are being conducted routinely.

Issue Comment noted by CIIC – Food Service On the ACI side, inmates’ primary concern pertained to the lack of food portions and quality. Inmates reported that were poor substitutes for entrees. For example, meatloaf was substituted for the breakfast pizza on a recent day. On the day of the inspection, the CIIC team had difficulty consuming the food. Response: AOCI Food Service staff follows portion control regulations and recipe preparations as directed by OSC Dietician. The Food Service Manager will adhere to the menu. FSM will make appropriate substitutions only when deemed necessary. Coordinators will monitor proper cooking times of hot foods while still ensuring adequate serving temperature of no less than 140 degrees.

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 15

Issue Problem noted by CIIC – Housing Units The housing units on the Allen Correctional Institution compound were considered to be excellent. However, there were maintenance concerns in the shower and restroom facilities on 5A/B that need to be addressed.

While the housing units on C Unit were also clean, serious security concerns were raised on East 2, which houses Protective Control inmates, due to the fact that the majority of inmates had obstructed locks to their doors and had vent coverings, in addition to other concerns. Due to the high security nature of the PC unit, officers need to perform improved security checks. Tasks Person Responsible The maintenance concerns on 5A/B are being addressed in the showers and restroom facilities.

Security concerns on the PC unit were rectified immediately. The following actions are being taken: 1. Officer rounds are to include checks of locks and vents. 1. Unit Mgmt Team, Unit Officers 2. Officers not compliant in checking locks and vents during rounds will be 2. Unit Mgmt Team, Unit verbally instructed to correct the issues at time of inspection. Officers, Shift Supv, Major 3. Recommend discipline for officers who continue non-compliance. 3. Unit Mgr/Shift Supv, UMA/Major, DWO, LRO Comments: Staff will be reminded during operations department meetings, monthly department head meetings and monthly executive staff meetings to ensure housing unit rounds are being conducted routinely and include thorough checks of door locks and vents.

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 16

Issue Comment noted by CIIC - Education The only concern was the low percentage of GED completers.

Response: By adding another position, we have increased the number of GED students being serviced which should increase the number of GED graduates versus pre-GED and ABE certificates. Of the 232 offenders academically enrolled, approximately 10% are from specialized housing units (i.e. RTU/SCDU/IOP).

Issue Comment noted by CIIC - Library It should be noted that a concern was relayed from a Protective Custody inmate on C Unit due to reportedly limited access on that unit. Response: AOCI inmates, including C Unit offenders, are receiving the reasonable amount of library time as directed by DRC policies and procedures. We are exploring the possibility of an additional law library computer for C Unit.

Issue Comment noted by CIIC - Recreation Similar to the above, the only concern is due to C unit access, as the recreational facilities are shared between the general population and the Protective Control inmates, who cannot mix due to security concerns. Response: AOCI inmates, including C Unit PC offenders, are receiving the amount of recreation required by ACA/ DRC policies and procedures while ensuring their safety and the security of the institutions.

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 17

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 procedure16 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.

In 2011, there were 342 grievances filed and 882 informal complaints received by the Inspector at Allen Correctional Institution.17 Of the 347 grievances completed,18 93.7 percent were denied, 5.5 percent were granted, and one percent were withdrawn by the inmate.19 The top three categories with the most grievances were Health Care with 140, Personal Property with 53, and Supervision with 36.20 Grievance statistics for Allen Correctional Institution in CY 2011 are provided in Table 1 of the Appendix.

In 201l, there were 74 grievances filed and 303 informal complaints received by the Inspector for inmates housed at Oakwood Correctional Facility.21 Of the 73 grievances completed, 94.5 percent were denied and 5.5 percent were granted.22 The top three grievance categories were Supervision with 17, Health Care with 13, and Personal Property with 10.23 Grievance statistics for Oakwood Correctional Institution in CY 2011 are provided in Table 2 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, 13.7 percent were answered untimely at Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution and 24.1 percent were answered untimely at Oakwood Correctional Facility. The following chart provides a comparison of untimely response rates across the DRC in 2011.

16 Please see the Glossary for an explanation of the inmate grievance procedure. 17 Institution Grievance Statistics, Allen Correctional Institution, January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. 18 Although 342 were filed during the year, 347 were completed, likely due to the completion of grievances held over from 2010. 19 Institution Grievance Statistics, Allen Correctional Institution, January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. 20 Ibid. 21 Institution Grievance Statistics, Oakwood Correctional Facility, January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 18

Chart 3 Untimely Response Rates to Informal Complaints by DRC Institution CY 2011

60

50

40

30 24.1

20 13.7 10

0

TCI

PCI SCI

ACI

NCI CCI RCI

GCI

MCI

WCI

RICI

HCF

OSP OCF

LeCI CRC

LoCI ToCI

BeCI

CMC

MaCI

NCCI ORW

LorCI

FPRC

SOCF

LAECI

ManCI

NCCTF NEPRC

DCI/MEPRC Level Level Level Reception Special 1/2 3 4/5 Center

Chart 4 Percent of Grievance Dispositions Requiring Extensions by Institution CY 2011

120

100

80

60

40

20 0.6 2.7

0

TCI

PCI SCI

ACI

CCI NCI RCI

GCI

MCI

WCI

RICI

HCF

OSP OCF

LeCI CRC

LoCI ToCI

BeCI

CMC

MaCI

NCCI ORW

LorCI

FPRC

SOCF

LAECI

ManCI

NCCTF NEPRC

Level Level Level Reception Special DCI/MEPRC 1/2 3 4/5 Center CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 19

During the inspection, the CIIC inspection team interviewed 113 inmates. The following responses were collected:

23.9 percent of inmates said they knew who the Inspector was 71.7 percent of inmates said that the grievance procedure was explained to them 89.4 percent of inmates said that they know how to use the grievance procedure 38.6 percent of the inmates who said that they had filed an informal complaint at the institution (44 inmates) reported that the informal complaint was resolved fairly 20 percent of the inmates who said that they had filed a grievance at the institution (25 inmates) reported that the grievance was resolved fairly 6.3 percent of the inmates who said that they had filed an appeal with the Chief Inspector while housed at the facility (16 inmates) reported that the appeal was resolved fairly

The number of inmates who reported knowing who the Inspector was is low, compared to other institutions. At the same time it is noted that the Inspector has not documented weekly rounds (see inspection checklists); these two issues may be related. However, it is also noted that the Inspector has only been in her position since December 2011, and this may also be why a low number of inmates knew who she was.

During the inspection, CIIC staff observed the Inspector investigating grievances and performing rounds. She did not use the established checklist during her rounds, which CIIC believes is always recommended, but she was cordial and professional in her interactions with the inmates. As part of the investigation of a grievance, the Inspector spent several hours attempting to track down property forms; on the one hand, it indicates a breakdown in the documentation system of the facility, on the other, she (and other staff with her) were very persistent in attempting to address the inmate’s concern.

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).

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 20

SECTION IV. KEY STATISTICS

A. USE OF FORCE

In 2011, Allen Correctional Institution reported 71 use of force24 incidents.25 Of the total, 43.7 percent of the incidents involved black inmates, and 56.3 percent involved white inmates. Compared to 2009, in which 64 uses of force were reported, total uses of force increased by 10.9 percent in two years at Allen Correctional Institution. In comparison, the former Oakwood Correctional Facility, with a much smaller population, reported 118 uses of force in 2011,26 a significant decrease (64.7 percent) from the 334 uses of force reported in 2009.

In the six months prior to the inspection date (October 2011 – March 2012), the combined Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution reported 69 uses of force. Tables 3 through 6 of the Appendix provide a breakdown of the use of force incidents in 2011.

In 2011, chemical agents (mace) were used two times. This represents no increase from 2009, in which chemical agents were also used two times.27 In the six months prior to the inspection date (November 2011 – April 2012), chemical agents were used two times.

Chart 5 Use of Force by Institution CY 2011

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200 118 71

0

TCI

SCI PCI

ACI

CCI DCI NCI RCI

GCI

MCI

WCI

RICI

HCF

OSP

OCF

LeCI CRC

FMC

LoCI

ToCI

BeCI

MaCI

NCCI

ORW

LorCI

FPRC

SOCF

LaECI

ManCI NCCTF NEPRC

Level Level Level Reception Special 1/2 3 4/5 Center

24 Further information regarding use of force incidents can be found in the Glossary. 25 Use of Force Monthly Reports, Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution, January – December 2011. 26 Use of Force Monthly Reports, Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution, January – December 2011. 27 Significant Incident Summary reports provided by Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution for the following periods: January 2009- December 2009, and January 2011- December 2011. CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 21

B. ASSAULTS

In 2011, there were 24 reported inmate on inmate assaults.28 Of the total, 87.5 percent were physical assaults and 12.5 percent were harassment assaults.29 Total inmate on inmate assaults increased by 9.1 percent from 2009 to 2011.

The institution also reported 11 inmate on staff assaults.30 Of the total, nine were physical assaults, one was a harassment assault, and one was a sexual assault.31 Total inmate on staff assaults decreased by 15.4 percent from 2009 to 2011. Tables 4 and 5 provide a snapshot of the assault data at Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution from 2009 to the date of inspection. The following chart provides a comparison of the number of assaults at the institution over time.

Chart 6 Total Assaults CY 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 YTD

30

25

20

15

10

5 Number of Assaults Number - 2009 2010 2011 2012 YTD Inmate on Staff 13 18 11 5 Inmate on Inmate 22 18 24 1

C. INMATE DEATHS

The institution experienced the following deaths occurred since January 2011:32

Zero homicides Two suicides Three unexpected deaths One expected death (generally due to natural causes or terminal illnesses)

28 Significant Incident Summary, January 2011 – December 2011. 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid. 32 Personal communication, Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution, May 1, 2012. CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 22

Staff relayed that the suicides occurred in the Residential Treatment Unit and that additional security precautions have been implemented as a result.

The DRC shares data on suicide attempts with CIIC. In 2011, the DRC reported 57 attempted suicides, one of which occurred at the former Oakwood Correctional Facility.33 This represents a decrease from 2009, in which the former Oakwood Correctional Facility reported three attempts and Allen Correctional Institution reported one.34 The following chart provides a breakdown of the suicide attempts by institution in 2011.

Chart 7 Suicide Attempts by Institution35 CY 2011

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1

0

TCI

PCI SCI

ACI

NCI CCI RCI

GCI

MCI

WCI

RICI

HCF

OSP

OCF

LeCI CRC

LoCI

ToCI

BeCI

CMC

MaCI

NCCI

ORW

LorCI

FPRC

SOCF

LAECI

ManCI

NCCTF NEPRC

Level Level Level Reception DCI/MEPRC Special 1/2 3 4/5 Center

D. INVESTIGATOR DATA

The role of the Institutional Investigator is an essential component to ensuring the safety and security of the institution. Investigators are generally focused on investigating illegal substances, assaults, or issues regarding the criminal 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. From April 2011 to March 2012, the Investigator initiated 140 investigations. The majority of the activity involved positive urinalyses.36

33 Monthly Reports on Attempted Suicides, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. January 2011 – December 2011. 34 Monthly Reports on Attempted Suicides, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. January 2009 – December 2009. 35 Monthly Reports on Attempted Suicides, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. January 2011 – December 2011. 36 Investigator’s Monthly Caseload reports, April 2011 – March 2012. CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 23

Major contraband confiscated during this same time period included 66 cell phones. Other items included alcohol, marijuana, and tobacco.

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

E. SECURITY THREAT GROUPS (STG)

As of December 2011, there were 210 STG-affiliated inmates at the former Allen Correctional Institution and 31 at the former Oakwood Correctional Institution, which is 15 percent of each institution’s population.37 In comparison, 18 percent of the total DRC population was identified as having some form of STG affiliation in 2011.38 The following chart provides a breakdown of DRC institutions by percentage of the inmate population identified as having STG affiliation.

Chart 8 STG Members by Percent of Inmate Population 2011

60

50

40

30

20 15 15

10

0

TCI

PCI SCI

ACI

CCI DCI NCI RCI

GCI

MCI

WCI

RICI

HCF

OCF

OSP

LeCI CRC

LoCI ToCI

BeCI

CMC

MaCI

NCCI ORW

LorCI

FPRC

SOCF

LAECI

ManCI NCCTF NEPRC Level Level Level Reception Special 1/2 3 4/5 Center

STG-affiliated inmates are broken up into three groups based on their participation level.39 There were eight inmates listed as disruptive (level 3), 20 inmates listed as active (level 2), and 182 inmates listed as passive (level 1) at the former Allen Correctional Institution. In the Oakwood facility, there were three disruptive inmates, one active inmate, and 27 passive inmates.

37 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. 38 Ibid. 39 Types of participation that determine STG classification levels range from having STG-affiliated tattoos or paraphernalia, to actively inciting a riot. CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 24

F. INMATE SAFETY

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 Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 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 113 inmates interviewed in the institution’s general population housing units, only seven inmates reported that they felt that inmates were unsafe or very unsafe. Of the total, 80 (70.8 percent) reported that inmates were “safe.”

Medical Referrals.40 The institution reported one medical referral for inmate injuries sustained as a result of an incident at the institution in 2011.41

Disturbances.42 The institution reported zero disturbances in 2011.43

40 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. 41Significant Incident Summary. January 2011 – December 2011. Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution. 42 A disturbance is defined as a violent incident involving four or more inmates. 43Significant Incident Summary. January 2011 – December 2011. Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution. CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 25

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.44 Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated medical services as IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT, in the areas of staffing, access, and inmate communication.

Facilities

Medical facilities at Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution include 3.5 offices (one office doubles as an examination room), 3.5 examination rooms (same), three infirmary beds, a records area, two waiting areas, and three bathrooms. Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated the facilities as acceptable in terms of overall cleanliness and orderly appearance.

Staffing

Adequate staffing has a clear and direct connection to patient care. At the time of the inspection, the facility had ten nurses, 1.5 physicians/advanced level providers, and five other staff (non- clerical). Staff reported three vacancies for registered nurses and three vacancies for licensed practical nurses.45 Staff also reported two contract registered nurses and one contract physician.

Staff reported serious concerns regarding the retention of long-term, experienced staff. Reportedly, the institution has a problem with nursing staff calling off down to the minimum allowed by union contracts, which creates more work for those nurses on staff, which leads to discontentment, which leads to more calling off, etc., in a negative cycle that affects staff morale. Staff also relayed concerns regarding the ability of the two physicians to treat the entire inmate population, which includes both older inmates and seriously mentally ill inmates who likely have co-occurring medical conditions.

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

44 One focus group is comprised of staff and two, of inmates (one group of chronic care and one group of general medicine patients). 45 Personal communication, Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution, May 1, 2012. See the medical services inspection checklist in the Appendix of the report. CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 26 was within the next day. The average time period between referral to the doctor and appointment with the doctor was also within the next day. The average response time to kites was two to four days. The average response time to informal complaints was two to four days. The current backlogs for Nurse Sick Call and Doctor Sick Call were zero. Staff reported 138 backlogged appointments for chronic care clinics (17 percent of the total number of inmates enrolled in chronic care clinics, which is high). However, staff stated that this was due to a recent influx of inmates from other institutions who were backlogged and that a week prior, the facility was operating at a backlog rate of 1.8 percent, which is very good.

Inmates in focus groups and on-site relayed that it “takes forever” to see the doctor and that an inmate may receive a pass to see the doctor at 8 am, would wait at medical services all day, and then be told to come back on another day. Staff reportedly heard of one inmate who had been called back seven times to see the doctor.

In addition, each interviewed inmate is asked if he has filed a health service request form at the institution and if so, whether he was seen within two days. Of the 113 inmates interviewed, 101 inmates stated that they had filed a health service request form during their time at the institution. Of those, 41 (40.6 percent) stated that they were not seen within two days. This information is understandably subjective and memories may be faulty; however, the least that may be said is that a large number of inmates reported that they were not seen by medical staff within the requisite two day timeframe.

Staff and Inmate Communication.

A focus group of staff was conducted with two of the nurses available. The primary concerns relayed by these staff are included in the above comments regarding staffing and retention. These concerns and others were discussed with the medical and administrative leadership at the institution.

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. Inmates also relayed concerns regarding medication refills, stating that they were told to submit a refill request seven days prior to the end of the medication, but that it took ten or more days to receive the refill.

Many inmates write to CIIC in regards to their healthcare needs. In 2011, inmates at Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution relayed 63 concerns regarding healthcare at the facility. The primary concerns included allegations of inadequate/inappropriate medical care, delay/denial of medications, disagreeing with the treatment provided, and delay/access to medical care.

Further information regarding medical services can be found in the inspection checklist in the Appendix.

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 27

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 Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution include seven separate classrooms, three records areas, a conference room, and several offices. Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated the facilities as excellent in terms of overall cleanliness and orderly appearance.

Staffing

Adequate staffing has a clear and direct connection to patient care. At the time of the inspection, the facility had 50 state staff positions, of which two were vacant, and two additional contract staff.46

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 14 days. The average response time to kites was five days. The average response time to informal complaints was seven days. Staff reported a backlog of 142 kites – although staff relayed that this was due to staff not properly signing the kite log to indicate that a response was sent, rather than no responses actually being sent; seven referrals; and zero informal complaints.

Inmate Communication

Many inmates write to CIIC in regard to their mental health needs. Since January 2011, CIIC has received only one concern from an inmate regarding his mental health care at Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution.

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

46 See the mental health services checklist in the Appendix. CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 28

C. FOOD SERVICES

The overall inspection of the Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution food services consisted of the dining hall, the kitchen preparation area, the loading dock, and attending the general meal. CIIC also attended the general meal period and spoke with staff regarding the inmate workforce.

The Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution food service was considered ACCEPTABLE based on the overall cleanliness of the dining hall and the kitchen. Although CIIC expressed concerns regarding the quality of the meal, the food service staff and inmate workers maintained a very clean environment.

In 2011, CIIC received 174 concerns regarding food services from DRC inmates.47 However, CIIC received only one contact from inmates at Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution regarding food service concerns.48

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 Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution was $1.00.49 In comparison, the average DRC cost per inmate meal for FY 2011 was $1.07.50 The menu consisted of a meatloaf patty, potatoes, coleslaw, white bread, and an orange. CIIC considered the meal to be in need of improvement. The meatloaf was overcooked and hard to consume. In addition to the poor taste of the meatloaf patty, the meal also did not consist of any vegetables.

Inmates also considered the meal unacceptable due to the lack of quality in the taste of the main entrée, the small portion size, and inadequate substitutions for items on the menu. The concern regarding inadequate meal substitutions was evident by the fact that vegetables were not served. In addition, staff and inmates relayed that food service ran out of the breakfast pizza from the brunch menu on April 29, 2012. The pizza was substituted with the meatloaf patty that was served during the lunch meal the following day.

Many inmates relayed concerns regarding the disbursement of the milk at the institution. According to staff, the Beverage Processing Center (BPC) located at Pickaway Correctional Institution was experiencing some maintenance concerns that limited the manufacturing and delivery of milk.51 As a result of the limited supply, milk was available only every other day to inmates. The concerns regarding the BPC affected all of the DRC prisons and the issue was expected to be addressed by May 7, 2012.52 According to staff, inter-office memorandums regarding the concern were issued to each housing unit notifying the inmates.

47 CIIC Database “Contacts and Concerns,” All institutions, January 1, 2011 – December 31, 2011. 48 CIIC Database “Contacts and Concerns” for the Allen Correctional Institution, January 1, 2011 – December 31, 2011. There were no concerns relayed from the former Oakwood Correctional Facility during the same period. 49 Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, personal communication, January 7, 2012. 50 Ibid. 51 Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution, personal communication, April 30, 2012. 52 Ibid. CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 29

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. An additional officer may be on duty as needed during the meals. Inmates were racially segregated at most tables.53 The cleanliness of the dining hall was considered excellent. 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 serve the lunch meal. Despite the cleanliness of the counters and floors, CIIC observed large puddles of water around the sink and in the dishwasher room. Although it is not uncommon to have small amounts of water on the floor under the dishwasher and the sink, the size of the puddles extended past those areas and seemed excessive.

The kitchen consisted of four coolers, four ovens, three kettles, two grilles, one freezer. During the inspection, staff relayed that the steamer and one cooler were inoperable. A maintenance request was submitted to repair the cooler. However, the institution submitted a request to DRC Operation Support Center to replace the steamer. In addition, the institution also submitted their request to purchase an additional kettle as well.54

According to staff, Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution passed its most recent health inspection in November 2011. The fire equipment was fully operational and last inspected in April 2012.55

Inmate Workers

There were 140 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.56 Inmates can receive additional wage increases if promoted to higher level positions such as a Cook ($20 per month) or a Cook 757 ($24 per month) position.58

Incentive Program

During inspections and in separate correspondence to CIIC, inmates have relayed that working in food service is considered a punishment.59 As a result, some institutions have developed incentive programs to make food service more attractive to inmates. Allen Oakwood

53 Racial segregation in the dining hall is noted as it may indicate tension within the institution. 54 Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution, personal communication, April 30, 2012. 55 Ibid. 56 Ibid. 57 Each position title ending in “7,” represents the highest pay grade an inmate can earn at that position. 58 Ibid. 59 “Evaluation of Correctional Food Services.” http://www.ciic.state.oh.us/food-services/view-category.html. February 14, 2011 CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 30

Correctional Institution did not have an incentive program. However, current staff would like to offer incentives to inmates such as an increase in their monthly wage. In addition, staff would also like to conduct inmate interviews and assist in selecting the inmates who work in food service.

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 placed next to the loading dock. In previous inspections, CIIC has relayed concerns regarding the placement of the trash compactors at the institutions. CIIC has found that institutions with pests and vermin concerns often have their trash compactors next to or on top of their loading dock. According to staff, the institution has not had any serious pests concerns such mice. Reportedly, the facility is exterminated every two weeks.60

Additional information regarding the inspection of food services is available on the food service checklist located in the Appendix.

D. HOUSING UNITS

As mentioned in the institutional overview, Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution is a consolidation of two formerly separate facilities. The former Allen Correctional Institution contains four separate celled housing units (2B, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B) and two dorm housing units (5 A/B and 6 House), in addition to two celled Residential Treatment Units (RTUs).

C Unit (formerly Oakwood Correctional Institution) is a completely celled facility, all under one roof, with four separate units – East 1 and 2 (housing Protective Control inmates) and West 1 and 2 (housing Level 1 General Population inmates).

Overall, the housing units on the former Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution compound are considered to be EXCELLENT, with no areas of improvement noted. The housing units in C Unit are considered to be IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT due to security issues on East 2.

Housing Unit Conditions

Of the four general population celled housing units, the average level of cleanliness for cells was rated between acceptable and excellent, based on a high level of overall cleanliness, with the exception of some inmate clutter in cells and the overall aging of the facility. The average level of cleanliness for dayrooms was rated as excellent, based on overall cleanliness and lack of clutter, debris, or trash.

Each celled housing unit has an upper and lower range, separated in half by showers and laundry facilities. The CIIC inspection team rated cell cleanliness on each unit as acceptable or excellent, depending on the level of observed clutter from inmate property. The dayrooms were all rated as excellent, due to the absence of trash and the clean floors. Each unit has four

60 Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution, personal communication, April 30, 2012. CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 31 showers on both the upper and lower ranges. The CIIC inspection team rated all showers as either acceptable or excellent in terms of cleanliness, with the only concern being the presence of soap scum in some of the showers. Every cell is outfitted with a toilet and a sink. On the day of inspection, there were reportedly zero maintenance issues with toilets, sinks, or showers.

The two dormitory style housing units were rated as acceptable or excellent in terms of cleanliness, depending on the level of inmate clutter. Showers and toilets were also rated as either acceptable or excellent in terms of cleanliness. On the day of the inspection, there were no inoperable toilets, urinals, sinks, or showers in 6 House, but there were a number of maintenance concerns in 5 A/B and the comment was made to the CIIC inspection team that maintenance work orders “take forever” to be completed.

Residential Treatment Unit (RTU)

Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution has two separate RTUs (H1A and H1B) that currently house approximately 120 inmates. Staff relayed that they have been in the process of expanding the RTU to include 183 beds. They have also implemented a 32 bed dementia unit.

Both RTUs are celled units with an upper and a lower range on both sides, with an officer’s desk in the middle. Each cell has a window and facilities, including a sink and a toilet. Inmates share communal showers, of which there were four on both the upper and lower ranges. Cells were predominantly clean, with very little inmate property or clutter in the rooms.

C Unit (formerly Oakwood Correctional Facility)

Overall, the conditions in C Unit were very clean – most of the showers were very clean, with only a few showing need of repainting. The primary concern in C Unit was the number of security issues on East 2, which is a unit that houses Protective Control inmates. During CIIC’s check of cells, the CIIC inspection team found that roughly half of the doors on a single range had blocked locks, meaning that the cell doors would close, but could not be locked – CIIC then asked staff to check all of the doors in the unit and remove lock obstructions. In addition, the majority of cells had vent coverings – some of them very elaborate, indicating the inmates clearly had no expectation that staff would address the issue. Vent coverings are a security issue because inmates can hide items behind them. More than just the threat to security that these issues present, they also indicate that housing unit officers on that unit are not performing adequate security checks and, equally important, that inmates are aware of this.

CIIC staff returned on the final day of the inspection to do another check of the doors on East 2 and the problem appeared to have been corrected. However, ongoing vigilance is going to be needed to ensure that security is maintained.

Segregation Unit

The segregation count on the day of the inspection was 50 total inmates. The inmate count on the board was 20 inmates on Security Control status, 17 inmates on Local Control status, and 12 CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 32 inmates on Disciplinary Control status.61 The cleanliness of the segregation unit was rated as acceptable; various areas, including furniture, appeared in need of repainting, but inmates did not report any cleanliness concerns when asked.

E. COMMISSARY

Each institution maintains and operates a commissary for inmates to purchase food/snacks, hygiene products, and other small items.62 CIIC’s inspection of the commissary in a correctional facility focuses on three primary areas: facilities/inventory, inmate access to the commissary, and financials. Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated the commissary as EXCELLENT, with no areas in need of improvement.

Facilities/Inventory

There are two commissaries located at Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution, as the institution was two separate facilities prior to the recent consolidation: a full commissary on the Allen side and a satellite commissary on C Unit. The commissary on the main compound was clean, well maintained, and the inventory was neatly organized. According to most recent fiscal audit, 30 items in the commissary were counted and compared to inventory records with a 97 percent accuracy rate.63 The average inventory accuracy rate for other institutions in FY 2011 was 95 percent.64 Staff relayed that they did not have any issues with pests or rodents and stated that the exterminator visits once per month.

Access to Commissary

Inmates at Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution are permitted to shop at the commissary once per week and may spend $65 per visit.65 Throughout the inspection there were no concerns from inmates regarding their access to the commissary. The commissary schedule for the month of May 2012 is located in the Appendix.

Financials/Review of Fiscal Audit

The average profit margin for the Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution commissary is five to six percent.66 The Income Statement reflects that the commissary transferred $130,938.35 dollars to the Industrial and Entertainment (I and E) fund from July 1, 2011 through December

61 The inmates on different types of control status does not total to 50; staff reported that the 50 total was correct and that the types of control status would be updated later in the day. 62 To order commissary items, the inmates must turn in their commissary sheet, which is a form indicating items they wish to purchase. From there an inmate worker will fill the order, staff will charge the inmate account, and items will be given to the inmate. The profits are placed in the institution’s Industrial and Entertainment (I and E) funds, which are reinvested back into the institution. All inmate property must fit within a 2.4 cubic foot storage box. 63 Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Office of Administration, Bureau of Fiscal Audits, Allen Correctional Institution, Commissary Fund, February 1, 2011 through July 31, 2011. 64 Ibid. 65 Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution, personal communication, April 30, 2012. 66 Ibid. CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 33

31, 2011.67 Staff relayed the 14 inmates who work in the commissary make on average $20 a month.68 Staff explained that the commissary would be more efficient/profitable if they had additional staff to combat inmate theft.69 It was relayed that the institution’s Vendors are located mostly in Ohio.

According to fiscal audit reports provided, the commissary had a net income of $62,609.18 (10.69 percent) from February 1, 2011 through July 31, 2011.70 The FY 2011 average for all institutions was 10 percent. The reported shortage during the six month audit period for AOCI was $316.72 (0.07 percent), which is less than the 0.29 percent average shortage for all institutions in FY 2011.71

Inmate Communication

Many inmates write to CIIC regarding various concerns. In CY 2011, there were no inmate concerns regarding the commissary at AOCI.72

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

F. OHIO PENAL INDUSTRIES (OPI) – GARMENT

Ohio Penal Industries (OPI) is an inmate work program and a division of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC). OPI manufactures goods and services for the DRC and other state agencies through the use of inmate labor under close staff supervision. CIIC’s inspection of the OPI operations focuses on two primary areas: facilities and financials. Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated the OPI shop as EXCELLENT with no areas in need of improvement.

Facilities

Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution’s OPI shop consists of an institutional clothing/bedding operation. The shop employs 148 inmates who manufacture institutional garments such as, shirts, jackets, parkas, pants and security gowns, as well as, institutional linens. 73 Production was modified on the day of the inspection due to an annual shop cleaning. Staff reported that there are no maintenance issues with the equipment and the facilities appeared to be adequate for the operations. However, staff did not feel that they had the resources to increase production.

67 Commissary Institution Income Statement, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. 68 Ibid. 69 Ibid. 70 Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Office of Administration, Bureau of Fiscal Audits, Allen Correctional Institution, Commissary Fund, February 1, 2011 through July 31, 2011. 71 Ibid. 72 Information based on CIIC “Contacts and Concerns” for Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution relayed from January 2011 – December 2011. 73 Overview of OPI Shops and Farms, Shop Summary 2011. CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 34

Financials

In FY 2011 operations reported a profit of 233,079.74 Staff also mentioned that the price for a linear yard of fabric increased from $1.52 to $2.65 in a recent contract.

For more information regarding the AOCI OPI shop please refer to the checklist in Appendix.

74 Ohio Penal Industries, Finances FY 2011. CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 35

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 the facility as ACCEPTABLE, with the percentage of GED completers the only component in need of improvement.

Facilities

Educational facilities at Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution are housed in a designated building and in the units on C Unit. Classrooms run along the exterior hallways, making natural light and ventilation available. The classroom environment is clean and conducive to learning. Although small in square footage, the proximity of students to teacher seemed to work in favor of individualized and inclusive instruction. A Spyder security system is installed to provide security. The school’s security officer is stationed at a centrally located desk outside the library and near the main entrance to the school. Overall, the facilities were acceptable.

Staffing

At the time of the inspection, the academic faculty serving Allen Oakwood educational programs consisted of five full-time academic teachers and three career-technology teachers. 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 is no Education Specialist, School Administrator, or administrative support staff. Separate from the full-time DRC staff, there are eight contracted instructors employed by Sinclair Community College who provide post-secondary instruction to qualified inmates. The current staffing level among instructors is considered to be acceptable; however, additional administrative staff would aid in bringing the current work load for administrators to an average level.

Access to Programming

Access to programming is evaluated based on the current waitlist. As of the March 2012 education monthly report submitted from Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution to CIIC, there were 138 inmates enrolled in academic programming and 45 inmates on the academic waitlist, a ratio of 1.0 inmate academic enrollee to 0.33 inmates on academic wait list.75 In comparison, for March 2012, there were 6,294 inmates enrolled in academic programming across the DRC and 7,395 inmates on the academic waitlist, a ratio of 1.0 inmate academic enrollee to 1.2 inmates on the academic wait list.76 Since the ratio between enrollee and waitlisted inmate at Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution is much smaller than the state-wide average, access to programming is rated as excellent. The teachers at the Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution

75 Ohio Central School System Monthly Enrollment Reports, Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution, March 2012. 76 Ohio Central School System Monthly Enrollment Reports, DRC institutions, March 2012. CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 36 were complimented by their administration for their creativity in finding ways to accomplish many goals with few resources.

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 Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution was rated acceptable for outcome measures and on-site observations.

Outcome Measures: In FY 2011, ending June 2011, there were 19 inmates who received a GED at the Allen Oakwood facility, amounting to 8.2 percent of the 232 inmates enrolled year to date in academic courses. In comparison, at all institutions serving as Level 1/2 institutions during the same time period, there was an average of 14.2 percent of academically enrolled inmates who received the GED.77 The percentage of GED completers at Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution is approximately 57.8 percent of the average realized in all Level 1/2 institutions, which is an indicator for need of improvement. In addition to GEDs passed, there were 126 inmates at Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution who completed and received a certificate in an academic or vocational program in FY 2011.

On-Site Observation: During the inspection, a member of the CIIC inspection team observed the following program: GED language arts. Key findings included a well-managed classroom in which all inmates were participating and interacting with the content and the instruction. Numerous instructional strategies were observed and the proximity of students to teacher created an environment conducive to group instruction with individualized emphasis. The GED class has a copyrighted curriculum at its disposal. Inmates were completing guided seatwork, followed by individualized instruction at the teacher’s desk. Students were very responsive and engaged in the learning process. Observations of the classroom instruction indicated an excellent rating.

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. Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated the Library at Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution as EXCELLENT, with no concerns noted.

Facilities

The Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution library’s primary location on the Allen facility campus was inspected by CIIC staff and found to be well-organized. Smaller satellite library provisions are reportedly located within C Unit. The inspected library was a bright, clean area with stacks of books around the perimeter and on multiple shelves within the interior of the room. The security desk is located immediately outside the library entrance, making it convenient to manage the number of inmates who may enter the library. The library staff

77 Ohio Central School System Monthly Enrollment Reports, DRC Institutions, June 2011. CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 37 includes two full-time librarians who serve both the Allen library and the Oakwood library. There are 12 inmates assigned to work in the library as library aides. There are nine computers and three typewriters available for inmate use. The three typewriters are slated for removal and replacement with personal computers.

Materials

The Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution library currently maintains a collection of approximately 15,448 total items.78 During March 2012, inmates frequented the library 3,038 times and generated 5,001 transactions of materials. The average per visit use of library materials for March 2012 was 1.65 items.79

The per capita availability of library materials, based on the institution’s total inmate population of 1,285 inmates and the total number of 15,448 items in the general library in March 2012 was 12.02 items per inmate.80

The library includes more than 700 ethnic-based publications for African-Americans and nearly 200 Hispanic items. Ethnic materials are kept on dedicated shelves for easy retrieval. An inter- library loan system is reportedly used every month. In March 2012, inmates made 165 requests through the inter-library loan system.81

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.

The Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution library was open for a total of approximately 137.3 hours during the month of March 2012.82 There were reportedly 3,038 inmate visits to the library during March 2012. There were reportedly 17,523 inmates cumulatively served by the library during visits for the six month period from October 2011 through March 2012.

An inmate on C Unit relayed a concern to CIIC staff on-site regarding access. Protective Control inmates on C Unit may encounter difficulties with access due to the security management needs of the population. However, the inmate made a suggestion that a side room not in use be converted into a library specifically for inmates on that unit (East 2), thereby avoiding the security concerns.

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

78 Library Monthly Report, Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution, March 2012. 79 Ibid. This calculation was based on a population of 1,285 inmates and 3,038 visits to the library. 80 Library Monthly Report, Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution. March 2012. 81 Ibid. 82 Ibid. CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 38

C. RECREATION

Recreation is an important component of inmates’ daily life, providing positive interpersonal interactions and a constructive means of stress release. CIIC’s evaluation of recreation within a correctional setting focuses on three areas: facilities, activities, and access. Overall, CIIC rated recreation at Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution as ACCEPTABLE, with the only concern being access on C Unit, which may be unavoidably restricted due to the security needs of the inmate population.

Facilities

Allen Oakwood Correctional Facility has two separate recreation areas, due to the separate compounds. A CIIC staff person inspected the recreational area on C Unit (formerly Oakwood Correctional Facility), which included a gymnasium, an arts and crafts room, and a weightlifting room. The equipment in the gymnasium, which included an elliptical machine and a treadmill, appeared to be new. The weightlifting equipment, while clearly used, appeared clean and functional. Several inmates were involved in woodworking in the arts and crafts room; staff relayed that the institution uses a chit system to ensure tool accountability.

Activities

Staff relayed that the institution offers a variety of activities for inmates, including intramural teams across both compounds in softball, handball, horseshoes, volleyball, putt putt golf, bocce ball, and cornhole, among others. In addition, the institution offers groups for weightlifting and an obstacle course. There are approximately 17 bands involved in a music association and approximately 200 inmates involved in arts and crafts programs.

Access

Access to recreation was a concern raised by inmates in C Unit. As the unit includes both general population and protective control inmates, who cannot recreate together, as well as inmates with separations due to personal safety issues, recreation may be severely limited. Staff relayed that they do provide activities to all inmates as they are able.

One inmate relayed on-site a suggestion that the institution open the recreation yard on C Unit and allow protective control inmates to use it.

Access to recreation is also a concern at Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution due to the high number of mentally ill inmates. Staff relayed that Activity Therapy Specialists work with RTU inmates and that the inmates are still able to participate in a number of activities, including softball and basketball.

Additional information on recreation at Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution is provided in the inspection checklist in the Appendix.

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 39

SECTION VII. INMATE COMMUNICATION

Inmates interviewed during the inspection were asked what they believed inmates’ biggest concern at the institution was. Of the 113 inmates interviewed, the top three concerns relayed by inmates fell into the following categories: (1) food portions and quality (36 inmates); (2) lack of programs/recreation/activities (20 inmates); and (3) poor quality of medical services (12 inmates). It should be noted that inmates housed in Unit C (the former Oakwood Correctional Facility) primarily had concerns regarding the lack of electricity in the unit, which the Warden relayed that he was working to fix.

In CY 2011, CIIC received 48 contacts from or regarding inmates at Allen Correctional Institution, from which 135 concerns were reported. CIIC also received 15 contacts from or regarding inmates at Oakwood Correctional Facility, from which 32 concerns were reported. Allen Correctional Institution ranked 18th among all DRC institutions for total number of contacts; Oakwood, 27th.83 The top three concerns reported to CIIC regarding Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution were: Health Care (63), Inmate Grievance Procedure (18), and Staff Accountability (13).

Chart 9 2011 CIIC Contacts with Institutional Breakdown (DRC)84

300

250

200

150

100

48 50 15

0

TCI

PCI SCI

ACI

CCI NCI RCI

GCI

MCI

WCI

RICI

HCF

OSP OCF

LeCI CRC

LoCI ToCI

BeCI

CMC

MaCI

NCCI ORW

LorCI

FPRC

SOCF

LaECI

ManCI

NCCTF NEPRC Level Level Level Reception Special DCI/MEPRC Center 1/2 3 4/5

83 CIIC Database of Contacts and Concerns, January 1, 2011- December 31, 2011. 84 Ibid. CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 40

The following chart provides a breakdown of the top three reported concerns regarding both the former Allen Correctional Institution and Oakwood Correctional Facility in CY 2011.

Chart 9 Breakdown of Top Three Reported Concerns (Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution)85 CY 2011 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Inmate Staff Health Grievance Accountability Care Procedure

85 Ibid. CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 41

SECTION VIII. APPENDIX

A. FULL LIST OF MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 42

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 43

B. SCHEDULES

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 44

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 45

C. DATA TABLES

Table 1. Inspector’s Report (Allen Correctional Institution) CY 2011 Grievance Numbers Total Number of Grievances Filed During Year 342 Total Number of Inmates Who Filed Grievances During Year 180 Highest Number of Grievances Filed by Single Inmate 45

Grievances on Hand at Beginning of This Period 9 Grievances Received during this period 342 Total 351

Grievances Completed During This Period 347 Grievances on Hand at End of This Period 4 Total 351

ICR Summary Number of Informal Complaints Received 882 Number of Informal Complaint Responses Received 865 Number of Informal Complaint Responses Untimely 121

Granted W B O Total Granted – Problem Corrected 5 1 0 6 Granted – Problem Noted, Correction Pending 8 3 0 11 Granted – Problem Noted, Report/Recommendation to the Warden 1 1 0 2 Subtotal Granted 14 5 0 19

Denied Denied – No Violation of Rule, Policy, or Law 38 7 0 45 Denied – Staff Action Was Valid Exercise of Discretion 106 48 2 156 Denied – Insufficient Evidence to Support Claim 49 33 2 84 Denied – False Claim 1 1 0 2 Denied – Failure to Use Informal Complaint Procedure 5 2 0 7 Denied – Not within the Scope of the Grievance Procedure 16 12 0 28 Denied – Not within Time Limits 2 1 0 3 Subtotal Denied 217 104 4 325

Withdrawn at Inmate’s Request 3 0 0 3

Pending Disposition 1 0 0 1 TOTALS 235 109 4 348 Percent 67.5 31.3 1.2 100 Extensions CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 46

14-Day Extensions 2 28-Day Extensions 0 Total 2

Table 2. Inspector’s Report (Oakwood Correctional Facility) CY 2011 Grievance Numbers Total Number of Grievances Filed During Year 74 Total Number of Inmates Who Filed Grievances During Year 28 Highest Number of Grievances Filed by Single Inmate 11

Grievances on Hand at Beginning of This Period 0 Grievances Received during this period 74 Total 74

Grievances Completed During This Period 73 Grievances on Hand at End of This Period 1 Total 74

ICR Summary Number of Informal Complaints Received 303 Number of Informal Complaint Responses Received 302 Number of Informal Complaint Responses Untimely 73

Granted W B O Total Granted – Problem Corrected 0 0 0 0 Granted – Problem Noted, Correction Pending 4 0 0 4 Granted – Problem Noted, Report/Recommendation to the Warden 0 0 0 0 Subtotal Granted 4 0 0 4

Denied Denied – No Violation of Rule, Policy, or Law 7 1 0 8 Denied – Staff Action Was Valid Exercise of Discretion 20 2 0 22 Denied – Insufficient Evidence to Support Claim 15 7 0 22 Denied – False Claim 2 0 0 2 Denied – Failure to Use Informal Complaint Procedure 0 0 0 0 Denied – Not within the Scope of the Grievance Procedure 9 4 0 13 Denied – Not within Time Limits 2 0 0 2 Subtotal Denied 55 14 0 69

Withdrawn at Inmate’s Request 0 0 0 0

Pending Disposition 1 0 0 1 CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 47

TOTALS 60 14 0 74 Percent 81.1 18.9 0 100 Extensions 14-Day Extensions 1 28-Day Extensions 1 Total 2

Table 3. Use of Force with Racial and Monthly Breakdown (Allen Correctional Institution) CY 2011 Black White Other Total January 1 2 0 3 February 1 4 0 5 March 0 1 0 1 April 3 1 0 4 May 1 3 0 4 June 3 6 0 9 July 5 8 0 13 August 3 1 0 4 September 3 1 0 4 October 4 4 0 8 November 6 5 0 11 December 1 4 0 5 Total 31 40 0 71

Table 4. Use of Force with Racial and Monthly Breakdown (Oakwood Correctional Facility) CY 2011 Black White Other Total January 4 16 0 20 February 3 19 0 22 March 3 10 1 14 April 2 16 0 18 May 1 17 0 18 June 0 2 0 2 July 3 3 0 6 August 2 3 0 5 September 0 1 0 1 October 0 2 0 2 November 4 3 0 7 December 1 2 0 3 Total 23 94 1 118

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 48

Table 5. Use of Force with Racial Breakdown (Allen Correctional Institution) CY 2011 Black White Other Total Use of Force Incidents 31 40 0 71 Percentage 43.7 56.3 0 100

Action Taken on Use of Force Incidents: Assigned to Use of Force Committee for Investigation 10 17 0 17 Logged as “No Further Action Required” 21 23 0 44 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 0 0 0 0 and extended

Number of extended investigations from previous month that were: Completed 0 0 0 0 Not Completed 0 0 0 0

Table 6. Use of Force with Racial Breakdown (Oakwood Correctional Facility) CY 2011 Black White Other Total Use of Force Incidents 23 94 1 118 Percentage 19.5 79.7 0.8 100

Action Taken on Use of Force Incidents: Assigned to Use of Force Committee for Investigation 4 8 0 12 Logged as “No Further Action Required” 17 86 1 104 Referred to the employee disciplinary process 0 3 0 3 Referred to the Chief Inspector 0 0 0 0

Number of investigations not completed within 30 days 0 0 0 0 and extended

Number of extended investigations from previous month that were: Completed 0 0 0 0 Not Completed 0 1 0 1

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 49

Table 7. Assaults: Inmate on Inmate CY 2009 to CY 2012 YTD Category of Assault 2009 2010 2011 2012 YTD Physical Assault 20 16 21 1 Harassment Assault 2 1 3 0 Sexual Assault 0 1 0 0 Total 22 18 24 1

Table 8. Assaults: Inmate on Staff CY 2009 to CY 2012 YTD Category of Assault 2009 2010 2011 2012 YTD Physical Assault 9 5 9 4 Harassment Assault 3 7 1 1 Inappropriate Contact 1 4 0 0 Sexual 0 2 1 0 Total 13 18 11 5

Table 9. Investigator Monthly Report Summary by Type of Investigation CY 2011 Investigations Cases Initiated Drugs (Staff/Inmate) 15 Drugs (Inmate/Visitor) 5 Drugs (Mail/Package) 2 Drugs (Staff) 0 Drugs (other) 8 Positive Urinalysis 24 Staff/Inmate Relationship 3 Staff Misconduct 6 Assault-(Inmate on Staff) 4 Assault (Inmate on Inmate) 16 Sexual Assault (Inmate on Inmate) 6 Other: 47 Background Investigations 4 Total 140

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 50

D. INSPECTION CHECKLISTS

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 51

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 52

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 53

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 54

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 55

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 56

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 57

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 58

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 59

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 60

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 61

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 62

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 63

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 64

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 65

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 66

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 67

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 68

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 69

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 70

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 71

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 72

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 73

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 74

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 75

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 76

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 77

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 78

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 79

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 80

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 81

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 82

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 83

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 84

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 85

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 86

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 87

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 88

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 89

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 90

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 91

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 92

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 93

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.

CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 94

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. CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 95

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. CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 96

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 CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 97

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. CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 98

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 CIIC Report: Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution 99

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