I
DocdnENT RESUME
ED 209 425 CE 029 723
AUTHOR Friel, Charles R.: And Others TITLE Correctional Data Analysis Systems. INSTITUTION Sam Honston State Univ., Huntsville, Tex. Criminal
1 , Justice Center. SPONS AGENCY Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. Bureau of Justice Statistics. PUB DATE 80 GRANT D0J-78-SSAX-0046 NOTE 101p.
EDRS PRICE MF01fPC05Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Computer Programs; Computers; *Computer Science; Computer Storage Devices; *Correctional Institutions; *Data .Analysis;Data Bases; Data Collection; Data Processing; *Information Dissemination; *Iaformation Needs; *Information Retrieval; Information Storage; Information Systems; Models; State of the Art Reviews
ABSTRACT Designed to help the-correctional administrator meet external demands for information, this detailed analysis or the demank information problem identifies the Sources of teguests f6r and the nature of the information required from correctional institutions' and discusses the kinds of analytic capabilities required to satisfy . most 'demand informhtion requests. The goals and objectives of correctional data analysis systems are ontliled. Examined next are the content and sources of demand information inquiries. A correctional case law demand'information model is provided. Analyzed next are such aspects of the state of the art of demand information as policy considerations, procedural techniques, administrative organizations, technology, personnel, and quantitative analysis of 'processing. Availa4ie software, report generators, and statistical packages are covered in a discussion of report generation and canalysis of technology. Also described are the systemi transfer technology available for contemporary corrections and transrerAble \demand information technologies.ftRecommendations are made concerning \the following areas: the OBCIS data base as a solgtion to the demand information problem, demand information administrative policy, automating agency polidy, automating program descriptions, software n4 dc, communication problems, dirty data, use of computers in litigation, technology transfer, personnel turnover, and negotiation of demand information,requests. (MN)
***********************************************************************
* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made ,* * from the original document. * *********************4*************************************************
"1" U.S. Department of Justice Bureau (I:Justice Statistics
El!MEM=11111, Correctional Data Analysis Systems
Prepared for Bureau of Justice Statistics U.S. Department Of Justice , Under Grant No. 78-SS-AX-0046
by Charles M. Friel Harriett J. Allic Barbara L. Hart James B..Moore
Criminal Justice Center Sarii.Houston State University Huntsville, Texas 1980
U S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 'PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION MATE) IAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER IERIC) This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organ nation G,EFITAL- ordpnating 41 Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction nuaktV
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES (foods of view of ,p1mons stated in pus docu INFORMATION CENTER IEFIIC) ment do not necessanly represent MLA-sal MC position of policy . 4 Bureau of Justice Statistics Reports The Police and Public Opinion = A Trends in Expenditure and Employment Data Of ViCtunization and Attitude Data frorrr !or the Criminal Justice System. 1971.77 Single copies are available al no charge from the 13 American Cities NCJ 42018 rannualt NCJ-57463 National Criminai Justice Reference Service, Box An Introduction ta the National Crime Expenditure andEmployment Data for the 6000, Rockville, Md. 20850 Multiple copies are for Survey. NCJ-43732 Criminal Justice Systeni (annoall sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S Compensating Victims of Violent Crime 1978 Summary Honor' NeJ hh4(3,3 Government Printing Office, Washington, D.0 Potential Costs and Coverage of a Nati.inai 1978 final report NCJ 664d? 20402 Program NCJ 43387 --A 1977 fm,11 report NCJ 53206 Crime Against Persons in Urban. Suburban. and Rural Areas: A Comparative Analysis of National Crime Survey: Vu timization Rates NCJ53551 Dictionary of Criminal Justice Oats. Terminology. Criminal Victimization In the United States Rape Victimization In 26 American Ci:ies. Tel ins and Defimtioris Pi upoSed to, 'nfcrstati, (annuall NCJ-55878 and National Data Colter ion and Excnange Summary Finolngs.nt 1977 78 Cri
t'j !
U.S. negareost it Judea kraal et Andes Statistics Benjamin-H. Renshaw, III Acting Director a
;
Preface a
0 This documenl was prepared for the Bu- One qf tne most critical resources in con- reau of Justice Statistics, United States temporary corrections is information. Departinent of Justice under Grant Num- Many of the nation's correctional institu- ber 78-SS-AX-0046, awarded to the Crimi- tions are as complex and rapidly growing nal Justice Cefiter of Sam Houston State as many of our cities. Correctional admin- University, Huntsville, Texas. Points of istrators must receive, classify, house, view and opinions stated herein are those clothe, feed, educate, treat, and rehabilitate of the iuthors and do not necessarily rep- hundreds'of thousands of prisoners every resent the official position or policies of the year. To do this in the most efficient, hu- . United States Department of Justice or matI'e, and cost-beneficial manner requires .Sam Houston State University. information: information for managing, The Bureau of Justice Statistics author- planning, monitoring, evaluation, and re- izes any perstT to reproduce, publish, trans- search. late, or otherwise use all or any part of the In addition to the internal need for in- copyrighted material in this publication, formation, corrections finds itself deluged ( with the exception of those items indicating with demands for information tcom exter- that they are copyrighted by or reprinted nal organizations and individuals..Federal with permission of any source other than agencies frequently request statistical infor- the Criminal Justice Center. mation for inclusion in national publica- tions. State legislatures are interested in the impact of changes in statutory and proce- dural law on the number and types of indi- Copyright 1980 viduals within the correctional system. The Criminal Justice Center Governors frequently request statistical in- Sam Houston State University formation pursuant to budgetary requests. With the evolution of correctional case law, the courts increasingly require administra- tors to produce .Voluminousvamouhts of information needed in civil litigation. These external demands for information are becoming a perplexing.problem for the dmihistrator since the volume and varrety of requests seem to be increasing every year. While many states have developed sophis- ticated computer systems to satisfy internal management needs, these system's are not necessarily responsive to external demands for information. Even with the most ad- vanced automated capability, many agen- cies find that they must manually compile detailed statistical information'if they are to satisfy demand requests in a timely and accurate manner. Cognizant of this ever-growing problem, the Bureau of Justice Statistics awarded a grant to the Criminal Justice Center at Sam IHouston State University to investigate the nature of the demand information prob- lem and identify; technologies that could be utilized in resolving this difficulty. The CDAS Project (Correctional Data Analy- 4 sis Systems) was designed with several pur- poses in mind. The first objective was to identify the frequency, source, and content
it 0
c.. a
1
of the demand information requests received ages was cdnducted using criteria which are John D. Spevacek by the nation's correctional institutions and relevant to the correctional environment, National Institute of Justice to determine the impact of these requests Some agenCies have developed useful au- The authors also wish to thank the ad- oar correctional resources. A second objec- tomated technologies for resolving the de- ministratompf each of the nation's 52 cor- tive.was to determine the procedures used mand information p ;oblem. Since these rectional systems and their stalls, who pro- by various correctional agencies in process- technologies could be transferred to other vided substantial assistance in identifying ing demand information requests and iden- correctional environments, a .critique ofthe nature of the demand information phe- \ tify thosirith a high potential for transfer. transfer technology was cond ucted. Included nomena and procedures and technologies The information and technologies pre- in this analysis is identification of the key for resolving the problem. sented in this report should prove useful to issues to be considered in the successful The project bcnefitted greatly. from a the correctional administrator struggling transfer of correctional technology. Check- number of correctional lawyers who assist- with the demand information problem. A lisis. of critical issues and questions were ed in the development of the Correctional detaiftd analysis Of the demand informa- .developed to assure that adequate consid- Case Law Demand Information Model. tion problem is presented; identifying the eration is given to all the key elements inRichard Crane did an outstanding job in sources of such requests and the nature of the transfer decision includirfg.ardware,developing the concept ()lithe Correctional the information required. In, addition, use- software, documentation, p mance, Case Law Modelresearching cases, devel- ful information is prmided on the kinds of and user concerns. oping the case summaries and identifying -analytic capabilities required to satisfy most Finally, a number of the transferable trends. Other attorneys who provided in- demand information requests. technologies now used by correctional agen- valuable assistance include Rolando del Since the demand information requests cies in processing demand information re- Carmen of the Criminal Justice Center, Rob- emanating from the courts are some ofthe quests are identified and described. Inter- ert DeLong of the Texas Department of most critical ones received by the.correc- ested,correctional administrators may find Corrections, and Leonard Peck of the Of- tional administrator, an extensive analysis that man:, of these technologies can be easi- fice of Attorney General, State of Texas. of correctional case law was conducted. ly transferred and substantially reduce the Seth I. Hirshorn of fhe University of HundredVof cases were identified and cat- costly and time-consuming problem of han- Michigan was extremely helpful in prepar- egorized on the bases of common jurispru- dling demand information requests. ing the comparative analysis of report gen- dential eleMents. Twenty areas Of correc- The authors wish to express their appre- eration and statistical software packages, fionalcase law ate described, with summary ciation ta. the many individuals who con- and Mitchell Joelson and Lance Wilson.of statements about the courts' rulings abstract- tributed to the CDAS Project. The CDAS the Minneapolis Crime Prevention Center ed. Analysis of.these case law summaries Advisory Council was most helpful in clari-pfbvided a number of practical suggestions led to the development of trend statements fying the initial objectives of the project about the transfer of demand information suggesting the likely direction of future court and critiquing yarious observations and technologies from one correctional institu- deciSions. An information requirements conclusions. The Advisory Council mem- tion to another. analysis was then conducted to determine bets included: Special appreciation is extended to Ber- the specific data elements that should be Tom G. Crago nard Shipley of the Bureait of Justice Sta- included in any correctional information Colorado Department of Corrections tistics. Mr. Shipley served as contract moni- system to assist the agency in defending Rolando del Carmen tor for the project and was extremely helpful itself in civil litigation or toshow compliance Criminal Justice Center throughout all phases of the research. with existing court orders. Sam Houston State University Personnel of the Texas Department of To better understand how agencies deal fichael A. Hagstad Corrections were most helpful throughout with the demand information problem, 17 D. C: Department of Corrections the project, especially Lonnie Eslick, Di- correctional systems were studied to deter- Terrell Don Hutto rector of Data Processing and Ron Taylor. mine how they receive, process, and respond Commissioner, Virginia Department of Cor- Assistant Director for Treatment. to requests. These field visits suggested rections The authors are also deeply indebted to many ways that correctional institutions Allen H. Lammers Nancy Walker, who prepared the final re- might improvejheir demand information SEARCH Group, Inc. port and provided the vital secretarial and processing and also indicated the types of Miehael 0. Lowther administrative support so necessary in bring- technologies currently used by some cor- Oklahoma State Planning Agency ing the project to a successful conclusion. rectionatagencies that could be transferred Mullau Finally, the authots,are particularly grate- to others. For instance, one of the most Nebraska Legislature ful to W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director of the useful technologies in dealing with demand Laurel Rans Texas Department of Corrections, who pro- requests is report generation and statistical Illinois Department of Correction: vided considerable practical insight on deal- analytic software. Because of the potential Amos E. Reed ing with the demand information problem utility of these technologies for corrections, Secretary, North Carolina Department of and the adage that " ... for a rem tech- an extensive analysis of existing report gen- Cdrrections nology to be useful to a correctional man- eration and statistical packages was initiat- Bernard Shipley ager it must either increase effectiveness or ed and a conwative analysis of these pack- Bureau of Justice Statistics 'reduce cost."
iii Correctional agencies, 9 Contents. Universities/students, 10 Citizens/professionals/media, 10 Research and consulting organizations, 10 Preface, ii Institutes/councils/public interest gro'tips, 10 Chapters The analytic structure of demand information request's, 10 1. Correctional data analysis systems: Goals and objectives, I 3. Correctional case law Evolution of demand inforrbation deMand information model, 12 requests, 1 The model, 12 CDAS goals and objectives, 2 Summary and trend itatements, 12 CDAS methodology, 2f Case law compendium, 13 Field survey, 2 Information needs, 13 ' Deinand information and correctional Rules of evidence, 13 case law, 3, Report generation and technology 4. Demand information: State transfer, 3, of the art, 17 CDAS products, 4 Policy considerations, 17 Demand information in corrections 0 (Chapter 2), 4, Procedural techniques, 17 Routing, 18 Correctional case law demand Consolidated request model, 18 information model (Chapter 3), 4 Demand infordation: State of the art Preliminary sorting model, 18 Individualized response model, 18 (Chapter 4), 4 Logg:ni, 19 Report generation and analysis Control of information releases, 19'. technology (Chapter 4 Administrative organization, 19 Systems transfer technology for Technology, 20 contemporary corrections Hardware, 20 (Chapter 6), 4 Software, 20 Transferable demand information Agency data base, 21 technologies (Chapter 7), 4 Personnel, 21 Summary and recommendations Quantitative analysis of processing ° (Chapter 8), 4 capabilities, 22 copulation, 22 2. Deinand information in corrections, 5 OBSCIS membership, 23 Methodology, 5 Use of automation in response Content of demand inforMation process, 23 inquiries, 6 Summary, 24 Inmate inquiries, 6 Policy, 24 Demographic characteristics, 6 Procedure, 24 Charges and sentences, Administrative organization, 24 Inmate status, 7 Technology, 24 Impact/effects on inmates, 7 Personnel, 24 Institutional programs, 7 'Agency policies and procedures, 8 5. Report generation and Administrative and fiscal analysis technology, 25 information, 8 Generalizations about the Available software, 25 Report generators, 26 r, contents of requests, 8 Statistical packages, 32 Sources:ofdemand,information Conclusions, 35 inquiries, 8 Governmental agencies, 9 State executive agencies, 9 Social service agencies, 9 Federal government, 9 The legislature, 9 The judiciary, 9
iv 3 6. Systems transfer technology Appendixes le 7.7 Computerized master index; , for contemporary corrections, 38 A. Topics covered in the on-site Oregon Division of Corrections, 50 p Key concepts for system transfer, 38 visits, 62 7.8 Computerized index to volume Documentation, 38 B. Case law compendium, 63 on rules, Standards, 39 C. Frequency distribution of institutional Oregon Division of Corrections, 51 Performance evaluations, 39 characteristics, 92 7.9 Activity report, Minnesota System design for transfer- Department of Corrections, 52 ability, 39 Exhibits Users,-39 Tables Systems to be transferred, 40 3.A Correctional case law,clemand Programs transfer, 40 inforMation model, 14 2.1Content categories of demand Data transfir, 40 5.A Report generation assessment information, 6 -Administrative procedure criteria, 36 transfer; 40." 2.2 Source categories of demand 5.B Statistical package assessment information,- 9 Systems transfer considerations, 41 criteria, 36 . Hardware, 41 3.1Directory of major issue areas: 5.0 Summary of findings, 36 Software, 42 Correctional case law demand Documentation, 42 5.D Report generator software ' information model, 13 Performance, 43 packages, 37 4:I Comparison to the access to Users, 43 5.E General-purpose statistical information systems with the Su inmary,43* packages, 37 utilizalion Of automation in 6.A Hardware, 416 responding toad hocrequests, 20 7. Transferable demand if?B Software -s,`42 4.2 Size of population compared with information technologies; 45 6.0 Documentation, 42 technical obstacles, 23 Reports designed forad hoc 6.D 1Yerformaike, 43 response, 45 - 4.3 Size of population compared with 6.E User, 43 personnel obstacles, 23 Routing and logging models; 48 6.F Bibliography, 44 Autornated policy indexing system, 50 4.4 OBSCIS memberships and techno. ----.Statistical analysis and report Figures logical obstacles, 23 generation software, 51 4.5 Software and the use of automation Model data bases, 52 2.1Cross-tabulation of two inmate for response, 23 Litigation and automated data factors, 11 4.:6Information system access and use processing, 57 of automation, 24 TranSfer experience, 57 3.1Correctional case law demand information model, 13 5.1 Typology of software/packages, 26 S. Summary and recommendations, 58 5.1Data base /software interface, 25 5.2 Software packages available in Nature of the problem, 58 6.1 Computer components involved departments of corrections, by Extent of the problem, 58 in transfer, 40 jurisdiction, 1979, 27 Source, content and analytic 6.2 Hardware-dependent components 5.3 Software packages available or in structure of demand Of transfer; 40 use in departments of corrections, information requests, 58 6.3 Elements of program(s) 1979, 27 The courts and demand information, 58 transfer, 40 5.4- Report generatorcomparisons A model system, 58 6.4 Transfer of data, 40 -file creation and management, 28 OBSCIS as a solution to the demand 6.5 Matrix'for system transfer 5.5 Report generator comparisons information problem, 58 - programming, 29 Demand information administrative considerations, 43 policy, 59 7.1Population report, Oregon 5.6 RepOrt generator comparisons Automating agency policy, 59 Corrections Division, 45 - analytic capabilities, 29 Automating program descriptions, 59 7.2 A portion of the "fact sheet" 5.7 Report generator comparisons- Computers: Problems and solutions, 59 from the Texas Department of output, 30 Software needs, 59 Corrections, 46 ,5.8 Report generator comparisons- Communication problem?, 60, 7:3 Demand information requesi form training and 'support, 30 Dirty data, 60 used by Minnesota 5.9 Report generator comparisons- Use of computers in litigation, 60 Department of Corrections, 48 acquisition and costs, 30 Technology transfer as a future 7.4 Example of output from the 5.10 Statistical package comparison solution, 60 -file creation, editing, and Personnel turnover, 60 automated logging system, Negotiation of demand information . Georgia Department of Offender management, 32 requests,151 Rehabilitation, 49 5.11 Statistical package comparison Summary, 61' 7.5 Heading from the "Information - analytic capabilties, 33 Request Log," South Carolina 5.12 Statistical package comparison Department of Corrections, 48 -output, training, and support, 33 7.6 Heading fromithe log of the 5.13 Statistical package comparison director's correspondence, -hardware compatibility and California Department of costs, 34 Corrections, 49
v 7 siderable Palk attenlion..T.hus, many de- _Chapler1 mand information requests are received. / To satisfy all requests is a time-consuming 0. and laborious process. To refuse to respond is to alienate interested parties. -Where do you draw the line? Who is a legitimate in- quirer and who is licot? How much of the Correctionbl data anal#als systeths: agency's limited resources can be dedicated Goals and' objectives to answering such requests? Should the \agency's information system be'redesigned Upgraded so that it can respond to deinandinformation requests in a .more timely and efficient manner? If this were done, is the pattern of demand information requests received now typical of those that mightbe received five years from now? Is Consider some of the requests for infor- concerned professional organizations, andthe source of inquiries predictable? Can we mation that come across a correctional ad- other, correctional, institutions. Some candetermine what the future topics of inquiry ministrator's desk. be answered quickly by forwarding a copymight be? In short, can we anticipate the., of the agency's annual repOrt.0thers re-unanticipatable? Dear Sir: " quire information that is not routinely kept Our department is currently upgrading its cor- rectional education and.vocational training pro- by correctional agencies and. require hun- Evolution of demand! grams. Wouldyou be so kind as to share with us dreds, even thousands, ofmanshours to Information requests the following items of informition ... compile. Someinquirers, such as the gov- ernor,the legislature, the courts, havc'both In times past, corrections was oneof the Dear Sir. . a need to know and right todemand such most isolated components of the criminal Otir research center is conducting a study on the effectiveness of prerelease programs on t1:: information. In other cases, however, kis,justice system. In facnuntil recently we did inmates' adiptatiA when released from prison. difficult to determine-whetherthetime andvnot even conceive orthe justice process as a Could you provide us with the following infor- expense in preparing a response is trulysystem. Correctionifinstitutions were usu- mation ... justified. ally constructed in rural areas and were For purposes of discussion, these unan- bOth physically and mentally out of the Civil Action File Number 24-137B Alvarez vs. Thornbefry ticipated requests for information have beer public's eye. Of course, even then correc-' TO:0 Commissioner Wilson Thornberry calleddemand information requests.The tional administrators received an occasional Commissidner of Corrections thing that sets them apart from other re- demand information request, but certainly State Department of Correctipns quests for information is that they are un- nothing like theituitiber and variety rexeived You are hereby commanded to appear in the anticipated and usually emanate from sources today. It might be fair to say that correc- XXXth U. S. District Court on the fourteenth outside de.correctional institutiorl. tions has undergone a rvolution in the last day of March, 1980, at 9:00 A.M. to testify on The correctional agency itself is a great 15 years or so. No longer an isolated ap- behalf of the defense in the above entitled action consumer of information. The administra- pendage of the justice system, corrections is and bring with you certified copies of the follow- tor, unit managers, and progratn directors now the object of considerable concern and ing medical recordfincluding routinely require information for Monitor- controversy in many corners of society. Dear §ir: ing,planning, and evaluation. Their infor- The rapid increase of crime and delin- As an interested citizen, I would like some mation needs are relatively easy to identify, quency in thel 960s made crime a primary facts and figures on the Department of Coffee- usually documented, and frequently an in- political issue. In 1965, President Johnson ,tions. In particular, I am interested in ... ° tegral part of the agency's information sys-° createdthe Commission on Law Enforcement c DearSi,: trm. What bedevils corrational and the Administration of Justice' and man- The Department of Human Resources is cur- trators, however, isresponding to the dated that this Commission look into all rently conducting a survey of the various treat- unanticipated requests that emanate from aspects of the Problem of crime and justice ment programs offered in federal and state cor- outside the institution. Even the most c!ev- and develop appropriate recommendations. rectional institutions Could you please provide erly designed correctional information sys- Their report on corrections was not partic- this of ice.with . tems cannot anticipate every conceivable ularly flattering and it drew the field of Dear Sir: request. Generally, systems are designed to corrections from its bucolic setting into the Attached is a questionnaire that several of my meet the perceived and anticipated nfor- light of public concern.2 As crime increased, colleagues and I designed to assess morale prob- matnit demands which emanate from With- so did arrests, and correctional populations lems among correctional employees. Would you in the institution. What is particularly frus- expanded rapidly.' Controversy developed please distribete the attached questionnaires to trating for a correctional administrator who over how prisons should be administered your staff and also share with us information expended significant resources in the de- orwhetherprisonsshould exist at all. Debates 6n . velopment of an information system, is to ensued over custody versus treatment, recid- Dear Sir: have it come to a standstill when unantici; ivism rates, design and operation of prison I will soon introduce the attached bill (S 243) paced demands ate received from the legis- facilities, and ultimately led to the complex amending the sate's parole eligibility law Would lathre, the governor's office, and other and continuing controversy overpnsoners' you have youstaff assess the impact of this important inquirers. Frequently, these re- rights. legislation on your current inmate population questsdo not, fit the design configuration of Probably a ripple effect of the civil rights and . exist;ng correctional information syitems movement of the early 60s, increasing num- Theseand thousands of other requests and, to respond in a timely and reliable bers of inmates complained to the federal, for information are received every year by fashion, correctional agencies must assem- courts about film care and treatment. In- the nation's prison administrators. Some ble the information by hand, a time -con- terested federal judges began to hear these of them are frivolous and poorly conceived suming and labor-intensiVe activity. cases, and over the past 10 years there has demands for information. Others are legit- Contemporary corrections finds itself in been a greater evolution in correctional ju- imate requests that come/rom the legisla- an informational dilemma. Correctional risprudencethan occurred within the first ture, the governor's' office, the courts, institutions are currently the focus of con- 194years of our history. -
. 8 , 2 Correctional data analysis systems
As a result of these and other social fir& requests and identify analytic technologies how are these various functions organized tors contemporary corrections is clearly which .yould assist correctional agencies in-within the department?' the limelight of public concern and this satisfying these requests. More specifically, What kind of human and technical re: concern has bi.ought on an onslaught of the objectives of the project were to sources doesthe department have to respond demaad information requests from widely Identify the frequency, source, and con- to demand information requests? varying sources covering almost every con- tent of the demand. information requests Are requests and replies centrally logged ceivable topic. And unfortunately, as the received by correctional agencies. andilledsso thatonecan statistically enu- number, source, and content of these re-Determine the impact of these requests merate the frequency, source, and content . quests increase, the capability of correc- on correctional resources. of these requests? tional,administrators to respond declines. Identify and describe the procedures used To what degree is automation used in re- I by correctional agencies to respond to de- sponding to demand information requests? CDAS ggals and objectives mand information requests. Is it necessary to use outside resources to ldentify existing correctional procedures respond to these requests such as the data As the philosophic and social currents of and technologies used in dealing with de- processing (abilities of a nearby university?
. the times have changed, the correctionalmand infoimation requests which have a What administrative, fiscal, or technical community has not bes:p idle. Over the past potential for transfer to Other correctional resources are most needed to increase the 10 plass, for example, significant progress agencies. agency's capacity to respond to demand has been made in the development of cor-Identify inforinational procedures and tech- information requests? rectional information andstatistical systems. nologies outside corrections which are ca- In addition to trying to understand the Probably the most unportant development pable of resolving the problems created by nature of the problem and the technologies was -the design and implementation of thedemand information requests which could be needed to resolve it, each agency was asked Offender-Based State Correctional Informa- transferred into the correctional environ- to submit examples of at least 10 demand
tion System (013k1S) designed by SEARCH.ment. . information requests. In some cases, agen- Group, Inc., and`promulgated by the Na- cies.were able to send the last 10, but more .._ \bona!Criminal Justice Information and CDAS methodology commonly, agencies agreed to send copies Statistics So/vice of the Law Enforcement of the next 10 requests they received. In all, Assistance Administration (LEAA), now The first step in understanding the de- 543 qamples of demand information re- the Bureau of Justice Statistics.' OBSCIS is mand information problem involved a re- quests were submitted by all 52 of the na- a mar agement and information system de- view of the literature. This was a rather tion's correctional systems. These requests signe'd to provide, correctional administra- fruitless undertaking since little has been were.subsequently analyzed to determine tors basic information on die inmates under written on the subject. The few articles op their source, the nature ofthe information their care. This systedi includes the follow- the topic suggest that demand inrormation solicited, and the types of analytic prOce- ing eight modules of information: is a new rather than perennial problem, in dhres that would be required in answering' Admissions information corrections spurred on by the relatively re- the inquiry.' Assessment information centtp.tiiiatterest in the care and treat- The demand information requests received 'Institutional information ment.of offenders,1 Virtually no information are called examples,.not a sample. Since Parole information was found on the incidence of the problem, most correctional agencies do not maintain Movement status information nor on the source or content of 'demand a centralized chronological log of demand Legal status information information requests. information requests, it was not possible to Management and research information The paucity of the literature suggests that acquire a scientific sample of the requests National reporting information. if one is to understand the - problem, it it received by agencies throughout ihe.United While OBSCIS has prov..cho be an effec- necessary to go wffikre the problem exists States. Instead, thebest that could be achieved tive informational tool for correctional namely, correctional institutions. Therefore, was to ask for the last ten or next ten. re- managers, it does not necessarily resolve a letter was written to the administrator of quests received. Thus, generalizations made their demand wformation problem. Inter- each state correctional system plus the ad- about the source, content, and analytic is- estingly enougr it is not that OBSCIS does ministrators of the Federal Bureau of Pris-sues involved in satisfying demand infor- not contain the correct data elements. on ons and the Department of Corrections of-mation requests must be made with caution the contrary, the problem is extracting the the District ofColumbia. The letter explained since they are not ba..ed upon a random data in a format that fits demand informa- the ptirPose of the project and asked each sample drawn from the population of all tion requests. For example, most correc- administrator to identify the one individual demand information requests. tional agencies can provide information on within the institution responsible for or most the age, race, and sex of those individuals familiar with the demand information prob- Field survey under their care. What perplexes many sys- .lem. To better understand how agencies pro- tems is when the inquiret 'recii.eSts a fre- As responses were received, telephone cess demand information requests and to quenLy distribution ofall prisoners involved calls were made to the designated individu- assess existing technologies involved in the in disciplinary actions by age, race, and sex. al in each of the nation's 52 corre-tional process, site visits were planned with rep- Again, while OBSCIS can provide some organizations. The purpc.;c of these tele- resen tativeCorrectional agencies. Prior tele- information on the flow of offenders through phone inquiries was to gat her basic infor-phone conversations and agency annual the institution, it is not designed tocouple mation about the demand information prob- reports suggested that the fifty-two correc- inmate data with fiscal data facilitating lem. Discussions were conducted along thetional systems varied in both the number of r.nswers to such questions as what is the following lines: 4. demand information requests received and differential cost of housing minimum ver- How are requests for demand informa- the level of technological sophistication sus maximum security prisoners, or the cost tion received by the institution? Are they available to satisfy them. To determine benefits of placing different kinds of inmates routed on a subject specific basis to differ- which would be the most fruitful to visit, in certair4inds of treatment or educational ent individuals or is one person responsible each system was classified on the basis of program for answering all the demand informationthe magnitude of its demand information The.purpose of CDAS, "the Correctional requests? problem and the' sophistication of its in- Data Analysis Systems Project, was to :den- Since demand information requests may formational technology, using the following tify current and future demand information involve research, planning, evaluation, and matrix, data processing motions of the institution,
-9. 1
Correciional data analysis systems: Goals and objectives. 3
Table 1 Alabama Minnesota marization of appellate cases affecting cor-4 'California 'Nebraska rectional administration. - Demand infor- 'New Mexico A Case Law Summary in which casts in- % mation problem ' District of Columbia ' Federal Bureau of 'Ohio volving common elements are group to- High Low Prisons Oregtm gethils and suMmary statements a bstr cted. High, 'Florida 'South CarolinaBased upon these summary statements, Technological 'Georgia Case Law Trends were abstracted indicat- Sophistication Low ' Louisiana 'Virginia ing the likely direction of future court deci- Maine Wisconsin' sions. Over a 3-month period the project staffIdentification of the baN informtion that Using preliminary information, each state visited all 17 institutions. The Purpose ofcorrectional institutions ought to maintain was placed in one df four categorie,s as the site visit was to confirm the preliminary in order to defend themselves in civil suits follows: information gathererlduring the telephoneinvolving current jurisprudential issues or *Type A: Fairly sophisticated analytic capa- survey on the nature of.the demand infor-to show compliance with existing court or-. bility yet encounters problems with demand mation pioblem, the source and content ofders. Information requests. requests, and nature of the analytic proce- This research on the body'of correctional *Type B: relatively limited analytic capa- dures involved in responding to demandcase law was initiated by inquiries on the bility and significant do and information information requests. In addition, the siteLEXIS and West Law Systems. With the problems. visits provided a first-hand opportunity -toaid of several correctional law experts, nu- Type C: Relatively sophisticated analytic understand the various ways in which cor- merous cases were identified, su mmarized, capability and little problem with demand rectional agencies receive, route, process,and trend statements abstracted. These trend information. - and respond to de man d information requests. statements were shared with several attor- *Type D: Relatively limiter: analytic capa- The staff enjoyed an opportunity to exam- neys involved in correctional litigation who bility and little problem with demand in- ine various administrative, human, and tech-,assisted in identifying the kinds of informa- formation. nological resources used to respond to re- tion that should be maintained by acoffee- After considering all four types of cor- quests and identify those that had potential tional institution under each area of cor- rectional environments, it seemed worth- for transfer to other correctional institu-rectional case law. while'visiting Types A, B, and C institutions. tions. Appendix A contains a list of the It seemed wise to visit Type A institutions kinds of information sought"during the field Report generation and since even with fairly'sophisticated analytic visits. technology transfer technology, they still akieaitd to have prob- One of the early dikoveries in the CDAS lems in handling demand information re-Demand Information and correctional project Was that a primary difficulty in re- quests. This could be because the number case law sponding to demand information requests of requests received exceeded their analytic One of the most serious aspects of the Was software, not data base. Interestingly, capability or that the'l information systems,demand information problem involves those'a plurality if not a majority of demand. although sophisticated, were never designedrequests which emanate from the courts.' information requests-can be satisfied with to resolve unanticipated requests for infor- Although not the most frequent source of OBSCIS data elements. The problem that mation: demand information requests, those that most .:orrect?onal agencies encounter is hav- TypeB locations, where analytic capabil- do emanate from the courts are probably ing flexible software which will allow them ity is linutedbut demand information prob-the most important informational requests,to query hierarchical files, collect informa- lems significant, would be instructive in un-placed upon the correctional institution. tion on certain prisoners with certain char- derstanding the, types of technologies thatVirtually all correctional systems in the acteristic's and display this information in could be developed or transferred which United States are now involved in one or cross-tabulations which can be immediate- would'help reduce the impact of the prob-more civil suits, and to effectively defend ly understood by an unsophisticated inquir- lem. Type C institutions, those with sophis- the agency in such litigation, large volumes er. The otivious answer to this problem lies ticated analytic capability and little diffi- of unanticipated information must be com- in report generation software which has culty in resolving demand information re-.piled. Because of the unique effect which basic descriptive statistical capability. As a quests, would be likely environments in the correctional case law revolution has result, the CDAS project undertook an ex- which transferrable technologies might be had on correctional administration, a sig- amination and evaluation of existing report found. Presumably, these institutions had nificant portion of the CDAS project was generation packages including both pro- designed their information systems in such dedicated to understanding the impact of prietary ones and those in the Public domain a way that they can efficiently dispOse ofthe courts on the demand information pro- It was also discovered in thetelephone such requests. cess. survey and site visits that some states had ft was decided not to visit Type D institu- Experience with OBSCIS and other cor- developed potentially transferable proce- tions since they received few demand in- rectional information systems indicates that dures and technologips far dealing with de- formation requests and had little tech nok.gy these systems were never designed to antici- mand information requests. With correc- to offer for future transfer. Simply put, such pate the impact of correctional case law on tional populations escalating and budgets institutions did not have a demand infor-correctional administration. However, it is constrained, the future development of cor- mation problem and therefore had not feltcurrently extremely important to ask the rectional information'systems may be more the need to develop specialized procedures question: "What are the current and ex-dependent upon technology transfer than and technologies to resolve the issue. pected trends in correctional case law and stand-alone development. Having classified the fifty-two correction- what impact do these trends have on the Since transfer is more easily said than al systems into these four types and consid- design of current and future correctional done, the CDAS p oject conducted an anal- ering geographical location, inmate popu-information systems?" ysis of the state of the art of technology lation size, and other institional vanables, To answer this question, the CD AS pro- transfer within corrections. The objectives the following locations were selected forject set out to develop a Correctional Case of this investigation were to determine the site visitation: Law Demand Information Model. The ele- critical elements involved in the transfer of ments of tills model include: systems within the correctional community The development of a Case Law Compen- and to develop a checklist of critical ques- dium containing the identification and sum- tions covering the administrative, person- '
.1. 0 . a 4 Correctional data and0sts systems
nel, hardwarc, and Software issues that Must formation should be useful in defending Chapter iTransferable demand tie conSidercd if system transfer is to be the agency under existingjudicitd standards information technologies -- suct eSsful. or in showing compliance with existing court In the process of examining ate demand ordars. information procedures used in various cor- CDAS products rectional systems, successful procedures and Chapter 4Demand information: technologies were discovered which seem The remaining chapters present the re- State of the art to have a high probability ofsuccessful, sults and recdmmendarions of the CDAS This chapter presents the results of the transfer to other correctional institutions. project. Presented belowls aikummary of telephone and field surveys. Essentially, it Chapter 7 identifies and describes transfer- the material provided each chapter. describes the state of the art within theable technologi4 which can be used for routing andlogging 'demand information Chapter 2Denyond information correctional community in pckessingde- in corrections mand information requelts. Delhand infor-requests, automaring7iency policyjtate- mation processing is viewed systematically ments, improvingstatistical and report gen- 4 This chapter presents qualitative and quin- and 'recommendations are made on how eration software, improving data bases, us- tita tive information on the source, content, ing data processim in civil litigation, and and analytic issues involved in the demand agencies can best receive, log, process, and respontto demand information requests. _experience gained by states which have trans- information requests received by correction- ferred correctional information systems. - al institutions. The results indicate that. Interettagly, no correctional agency was found which had a model siitem for resolv- while demand information requests arere- , ingdemand informatioid problems. Some Chapter 8Summary covet a varietyofinquirers, most were found which had developed particu- and recommendations tend tbe governmental agencies, many of larly good procedures for part of the pro- The results of the entire project are sum- them being other cOfrectional institutions. marized in Chapter 8 and a number of spe- In addition the results suggest that the cessing problem. These procedures are de- scribed and recommendations developed. cificrecommendations are presented which most freque nrItinci of request involves the should prove helpful in developing analytic frequency of inmates with specific charac- in addition, -a number of weaknesses in. existing demand information processing capabilities for dealing with demand infor- teristics: Interestingly enough, most of these mation requests, as well as 6perating inquiries can be satisfied by systems con- systems are identified, such as lack of ac- countability for processing demand infor- dures for receiying, routing, and monitoring taining basic OBSCIS data elements. An- such 'requests. In additibri, recommenda- other frequent kind of demand involves mation requests, problems created by data, bases which are not complete, timely, andtions are presented for futuie information- requests for copies of an agency's policies -al development which, if initiated, should and procedures or descriptions of their vo- accurate, inaccessibility of statistical and report generation software,,the absence ofsignificantly enhance the analytic capabili- cational, educational, or treatment programs. ties of thp correctional community. Of .0articular interest was the kind of good logging and routing procedures, and so forth. analytic procedures that would be required F References in answering demand information requests. The results of various statistical analyses are presented, indicating the relationship ' Thehallenire oCrime m a Free Society. A Report In addition to simple lists of programs or of theresides between the nature of the demand informa- e ommission on Law Enforament policies, most of therequired analytic pro- and the Administration of Justice, U.S. Government cedures are simple descriptive statistics. tion problem and degree of technological Printing Office. Washington. D.C.. 196r. Task Force Cross- tabulations Involving frequencies, per- sophistication, population site, personnel Report: Corrections, A Report of the ?resident's Commission on Law EnfOrcement and the centages, proportions, and averages were resources, and other administrative and tech- nological considerations. Administration of Justice. U.S. Government Printing the most frequently requested statistical enu- office. Washingtoo. D.C., 1967. merations. Higher order inferential statis= Prisoners in 5104 and Federal Institutions on De- ticat techniques which are frequenNy found Chapter 5Report generation cember 31, 1971, 1972. and 1913. National Prisoners and analysis technology Sianstics Bulletin. National Cnminal Justice Informa- *it commercially available statistical pack- non and Statistics Seryices. LEAA. U.S. Department of ages far exceed the,a6alytic requirements Since it was found that report generatiun Justice. May. 1975. contained in most demand information re- tehnology could significantly enhance an SEARCH Group. 1scOBSC1S. Offender Based quests. age ncy's capability in dealing with demand State Corrections Information System. Volume 1. The- OBSC:S Approach. SEARCH Group Inc.. Sacramen- information requests, Chapter 5 presents to, Col.fornia. 1975. Chapter 3Correctional case law an overview and critique of existing report The term "demand informatton was corned by the demand l formation model generation and statistical software packages. autors of Corrections, A Report of the National Advi- The del presented in this chapter These technologies are Identified, described, iory ('oipmission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. should be very useful to correctional ad- and compared with respect to a variety of U.S. Department pf Jistice. 1973. See r.lso Harland ministrators. correctional attorneys, and cor- criteria relevant to correctional inforMation Hill. Corrections. Am ermen Justice Instituje.Sacra men- rectional infoimation specialists. The Case systems. to. Caltforma.'1972; Manual of Standards fo: Adult Laiv Compendium identifies and suinmar- Correct, .-allnstitutions, Commission on Accreditation for Corrections. American Corrections Associaton, iKs dozens of appellate bases which direct- Chapter 6Systems transfer technology Rockville. Maryland. 1977. (Standout Number 4117.) ly affect correctional administration. Cases for contemporary corrections with common legal elements arc grouped This. chapter presents and critiques the together and summary statements of the concept of technology transfer within a cor- underlying jurisprudence are ipresented. rectional context. Since transfer must take 'Twenty different summary areas of correc- into consideration hardware, software, doc- tional case law arc abstracted and trend umentation, performance, and user issues, statements are presented, suggesting the an attempt has been made to identify th'e likely direction of future court decisions. critical issues under each of these categor- Of particular value to.both correction9I ies. These lists of critical issues and ques- adminis '-ators and data processingperson- tions can be used by a manager to-determine nel is an identification of the kinds of in- the likelihood of successfully transferring formation that should be incorporated in inforniation technology from one correc- ansagency's information system, which in- tional institution to another. - 11, .4
assistladministritors in the operation and Ckiipter:2 management of their agency. The answer I to this question determines the.data ele- 4 ments thatmistbeta-anted in an informa- tion system's data base. Only after such data elements are identified can an auto- DerTnsci intormition in corrections 'Mated system be developed tc collect, state, and retrieve the information needed by the agency. The OBSCIS experience emphasized the fact that determination of the appropriate data elements depends upon recognizing the real-world needs of the information consumer. Experience has shown that sys- tems developed around data elements iden- Prior to the 1960s, corrections was a rela- Not infrequently, an administrator is asked,tified by experts or other persons removed . lively autonomous appendage of America's to explain conflicting information pro-,from the day-to-day operation of thesys- justice system. Little public attention was duccd by, hii own staff, simply because ittern have.failedto provide the kind of Ikep to themanagement and treatment of was either gathered differently or processed aus'wersactually needed. incarcerated felons. Theie were no "pris- by different people. Without a systematic oner's rights" or court monitoring Pfpris;- accounting of information requests, it isMethodology on conditions: The myriad of programi in- difficult to prioritize inquiries so that more cluded under the umbrella of rehabilitation, service is given tr? those having the greatest In tha' case of demand information, a had not yet developed, and community cor-impact upon the agency. Corrections, there- consumer is theperson or agency who asks rections was an insignificant part of thetfore, has been forced into a reactive pc:0:i- the correctional agency a question. In order institutional framework. In short. correc- tiorqn which responses to future informa-to identify the data elements which cotild tions was generally a self-contained entity tion demands, which could have beenprovide such consurnas with satisfactory which operated in. relative isolation,and anticipated and prepared for, are not devel- answers, the CDAS projeckollected exam- had little impact:outside its own walls. oped. ples of qiimtions actually directed at. the However. changes in American society All of these, conditions suggest the need correctional community on a day - today and the criminal justice system over the for developing information systems which basis. It was felt that such real-world ex- past two decades have catapulted correc- are responsive to demand inforthation in-amples, while nbt constituting a necessarily tions into the lihielight of public concern. quiries. The basic problem in developingvalid sample, would provide a more con- This increased interest in corrections is such a system is to define the relationship crete perspective on demand inforinatiojj, prOaply due to a number of factors. At between the questions asked and data avail- Unfortunately, few correctional ageaties onefevel. the growing complexity of pro- able. Once this relationship is determined, maintain a log of the information demands , grams and services, within corrections has it is possible to answer morespecificilues:_made by external consumers°. Furthermore, broadened its interaction and interdepen- tions involved in systems development: few agencies have only one person or de- dence upon other state agencies, both op- What can be answered with the informa- partment responsible for processing exter- erationally and in terms of conipetition for tion on hand? nal inquiries. limited resources. The increased emphasis. *What inquiries cannot be answered? As a consequence, a letter was sent to the on accountability witnessed r.mong all gov- What would we have to do in order to 8irector of eacitof the 50 state correctional ernment agencies has produced new de- satisfy inquiries for which there is no ready agencies, thepi-trict of Columbia bepart- mands for documentation in cohections. information? ment of Corrections, the Funeral Bureau of Soaririg crime rates have placed new bur- *Is it cost beneficial to gather the data we Prisons, and the National Prisoneis Statis- dens on corrections and raised public con- ctirrently.don't have, given who is asking tics.Program pf the Bureau of Justice Sta- cern about more, effective rehabilitation. the questions and why.they want to know? tistics, asking them to identify thosedndi- The "due process" revolution and demise Whit is the most economical and efficient viauals usually responsible for processing of the "hands or doctrine hayetricreased way to answer the imr,ortant..questions? demand infofmation requests. Typically judicial interest and intervention into the r those charged with this responsibility were
prison system?! Finally, pressure for scan- . The moss popular and successful infor- either data processing or research and de-, t. dardization from the judiciary, legislature, mation system utilized by the correctional velopment personnel. The person or depart- and various professional organizations has community isshe Offender-3ased State Cor- ment identified by each correctional admin- caused a greater sharing and dissemination rections Information System (OBSCIS).2 istrator was then asked to submit a list of of information. Since 1975, the OBSCIS, modal has been the last 10 demand information inquiries As a consequence of the broadened in- incorporated into 34state correctional agen- they-had received. Only 10 inquiries were terest in all facets of corrections, adminis- cies and provides administrators with rim- requested from each department because I trators fie being forced to dedicate increas- tine operational reports describing the sta- most agencies had to compile the listing or r ing amounts of time and effort arneeting tus and inSvement of inmates within their..inquiries as the requests were received. The the external demands for information. institutions. For the majority of agencies, list of inquiries finally obtained included However, the general absence of any sys- ti e OBSCIS system provides the primary both a description of the inquiry and its tematized respOnse to these inf6rmation data base against which most demand in- source. demands creates problems. Many agencies formation'inquiries,re currently satisfied: In afl, 543 usable information requests do not have specific personnel charged with In addition to tepg a successful opera- were obtained. The content of these inquir- the responsibility for answering demand tional information'system for corrections;ies ranged from complex enumerations of information requests. The result is frequent- OBSCIS identifies srnumber of critical ques- inmates with various characteristics, or at ly a duplication of effort in which the same tions which must be answered in order to certain stages of their sentence, to simple information is compiled each time a new-successfully establish any information sys-statements concerning policy and pro- inquiry is submitted. This lack of qualify tem. One of the more important questions grams. Some of the inquiries dealt with control also increases the chance of error, is what kind of information is needed to financial aspects of running a correctional
5 V . cV
6Correctional data analysis systems
agency while others requested impact state- informakion system is. what are the types of scriptior of the behavioral. psychological, ments or required the agency to complete a analytic techniques which are needed tomedical, or situational effects of various formal survey instrument satisfy the demands of most users? If acorrectional processes upon inmates. The The type of inquirer also varied Widely majority of the most important inquiriesunit of analysis across-all of these inquiries from the governors office and legislators can be satisfied by simple frequencies and was the inmate, rather than a program, to high school students. A number of in- percentages, thcn it would be unnecessary policy, or process. . quirees appeared frequ-mtly in the sample, for an agency to buy sophisticated and ex- implying that' the consumer required cor- pensive software packages. Perhaps demand Demographic characteristics rectional information in the normal course information systtms need only descriptive The most prevalent type of inmate in- of his activities. Others .)bviously repre- statistical software to satisfy most requests. quiry involved a count of inmatwith a sented one-time requests. particular demographic characteristic or The example inquiries also appeared to Content of demand combination of characteristics. Such fac- vary considerably in terms of the time criti- Information inquiries tors as age, sex, ethnic backgrouni., educa- cal nature of the information request. Sc.,- tional level, and other general background eral requests from legislatures involved A necessary first step in the development descriptors were typical of those character- impact statements concerning bills which of any information system is to identify the istics most often the focus of concern. Illus- were under consideration Some requests type of questions which such a system will trative of this category were inquiries con- from consumers such as the judiciary in- be required to answer. From an analysis ofcerning the number of female inmates or volved information on policies or proce- the questions actually asked, systems may the percentage of certain minorities in an dures which related to issues of current be devetoRed yfiich require only a minimum agency. Others asked about inmates with a litigation and concerned court casts having of data tp-Vasfy a majority of information combination of characteristics such as "the a significant impact on the agency. Many of requests. number of incarcerated minority women the inquiries, however, concerned topics of In an attempt to identify those areas of with, a high school education." casual interest or required data which ap- information which are most often the focus A majority of these inmate characteris- peared to invol've research, counseling and of inquiry, the examples of demand infor- tics aretthe same as data elements usually treatment programs. mation requests obtained from the 52 cor- maintained as part of an OBSCIS data base. From a preliminary review of the exam- rectional systems were organized into cate- Ale..g with an inmate's identification num- ples of information requests, it appeared as gories on the basis of the type of information ber, his or her sex age, race, and so forth though the inquiries could be organized requested. These categories were developed are important in planning, managing, and and categorized into three substantive by inductively sorting each of the requests logging the movement of inmates. The fact areas. It was felt that such a categorization into "like" groups until a reasonable num- that many of these inmate descriptors are would facilitate a firmer understanding of ber of categories of similar questions were already maintained by agencies Lsing those data elements which should be main- obtained. The results of this analysis are OBSCIS suggests that data elements in the tained by a correctional agency to satisfy presented in Table 2.1. As can be seen, OBSCIS model will satisfy a large propor- most demand information requests. The there are four primary areas of inquiry: (1) tion of demographic inquiries. first level of organization involved the con- inmate inquiries, (2) institutional programs, In addition tc inquiries about demograph- tent of the inquiriesIt was hypothesized (3) agency policies and procedures, and (4) ic characteristics, other requests sought that the broad array of inquiries could be administrative/fiscal inquiries, with each information about such factors as military reduced to a limited number of categories area having a *number of subcategories. service, number of dependents, and women itclutling all requests involving the same These categories represent relitively inde- in institutions. Inquiries based upon these data elements By reducing the inquiries to pendent contextual areas, while each of the factors appeared to be of a more transient categories, an estimation could be obtained subcategories reflects a more sensitive break- naye and focused upon topical issues. For of those questions which could be satisfied down in terms of similar data elements. example, many agencies were asked the by existing data and those which required number of Vietnam veterans they had in the development of new data. Such a classi- Inmate Inquiries custody. In checking with institutions on fication could also provide informatioli on The largest category of requests centered this question, it was found that there had the data which were most frequently the on inmate inquiries. Inmate inquiries were been Intlesprevious interest concerning Viet- center of inquiry. defined as any question which asked for an nam veteran-and that the present interest In addition, the requests were categorized enumeration of inmates possessing certain was beir3g generated by a single agency at on the basis of the inquirer. The rationale characteristics, or which requested a de- the federal level. underlying this classification was that it is e important for a correctional agency to know the type of inquirers requesting informa- Table 2.1 lion. If the majority of inquirers have both Content categories of demand Information a need and right to know, then an informa- Primary content Category tion system might be designed to satisfy categories operational these requests, providing quick and accu- definition Subcategories rate r;sponses, On the other hand, if the Inmate inquines Questions in which the (knit of count Demographic characteristics majority of inquiries are frivolous. thecost/ is inmates and asks for an enumeration Charges and sentences of inmates possessing a ce inmate sentences benefit of designing a special information characteristic Impact effects on inmates systeni may be questionable. Institutional Inquiries requesting the kinds of Program types (general) Finally, the inquiries were assessed in' programs programming offered in an Instilion. Cent of speafic terms of the type of analytic processes typi- what these programs consist of. or programs/services what is the effectiveness of the programs Count or flow of inmates ,sally required to produce a satisfactory- tprograms answer. Analytic processes can range from aluation of programs simple frequency counts and the calcula- Agency.policies Inquiries concerning the stated poNcies of Operation of institution and procedures the institution or staled procedures Management of inmates tion of percentages to complex processes , practiced by the Institution involved in higher order statistical analysis, Administrative/ Inquiries centering on administration Fiscal and modeling. One important question, fiscal inquiries structure air the way an institution's budget Administrative is affocstad therefore, in dev'eloping a cost beneficial Demand information in corrections7
As a result of this observation, and the inmate management and many automated standads in anticipation of future demand onsite interviews with data processing per- information systems have the capacity to information requests in this area 'sonnet, it was concluded that inquiries con- produce such information in their normal cerninginmateacmographic characteristicscourse of operation. The problem, as far InstIhMonal programs are of three types. 1 he majority of these re- as demand information inquiries are con- Bey and those inmate inquiries which cen- quests involve standard data elements such cerned, appears to be in maintaining sen- tered specifically upon inmates as the unit as sex, age, and race. Such inmate descrip- tence computation records in such a way of analysis, inquiries involving institution- tors typically mirror those data elements that individual sentence lengths can be al programs represented the second most maintained at the core level of most OBSCIS easily turned into aggregate totals. frequent category of requests, Inquiries of systems. The second type of requests in- this type wanted to know what kind of volves topical issues which impact correc- Inmate status programming was offered in the agency, tions on a tcmpor.hry basis, such as the A third area of inmate inquiries involved what these programs consisted of, how they number of ,Incarcerated Vietnam c eterans. the enumeratiodor description of inmate were operated, and how effective they were Because of the infrequency of such ques- status. Inmate status cuts across a number Programs which were the focus of interest tions, it appears as though these inquiries of contextual levels, from the number ofcovered a broad range, from treatment, could be satisfied more economically by a escapes to a description of inmate medical training, and educational programs, to min- ,manual enumeration of inmates, made at needs. The common tbrcad that binds these isterial services, prison industries, volunteer the time of the request, rather than by inquiries together is that they all deal with services, restitution programs, and commu- recording such information on an ongoing inmate behaviors or needs typically con- nity-based operations. In short, inquiries ask- basis. Finally, the third type of inquiry ap- sidered by an agency in making assignMents, ing about the type, nature, or operation of pears to be cyclical in nature and occursallocating privileges, or taking disciplipary either specific correctional services or cor- every so many years as a result of various action. Examples of inmate status inquiries rectional programming in general were cate- social cycles. For example, inquiries con- involved the number and types of discipli- gorized as institutional program requests cern.ng women in prisons, the number ofnary infractions (along with their charac- The inquiries within this group were di- urban vs. rut=! inmates, and the death pen- teristics and trends), the degree of drug vided into four subcategories, (1) general alty were identifieo through interviews with abuse in prison, and the extent of violence program types, (2) specific content of pro- data processing personnel to be of interest among prisoners. Again, the majority of grams/services, (3) count or flow of inmates on a cyclical basis. Inquiries involving these data elements needed to answer these in- by programs and, (4) evaluation of pro- topics inundate corrections at certain times, mate status inquiries are designed in thegrams. The first of these subcategories, with long lapses of disinterest intervening OBSCIS model, although many states have general program types, simply asked for a between periods of high demand. After not implemented these strcific modules as listing and brief explanation of the types of identifying cyclical topics through a moni- yet. programs offered by an agency. In most teringof information requests, agencies may cases, inquirers were satisfied by sending able to anticipateate hi h demand periods Impact/effects on inmates them an annual report or other standard tridcollect data in anticipation ofsuchip- The.finaltsubcategory of inmate inquir- document produced by the agency. guides. Otherwise, these particular data ies involved questions coned ning the.impact Inquirers interested in specific content of elements would not be maintained as partand :ffect of various correctional proamsprograms/services differed from general o. their information systems. and processes upbn inmates. Information program inquirers in that they identified requests such as the rate of recidivism by the program in which they were interested, Ctiarges and sentences specific program or the impact of various but still requested only general information The second broad area of inmate inquir- types of sentencing were typical of ques- aboui the program's operation. Most-of the ies involved charges and sentences. Infor-tions within this category. time, these inquiries were satisfied by an mation requests in this area required one of The majority of these Inquiries identified annual report. However, since many of two response formats. First, many requests the particular program in which they were these inquiries emanaic from the legislature asked for an enumeration of inmates incar-interested, but failed to specify the type of or other important inquirers, it may be ad- cerated on a particular charge, serving a impact statement they required. Most in- vigable to have each program manager de- certain type of sentence tdeterminate vs. quirers simply appeared interested in whe- clop a short description of each program's indeterminate), sentenced or. a certain date, ther the program was having a "good" goals, operation, and effectiveness These or sentenced from a particular county. These effect upon .the inmates. For example, a "program briefs" could then be maintained inquiries were typically satisfied by the typical inquirer. would ask about the im- so that future requests could receive a more standard inmate data base and required no pact of vocational education programs on personalized, rapid and satisfactory calculations or atypical programming. Theinmates. Of those inquirers who did indi- response. second type of charges and sentences in-cate the type of impact or effect in which The third area of inquiry under institu- quiry involved such information as the time they were interested, most asked abotit re- tional programs focused on the count or served vs. the time remaining for certain cidivism rates. flow of inmates by programs. These inquir- inmates, the number eligible for early re- Unfortunately, most correctional systems ies focused,on the number of inmates pro- lease, straight release vs. parole, and thedo tot maintain systematic data concern- cessed through a program within a certain amount of time served by offense. These ing the impact of correctional processes on time frame (flow). Although the unit of inquiries differed from the group in inmates. Although this type of inquiry was count used to answer these inquiries was that a satisfactory answer required specific least frequent among the inmate. inquiries, inmates, the emphasis of the question was calculations. Although theinformation need- the dey,eloping emphasis on program ac- clearly on the effectiveness or efficiency of ed to answer these more complex inquiriescountability as exemplified in zero-based the program. was usually maintained as part of the in-budgeting and current debate over the ef- Most of these inquirers were satisfied by mate data base, an appropriate answer fectiveness of treatment may be expected to the data base typically maintained in an sometimes necessitated special programm- influence the frequency with which impact/OBSCIS system However, some calcula- ing. In many instances, the calculations re-effect inquiries are directed at the correc- tions, occasionally requiririg novel compu- . quired to a nswe'r the..e questions were com- tional community. In view of the fact that ter programming, were necessary As a re- plex due to many factors, such as good time most of these inquiries failed to identify a sult, it may be advisable for an agency to which impacts sentence length. However,specific impact or effect, agencies are well maintain a count and flow summary of in- sentence calculation is an integral part ofadvised to develop their own evaluation mates within each of its programming aies,
14 8 Correctional data analysis systems
if it does not already do so. Such an ongo- ever, an observation which is explored fur- therefore be capable of cross - indexing ing enumeration would not only satisfy the ther in Chapter 3 notes that the compre- (cross-tabulating) inmate variables. growing number of inquiries in this area, hensive development of agency policy across The majority of inquiries can frequently but would also form a basiffor developing all facets of its operations is essential in be satisfied.by data elements prescribed in satisfactory responses to the last category protecting the administrators in civil.suits the OBSCIS model. of institutional program inquiries, namely brought against them by inmates. Most In addition to the questions which are evaluation of programs. of these suits are filed on the basis of the asked on a regular basis, many topical in- Although evaluation of program inquir- Federal Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C.A., quiries are received such as the number of ies were less frequent than others focusing 1983). In order for an administrator to avoid VIttnam veterans, and cyclical questions on correctional programming, the type of personal liability which may result from concerning women in prisons or the death inquirer asking these questions frequently these"1983" suits, it must be shown that he penalty. Possibly, one-shot inquiries can be was in a position to significantly impact the acted in "good faith" by following the stated processed manually while the cyclical in- agency. For example, the legislature and rules and regulations of the agency. If anquiries might he anticipated and prepared other governmental agencies base funding agency does not have a policy governingfor through a good demand information and policy decisions on the stated effective- the area in which an action is taken by logging system. ness ofa particular program. Furthermore, an administrator, he may be held personally Because of the apparent interest in both much federal funding is dependent upon liable. It is therefore important that policiesprogram evaluation and the impact of pro- answers to questions concerning the eval- be developed and stated for as many facets gramming upon inmates, and in view of the uation of correctional programs. of institutional management and operations continuing demand for accountabilityn The inquiries classified in this category as possible. A good example of a cqmpre- the public sector, all programs and services usually specified the criterion upon which henswe package of policy statements is offered within a correctional agency should they were evaluating a program. Of those found it. the Oregon correctional system, have an ongoing evaluation mechanism built inquirers who did define criteria, most fo- where an index of all policies, procedures, in so that the efficiency and effectiveness cused on such things as program costs per and rules is maintained on a computer soof institutional programming may be mon- inmate served (cost/capita), the number ofthat they are immediately accessible. It may itored and reported. inmates served as Compared to the number also be advisable for an agency to review Each program in an agency should have a in need of service, theeffectof the program requests for policy statements on various brief description of its goals, methods, and o on inmate behavior, good time, and atti- Issues as they are received so that policies level ofservice ready for dissemination. Such tude. may be developed in those areas where their a small effort by each program chief would In view of the fact that corrections is absence becomes obvious. A general rule pay off in public relations and service to increasingly being called upon to substan-should be: if an inquirer asks fora policy in inquirers. tiate its activities through formal program a critical area which.does not exist, develop The count of inmates in institutional pro- evaluations, it appears advisable for admin- one. grams and the rate at which inmates pass istrators to develop evaluative criteria for through programs should be recorded on all aspects of institutional programming. Administrelve and fiscal Information an ongoing basis for each, program or ser- The evaluative criteria which appeared to A final broad category into which the vice offered. be of most interest in the examples gathered demand information examples were sorted All facets of institutional operationsshould in this study were cost/inmate, number Involved administrative/fiscal information be covered by a written policy .statement. served/number in need, and degree to which requests. Inquiries concerning adimMstra-Such statements would not only satisfy the program goals are met If this type infor- live issues included such things as the typesconsiderable demand for policy informa- mation were developed and maintained of staff positions within the agency, thetion from outside consumers; but would along with count and flow enumerations, organization and structure of living units,also help protect agency personnel from an agency would have little trouble in provid- facility construction, and a description ofpersonal liability as the result of civil litiga- ing an immediate and satisfactory response the administrative hierarchy. Fiscal inquir-tion. to most inquiries in this area. ies were characterized by such things as salaries for various positions, the level of Agency policies and procedures budget support and types of funding, a cost-Sources of demand A third broad area of inquiry involved break& wn by inmate, medical services ex- Information Inquiries agency policies and procedures. Inquiriespenditures, and overtime compensation.6 in this category were divided into two types, Most of these inquiries were easily satis- In a time of diminishing resources and (I) questions concerning the operation of fied by, information typically maintained. belt tightening on the part _I many correc- the institution and (2) those involving the However, it is interesting to note that thetional agencies, a successful information management of inmates. Inquiries focusing most frequent inquiry within this category system must not only be effective, it must on institutional operations concerned poli- involved a cost breakdown by inmate. do so in the most cost-beneficial way pos- cies cc:oing such things as the prison li- sible. Ideally, an agency would pilfer to brary, telephone use, program evaluation Generalizations about the satisfy all the inquiries it receives. However, methods, good time calculations, and cell content of requests if the budget dictates that only limited funds assignments. In addition, many of these In concluding the content analysis of are available for responding to external in- inquiries requested only general informa- demand information inquiries, several gen- formation demands, then an information tion such as agency goals and objectives, eral observations and suggestions may be system must be designed so that either impact statements on rules, or asked for made. the most frequent inquirers, or those with any policy manuals or statistical publica- The most frequent typ.e of inquiry involvesthe greatest impact on an agency be giv- tjons which the agency produced. Inquiries the enumeration of inmates with certainen priority. concerning the management of inmates cov - characteristics. Furthermore, the majority A system with this capacity would nccd ered a broad range of issues such as personal of these inmate -based inquiries are con- to identify and maintain the kind of infor searches, disciplinary procedures, grievance cerned with inmates having a combination matron typically requested by priority procedures, and hair Length. of characteristics such as (I) minority sta- inquirers. It would also need t. e capacity The vast majority of the agency policy tus. (2) vets. ens who were . , (3) sen- to provide the fastest response time for tho,se and procedure inquiries were usually satis- tences for murder ..., etc. Informationwho have the greatest impact upon the fied by existing agency publications. How- systems responsive to these inquiries must agency Finally, by identifying high priori
.15 O
Demand information in correctioni 9
ty inquirers, an agency could put its money Table 2.2 into the software and data gathering efforts Source categories of demand Information which selectively- served the most impor tint consumers. Source Category N Percent category definition - Of course, before an agency can priori- , Internal Information requests originating from 77 14.2 tize the Consumers of demand information, within the agency . it must identify who is asking the questions Governmental Information requests submitted by either 29.9 and hoW frequently each inquirer submits a Executive a State or Federal governmental agency 47 8.6 Legislature 25 4.6 requesi; in additicin, most administrators Judiciary 22 4.0 would like to know who is interested in Social services 40 7.4 their agency anyway. Insights along these Federal 29 5.3 Correctional agencies Requests received from another adult or 104 19.1 'lines may greitly assist an administrator in juvenile correctional agency' defining the political environment in which Universities/ Informatiori requests received from 74 13 14 must operate students an academic institution In order to determine both the identity of Citizens/ Requests received from individual citizens 44 8.1 demaltd information consumers and the fre- professionals/media or mode representatives Involved In such areas as radio, televiSion, maf)azirles, quency with which variousconsumer groups and newspapers ask questions, the demand information ex- Researcti and Professional inquiries received from 37 6.8 amples were assessed in terms of the,:ource consulting organizationsprivate organizations of each inquiry. The assumption underly- Institutes/councils/ Requests received by any group 44 8.1 ing this.assessment was that the inquirers public interest groups not mentioned above could be reduced to a few categories in which the type of data requested and the Impact of the consumer on an agency weretheir differential impact upon corrections this enumeration did not include the many similar within each group. The results ofand the type of questions asked. Social ser-informal requests for information which this categorization are presented in Tablevice agencies needed to know the extent toare internally processed as a consequence 2.2. As can be seen,'there are six primarywhich the correctional population was grow-of ongoing litigation. inquiry tategories, with each category re-ing. For example, the number of inmates The vast majority of legal questions pro- flecting inquirers who asked similar ques-eligible, for parole, early release, or com-duced by civil suits brought against an tions having approximately the same impact munity placement and their impact on com-agency by inmates are processed from with- on an agency. munity services were typical of questionsin the agency by the attorney general's cor- asked. Some agencies included in this cate-rectional representative or the correctional Governmental agencies gory were state departments of education,agency's own legal staff. Although these Governmental agencies produced the larg- mental health, welfare, and so forth. demands for information are not direct in- est number of external information requests quiries from an outside agency, they are obtained in this study. Specifically, almost Federal government nevertheless the consequence ,of judicial in- 30 percent of all requests came from a source The federal government was the next most terve.' tion into corrections. The impact of within either the state or federal govern- frequent inquirer. Examples of those agencies this intervention on Correctional adminis- ment. Because this general category of in-within the federal system that requestedtration has been so great that the resources quirers was so large, and because the dif- information were the U.S. ParOle Commis-of an entire research department may be ferent branches of government have varying sion, LEAA, the National Prisoner Statis- dedicated to answering one suit (as recently degrees of i mpact u pon a correctional agency, tics Program, of the Bureau of Justicewitnessed in a Texas class action suit: Ruiz governmental at...es were further dividedStatistics, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and et at v. Estelle). Because of the tremendous into five subcatei,ories. -the Departments of Labor, Education, andinformational demands that the judiciary Health and Human Services. Informationplaces upon corrections, an entire section State executive agencies demands by federal agencies usually in-of this report has beeh dedicated to outlin- The most frequent consumers amongvolved, an aggregate count of inmates ating an information model which may form governmental agencies were those in the certain tupes throughout the year or countsthe basis of a successful correctional re- executive branch. Typical consumers fromof inmates having a particular attribute, sponse to information demands emanating within the executive branch consisted ofsuch as being a veteran. from litigation (see Chapter 3). law enforcementagenCiee-s,:youthcommis- sions, various administrator's at the countyThe legislature Correctional agencies level, offices of budget and planning, and At the state level, inquiries from the A second major source of demand in- the governor's office. The type of inquiry legislature typically involved either impact formation requests was other correctional typically made by these consumers dealt statements concerning the effect of various agencies. Apparently, the need to communi- with planning or hudgetary information. changes in law or policy on corrections or acate and share information among correc- Many of these questions involved the rate description of programs and budget alloca- tional agencies is considerable (see Table at which inmates moved through various tions. Although questions from this branch2.2). Almost all correctional agencies stud- levels of incarceration, the cost of incarcer- of government were less frequent than oth- ied had themselves been a consumer of de- ation per capita, the provisions of various er branches, the impact of their inquiries mand information. programs. and the number of inmates be- upon corrections is usually more significant. Correctional agencies produced a diffuse coming eligible' or parole. array of information requests. A significant The judiciary number involved policy statements or a de- Social service agencies Finally, the judiciary produced a limited scription of procedures covering specific Social service agencies comprised thenumber of-inquiries which usually focused areas. Other requests concerned the com second largest consumer group :within theon either the need for legal services among position, cost, and impact of various pro- government sector. Although social Orme inmates, or information demonstrating com- grams. Finally, a number of inquirers asked agencies are typically under the admits- pliance with a particular judicial mandate. for inmate characteristics and counts Many - trat ion of the executive branch, these agen- Although the frequency of judial requestsof these questions appeared to center on Cef, were categorized separately because of included in the sample was relatively small,Issues of current interest in correctional case law. 16 Co'rrectional data analysis systems
As a consequence of pressures for stan- demic community were more likely to submit toward standardizanon of correctional poli- dardization which are being placed upon their request in the form of a pre-structured ces and procedures. the corrections community, correctional ad- questionnaire. This type of response for- In concluding this analysis of the sources ministrators will find it increasingly neces- mat was in many cases more difficult for an of demand information, a number of ob- sary toshare information among themselves. agency to handle because it forced correc- servations may be made. Evidence for this is witnessed in the present tional personnel to conform their .csponse Beyond the information requests generat- rate of information sharing which now oc- to the specific structures assumed in the ed internally, the most frequent consumers curs among agencies. Unfortunately, the survey instrument. of demand information are government present way in which these information Another observation resulting from the agencies. Specifically, the executive branch transactions take place is haphazard and analysis of academic inquiries was that the and social service agencies make up the unreliable. Administrators having a ques- closer the inquirer was to the actual opera- majority of such inquirers. tion wonder whom to ask Many solutions tion of an agency, the better his inquiry thformation requests produced by the ju- to common problems remain undiscovered mirrored the response capabilities of that diciary as a result of ongoing litigation are because there is no systematic way in which agency. For example, inquiries from the typically processed internally. Inquiries from 'to share information. academic community frequently requested this source have a significant impactn an The need to share information in correc- information which would be either difficult agency and therefore receive priori y over tions suggests.the necessity of developing or impossible for an agency to develop. all other requests. The need for resp nsive some centralized information sharing sys- This situation is probably attributable to information systems in this area is so ,reat tem From an analysis of the inquiries in the fact that some academicians have little that a ,model for developing a data ase the present study, such a clearinghouse experience with the actual data resources designed to serve judicial informatiode- would need to disseminate information in and operations of a correctional agency. mands is presented in Chapter 3. two primary areas. First, the sharing of On the other hand, consumers such as gov- The need to share information among cor- policy statements among correctional agen- ernmental agencies or other correctional rectional agencies themselv es. Is consider- cies would not only facilitate the standardi- agencies typically requested information able. Specifically, this need involves policy zation promulgated by professional groups which was part of an operational correc- statements and solutions to common prob- and demanded by the courts, but wot.'1 tional. data base. Apparently, the more op- lent's. As a result, itis suggested that a also assist in filling the policy gap in opera- erational interaction an inquirer has with national clearinghouse for correctional in- tional areas which lack formal guidelines. corrections, the more his questions parallel formation sharing be established.. This would reduce the likelihood of correc- the information generally maintained and The farther an inquirer is removed from tional administrators being found person- used by a correctional agency. the day to day operations of a correctional ally liable because they acted in bad faith agency, the less his inquiry tends to match because of a lack of policy to substantiate Citizens/professionals/media information typically maintained in a cor- their actions. Secondly, the sharing of nov- A fourth group of consumers involved rectional data base. For example, the most el solutions to common problems would interested citizens, professional groups and complex questions generally came from the not only enhance correctional decision mak- the media. Inquiries from these groups rep- academic community women frequently has ing, but would also go a lone way toward resented a broad array of information re- little operational interaction with corrections. insuring that administrators use the "least quests. The type of inquirers included within restrictive means available" when infring- this category were attorneys, psychologists, ing upon any of the inmate rights guarded librarians, and inmate families. In addition, The analytic structure of demand by federal-courts. For example, the Virgin- inquiries were received from newspapers, information requests ia Depaftment of Corrections has a port- television stations and networks, magazines, able mini-camera crew which they send toand other public information sources. After defining the types of info.rmation any unusual incident involving inmate dis- Many of these requests centered on topics which are required by the user of a system, turbances. They have found that the pres- of current concern to the public such as and after the data base containing this in- ence of this` camera team not only inhibits,escapes, death sentences, and correctional formation is organized, the final step in further violence, but also pi() vides ar. in- programming. The majority of these were designing an efficient information system is disputable record of each incident in the easily handled by information already on to identify the analytic processes needed to event that the actions taken during the in- hand, such as an annual report. satisfy. the demands of inquirers. Ideally, cident lead to a civil suit by an inmate. an information system should be able to Solutions like this need to be shared, and aResearch and consulting organizations answer the questions asked of it with a national clearinghouse would facilitate this Information requests from consulting minimum of custom programming. If the goal. organizations and organized research proj- typical inquiry received by an agency in- ects composed the next most frequent cate- volves relatively simplistic frequenCy distri- Universitlits/students gory of inquirers. These consumers generally -butions and percentages, it would not be The third category of demand informa- submitted requests concerning inmate char- cost beneficial to maintain an expensive tion inquirers involved universities and acteristics, inmate counts, needs assessments, software package capable of producing students. This groupofconsumers Was dichot- and programming characteristics. A few of higher order statistical analyses. omized in terms of the sophistication ofthese inquiries also involved questions on To address this third step in sys,tems de- their inquiry. A large number of requests operational procedures, institutional man- sign, the sample inquiries were assessed in were submitted by students and concerned agement and various policy statements., terms of the analytic processes required to descriptive topics such as prisoners on death produce satisfactory answers. An analytic row, thedaily routine of inmates, how cor- Institutes/councils/public process was defined as a.statistical proce- rections rehabilitates, and so forth. Inquir--Interest groups dure by which data is organized, manipu: les from faculty ?nd university researchers, Finally, a small number of requests were lated and reduced in order to derive the on the other hand, typically involved statis- received from institutes, councils, and pub- answer to a specific question. The assessment tical enumerations of inmate characteris- lic interest groups. These inquiries general- of analytic processes involved sorting the tics, and a variety of rather complex ques-,ly involved institutional policy and apeared requests into groups which reflected tint- tions dealing with inmate behavior, program to suggest comparative studies among var- ilar statistical procedures. evaluation, and management decision mak- ious correctional agencies. It may be that Among the many information requests ing. Furthermore, inquirers from the aca- these requests were a product of the trend sampled, the necessity of statistical analysis
C 17. Demand infoimation in corrections 11 was apparentin only two content areas. Drug offense Non-drug offense The first, and by far the largest category of demand information involved inmate inquir- Number of veterans Number of veterans Veteran incarcerated for a kmarcerated for ies. Inmate inquiries were defined as those drug offense non-drug offense request's which focused on inmate charac- Number of non-veterans Number of non-veterans teristics, sentence calculations 'and behav- Noveteran incarcerated for a incarcerated foi ior. The factor which was common among drug offense non-drug offense O all these requests was that inmates, rather Figure 2.1. Cross-tabulation of two Inmate factors than programs, policies, or administrative actions, were the units of count. The sec- ond category of inquiry which necessitated 0 statistical analysis involved program eval- moretypical and allowed the agency to *There appears to be little need to maintain uation in terms of cost/capita, inmate needs provide the answer in whatever form avail-.sophisticated analytic packages capable of served, and the effects of prograinming on abfe. On the other hand, inquiries specify-inferential analysis to satisfy most inquir- behavior. The remaii 'ng' inquiries, which ing a closed time frame require an agency ies. - focused on such content categories as insti- to cross tabulate the difference between 'Of those inquiries rkeessitating an analytic tutional programs, agency policy and pro- inmates entering and ending a process within process, only two statistical techniques were cedures, and the majority of administrative specific time intervals. For example, howrequired in order to provide a satisfactory inquiries, required no analytic processes in many inmates entering vocational training answer: order to produce a satisfactory response. since 1978 have completed the program? (1) The frequency or proportion of in- Froman analysis El,t those inquiries which Besides stock and flow issues, the other mates,having a certain characteristic. centered on inmates, it was observed that a statistical procedures involved in requests (2) A cross-tabulation of inmates hav- satisfactory response typically involved either were frequencies and cross tabulations. ing two or more characteristics. - a.statistical count of inmates with certain Frequency requests centered on a single eAcrosi all the content areas discussed in characteristics at a single point in time (stock attribute and merely asked for the number the first part of this chapter, only inmate enumerations), or an enumeration of inmates of inmate posseSsing this characteristic.inquiries\ nd program evaluations required who had entered a particular correctional Cross-tabulation requires an enumerationany anal tic processing. The rest of the process and completed that process (flowof inmates having two or more attributes. inquiriesere satisfied by policy statements, enumerations) within a certain period of For example, questions such as the number program descriptions, or other recordi nor-' time. Examples of stock enumerations in- of sex offenders in therapy, or the number-mally maintained by an agency. volved such things as the number of in-of veterans incarcerated for drug-related *Many inquiries require an enumeration of mates in an institution, the number of vet- crimes reflect two inmate factors which have the number of inmates processed through a erans incarcerated, inmates anticipating a to be cross-tabulated in order to identifyprogram in a specified period of time. certain release date, and the number eligi-those inmates of concern. ble for early release. Requests centering on As seen in Figure 2.1, the answer to any References stock enumeration's were most frequentlyquestion produced from a cross-tabulation Krantz,Sheldon. he Law ofCorrections and Pris- analysis is in the form of frequencies or oners'.Rights in a Nutshell. Si . Paul, Minnesota: West satisfied by a frequency distribution of in- Pubhshing'Co., 1976. mates or by the.proportion of inmates in percentages. Each cell in-the cross-tabula- SEARCH Group Inc. OBSCIS: Offender Based State question relative to some larger group. Antion matrix indicates the number of inmates Corrections Information SystemVolumes 1-8, (Sac- example of this latter type of requeSt was having both characteristics, labeled in the ramento,California:SEARCH Group Inc.,1975-1980 the proportion of all veterans incarcerated marginI: Although cross-tabulation analy- for drug-related offenses. Considering the sis is the basis for such statistical tests of number of requests which asked for this-significance as ('hi Square and measures of form oreply, it would appear that coffee- association such as the Phi Coefficient, the tin nal information systems ought to have sample of inquiries revealed little need to the capacity to compute the ratio betweengo beyond the simple enumeration of cell the number of inmates with particular char- frequencies, acteristics and the larger inmate population The most common foim of cross-tabula- to which these smaller subsets belong. tion requested in the sample involved more In addition, rtosk inquirieslso involved than two faCtors. In fact, several inquiries inmate counts in terms of bounded lengths required as many as four or five attributes of time. For example, how many assaults to be cross-tabulated at one time, compli- or escapes have occurred over the past year? cating the -development ,of the response. Tht; type of inquiry requires the capacity to For exam pie, a question asking for the num- cross tabulate inmate characteristies with ber of black veterans who were drug ad- time. dicts and were convicted for crimes of Requests which concerned the flow ofviolence requires a simultaneous search inmates through a particular, process oracross four factors in order to identify the program typically require theability to sub- appropriate inmates. tract the number of inmates entering a pro- . Although a computer program for such cess from those completing the process. For an analysis would not involve a great deal example, of all the inmates entering a pro- of complexity,.all attributes under question gram, how many finished, were released, would probably need to be maintained in a reclassified, or were otherwise terminated? single data file. This observation points out The time frames specified in these requeststhe advantage of having a single inmate were either open and unspecified or closed master file on which all identifying factors and confined to specific dates. For exam-can be maintained. ple, inquiries with an open time frame would This analysis of demand information re- ask.how Many of those who started a pro- quests suggestsseveral generalizations about cess completed it. An open time frame was required analytic capability: 18 0 Chapter 3 information demands precipitated by this case law revolution. More specifically, there appear to be four fundamental ques- tions which the courts ask in deciding any case involving corrections: Correctional case law demand Has a constitutionally protected right information model* been violated by the correctional agency? What is the agency's justification for such a violation? Can the agency prove that its interest is compelling enough to justify the invasion of the prisoner's rights? Is there any other way in which the agency could protect its interests and yet minimize Or avoid the violation of the prisoner's A primary concern in the development off " doctrine.' Under this doctrine, the rights? ,of any effective information system is that courts operated on several assumptions. These four questions have a number of it satisfy those inquiries most critical to the First, it was common practice to assumeimplications for correctional administra- survival and operation of the agency. The that while a suspect was entitled to his con- tors who wish to move from a reactive to a analysis of demand information presented stitutional rights before and during the trial, proactive stance in regard to judicial inter- in Chapter 2 indicates that the correctional upon conviction he lost many of the rights vention. In response to the first ;question, community is inundated by inquiries from-he once had. Secondly, the courts acknowl- correctional administrators must be aware both the public and private sectors. Some edged that since corrections was designed of the current posture of the court toward of these inquiries were intended to satisfy a to benefit the prisoner, correctional admin..inmates' rights and the conditions, rolicies, student's curiosity while others influenced istratOrs would know what was best,.,,not and actions which might lead to litigation. legislation. However, of all the various only for the prisoner, but for the institu- Furthermore, administrators must be able groups which demand information of cor- tion. Finally, the courts confirmed that to anticipate trends in correctional case law rections, none has a more siLtoilicant im- whatever was given to an offender was a so that the orcieily developmentotpn agen- pactnor makes any greater demand upon privilege, not a right, and as such could becy's operations_can precede any manage- an agency's resources than the judiciary. given subject to certain conditions and tak- ment by court order. An adequate response a Over the past decade, the federal courts en away for almost any reason. Historically to the second and third questions necessi- tiave increasingly intervened into almost the courts consistently maintained this po- tates the development of documenta every aspect of the correctional process. As sition because they did not want to impair concerning an agency's actions, .services. a consequence, corrections has been called the ability of prison officials to carry out and facilities. Even ian agency is unable to upon to produce mountains of documenta- their varied and complex penological re- avoid infringing on an inmate's rights, it tion in an attempt to meet the court's in- sponsibilities. may oftentimes be able to substantiatc and .quiries about the way in which inmates are However, in the 1960s various attitudi-defend its actions if a "compelling state housed and managed. The critical nature of nal changes in American society precipitat- interest" can be shown. Finally, the show- these information demands is evidenced by ed what has been termed the "due-process ing that an infringement of an inmate's the fact that a failure to respond to chal- revolution."' This vigorous concern for in-rights is the minimum necessary to serve lenges from the court not only invites "man- dividual rights opened the door for judicial the needs of corrections requires that ad- agement by court order,- but exposes cor- Intervention into every facet of the criminal ministrators be aware of alternative solu- rectional administrators to personal liability. justice system. For the correctional com- tions which might be available. This means Furthermore, the inability to successfully munity, the demise of the "hands oil" doc- that a vehicle is needed through which cor- defend itself injures the public image of trine resulted in a number of landmark de:rectional agencies might share the best so- corrections and impairs its ability to main- cisions which dictated that: lutions to common problems. tain a credible relationship with other groups Prisoners have certain fundamental rights. with which it must interact. Finally, the Certain practices, procedures, facilities and'The model volume and in3pOrtance of judicial infor- lack of correctional resources abridged these mation demands so greatly absorb the re- rights. In order to-enhance a correctional agen- sources of an agent.), when it is involved in Correctional officials did, not make ancy's response to these four .fundamental litigation that its ability to satisfy other,adequate shoing that valid correctional questions, a four -part eorrectional case law inquirers is significantly diminthhed. concerns justified such various abridgements model has been developed (see Figure 3.1).., To a large extent, corrections' failure to of these fundamentarights. This model is designed tp illdstrate the anucipate,and develop the evidence neces- Changes had to be made in accordance,types of information which an agency sary to offer a viable defense for its actions is with the mandate of the courts' opinions. should maintain in order to either avoid or due to the rapid and often unpredictable The consequence of these decisions is that successfully respond to a challenge front evolution of correctional case law. Prior to correctional agencies must bear the burden the court. This model reflects current con- the 1960s, the federal courts refused to of proof in showing that either they have,ditions and needs based upon past appel- accept jurisdiction over prisoner complaints not violated a constitutional right or that late court decisions. on the basis of what was called the "hands they did so only in response to a "compel- ling state interest." In addition, when a Summary and trend statements Much of the material presented in this ..hapter and fundamental right is involved, thc agocy The first and second components of.the in the Case Law -ompendium (Appendix fi) from consultation with a number of correctional law must establish that any restriction on an model are designed to help correctional specialists including Richard Crane, Attorney at Law. inmate is the minimum necessary -to ade- administrators avoid litigation altogether. Louisiana Department of (. orrestions. Dr Rolandodel quately serve a compelling state interest. To do this, administrators need to know ,Carmen. Associate Professor. Criminal Justice Center, After a decade of balancing the needs of OThat is happening across all areas of cor- Sam Houston State University.. Huntsville, Naas. Rob- 0 err Deicing: Counsel, Texas Department of Correc- corre .tions and the rights of inmates, pat- rectional case law and more importantly, tions, and Leonard Peck. Attorney at Law. Special terns in correctional jurisprudence have what is going to happen. In Exhibit 3.A, at Assistant to the Attorney (Jeneral. State of Texas begun to emerge and one can anticipate the the end of this chapter, are presented sum-
12 19 Correctional case law demand information 13 and discussions with a number of lawyers handling correctional litigation. The in- Summary) 2. Trend formation needs involve policy statements, Statements Statements records, and documentation of actions, services;and facilities which would typical- ly be required to show a compelling inter- . est. Again, this part of the 'model is in- Correctional tended to provide an exemplary format Case Law Model upon which correctional administrators, data processors, and lawyers can develop an information system responsive to both current and future demands of the court.
. Information . Case Law. Needs Compendium Rules of *Mono*
Of course, in developing such a system, it must be kept in mind that the documenta- tion of information must conform to the Figure 3.1. Correettonal case law demand Information model rules of evidence which govern the admis- sibili;y a evidence in a court of law. As mary statements and trends statementsare intended to assist administrators inconcerns the type of:information suggested across each of 20 major issue areas in cor-preparing for informational demands byin the model, the most important aspect of rectional case law as outlined in Table 3.1. the courts before they develop. the rules of evidenceppears to be the bus- The issue areas which underlie the model iness 'records rule.' This rule specifies the were identified by reviewing available doc- Cam law oompandlum conditions under which agency records and umentation concerning correctional case The third part of the model, appearing indocumentation must be presented. Specifi- law and by consulting with a number ofAppendix B, is a compendium of correc-cally, the 1 isiness records rule states that a attorneys who regularly defend correction- tional appellate cases which represent thewitness producing records in court must be al agencies. courts' decisions across the various issueable to show: The summary statements encapsulateareas in correctional law and upon which The agency maintained records in the contemporary jurisprudence on currentthe summary statements and trend state-normal and regular course of business, and issues in correctional case law. They are ments are built. The compendium providesthat the records produced are a part of designed to allow Administrators to briefly a more detailed enumeration of the court's those regularly kept. review the current status of litigation_an.posture on specific issues, Within each issue The entries in the records are made at or modify their decisions so that any major or area, the leading cases are cited and theirabout the time that the transaction takes unsupportable conflict with the court-holdings abstracted. place. might be avoided. The statements are based The entries are made from reports, mem- upon: Information niids- oranda, or other documents prepared by An.exhaustive review of appellate court The final, and possibly the most usefulsomeone who actually had knowledge of decisions involving correctional agencies,part ofthe model ilthe section on informa---the transaction.' administrators, prisoner rights conflicts, etc.' tion needs which was designed to help cor- The records produced are the original rec- Ektensive tracking of all cases to deter-rectional agencies respond to the question ords, though photographic reproductions mine whether precedents set in older cases of what information ought to be retained to have generally beensubmiisible. have subsequently been overruled by moreindicate that its policies and procedures A recognition of the constraints placed up- recent cases.' " ... are compelling enough to justify theon an agency in responding to judicial de- Advice of a number of correctional law-invasion of a prisoner's rights." In essence,mands for information emphasizes the need yers familiar with contemporary correction-this part of the. model is a requirementsfor corrections to anticipate these demands ,al case law and the informational needs ofanalysis for a correctional law information and develop information in an orderly and correctional administrators. system. As seen in Exhibit A, the informa-accurate manner, as a consequence of the The trends statements enumerate a num-tion needs enumerate those data elementsnormal course of business. Finally, it should ber of observations as to how the courtswhich would typically be needed by an at-be noted that even though an agency can might be expected to move in any particu-torney to successfully defend an agency show a compelling state interest and justify lar issue area in the near future. These trendwithin any particular issue area of correc-its actions, it must also evidence that its statements were developed from the sum- tional case law. These information needsactions are the least restrictive method of Mary statements, together with case dicta, were developed from a review of discovery violating an inmate's eights. In order for an footnotes and dissents, and discussions with requests, an analysis of active defenses to agency to be aware of the optimum solu- attorneys in the field. The trends statementscorrectional suits in the various issue areas,tions to its problems, and be able to show that there is no better course, of action, correcti6ns must develop a vehicle through Table 3.1 which it can share information. Optimally, Directory of major issue areas- corrections should have a national clearing- correctional Cu. law demand Information model house through which agencies can share Court :mess XI. isolation the best solutions to common problems. II. Acmes to counsel XII. Search a seizure Such a clearinghouse would also serve to Mods access t Condbons of confinement IV. Receipt of publications XIV. Staffing enhance the standardization of correction-, V. Correspondence XV. Work/Ideness/exerds* al policy and management,-as is currently VII Visitation XVL Rehabilitation VII. Telephone access XVII. Grievanco procedures being attempted by the American Correc- .VIII. Transfers XVIII. Discipline tional Association and the-Law Enforce- IX. XIX. Race and sex dIsalmination ment 'Assistance Administration through X. =trolly'segregation XX CM rights actions the Correctional Standards Project. Hcoe-- 20 ,
14 Correctional data analysis systems
fully, the combination of such a national sOution on notice regarding the attor author of the letter must be given an ney /client relationship, mail from attor- clearinghouse, along with the proactive de- opportunity to appeal the decision to nays may be opened and inspected, but someone other than the original decision not read, only in the Inmate's presence. velopment of correctional law information maker. It Is permissible to inspect letters systems as outlined in the present model Inmates have the right to see their Mr between inmates and private individuals neys at reasonable times and In such a for, contraband. This may be done outside. will satisfy the dethands created by litiga- manner as to permit private tommunica the inmate's presence. tion and put correctional administrators tion between them. Trends back in full control of their agencies. Trends Intrusions into inmate's right of free Access to legal assistance groups speech must be the least necessary to (ACLU, etc.) governed by same rules as Reforoicia access to attorneys.- accompksh a legitimate government interest. Sheldon. The Law of Corrections and Pris- Visits by attorneys' employees Mail fists and restria-ns on the number oners' Rights in a Nutshell. St. Paul. Minnesota. West (paralegal. law students, investigators) ot letters a pnsoner can wnte are being set governed by same rules as attorneys. Publishing Co.. 1976. (Sec also Krantz. Cases and Mate- aside. Contact visits required. Delays in delivering mail to inmates are r,ais on the Low of Correcuaru and Prisoners' Rights. St. Outgoing mail sealed. Nut. Minnesota: West Publishing Co.. 1973.) being scrutinized. Information needs Some minimum free postage is re- Ibid. wired. Potts. James L. and Bronstein. Alvin J. Prisoners' Rules goveming attorney correspon- dence and visiting. Review of censorship decisions. Self help Litigation Manual The National Prison Proj- List of members of state and local bar. Reading of outgoing mail coming under ect of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation. Record pf all attorney visits (date & criticism. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books. 1976. inmate visited). Prohibition or censorship of inmate:D. " Ibid. Reco:o of all abuses of attorney's visit- Inmate correspondence being upheld. Stuckey Gilbert, Evidence for she Law Enforcemenr ing or correspondence privileges (particu- Information needs Ojjicer. New York: McGraw {till Book Co.. 1974. larly regarding introduction ot contra- Department regulations on general cor- band). respondence. Procedures for handing of mail.° Exhibit IA Procedures for securktg postage Correctional can law demand III. Media access and/or stationery by indigents. Information model . . Summary Records of yearly expenditures for postage and stationery by institution. Some means of communication between Records detailing any censorship and prisoners and the press must be available. I. Court access appeals therefrom. O but neither inmates nor the media are Records e contraband discovered Sbininary entitled to specific personal interviews. passing through the malls. The press has no greater right of access . The right to an individual and meaningful Records of disposition of contraband. to a prison than does the general public. access to the courts is guaranteed to prisoners under the due-process clause of Trends 11. Visitation ' the U.S. Constitution. While officials mai" Pnvileged correspondence similar to tarn some (bastion In how meaningful Summary attorney/inmate mall. , access will be provided. it iedear that Rules setting forth standards to be Visitation may be regulated when rea inmates are entitled to communication to appled when interviews dm requested. sonably relat-d to legitimate prison inter- and from the courts free of institutional ests. However, any regulation must be Information needs ittterferencelOdcials are required to han- spoked in a uniform mtmter. There Is no dle'elch correspondence expeditiously. Rules governing correspondence and constitutional right to conjugal visits. Trends visiting by media. Trends Rules setting forth criteria 10f permitting Right to send sealed correspondent, individual interviews and group press con- Requiring Advanced approkal of poten- to Wm and to have Incoming corm ferences. tial visitors'is fiermissible. sliiondence inspected only in inmate's Records of all press access. Suspension of visiting privileges as presence. Records of all abuse of correspondence inishinent is being closely scrutinized. Where law library is 'seized to provide or visiting privileges. Contact visitation. particularly for pre- access to the courts. scrutiny of contents Records of security problem created by trial detainees: of library . its availability to inmates. par- media access. Review of mislting'hours and number of ticularly thoee in segregation units, visitors allowed permitted. amount of time kbrary is open, number of Review of visiting room conditions. books Inmate can requestetc. W. Receipt of publications Minors to be permitted to visit parents. Review of adequacy of alternative legal assistance programslaw school clinics. Summary Information needs , in' articular. 'Censorship of pubications must be re- .Department regulation on visaing . Review of arbitrary reassignment of lated to legitimate institutional interests. , induding frequency and number of vis- "jailhouse lawyers."' Requiring that publications be received itors. Information needs only from publishers is permissible. In. Records of persons t Iied stitutions may not censor publications Records of problems caused by indi- Department and institutional rules on merely because they are critical of prison -vidual visitors. Inmate/court correspondence. incuding . administration: Records of visitors received by each postage allowances. prisoner and date of visit. Department and institutional rules on Trends Records of approved visitors. inmate-provided legal assistance. library Regulation regarding censorship must Records of special visits. hours, access to Nbtary. etc. be specific. Clear statements outlining alternative , Requiring evidence to show that sexu- OIL Telephone access legatasestancemograms. ally oriented materia. :MI cause problems *List of all law books and legal subscrip- in the institution.. Summary tions (records should include efforts at Limitations on amount of reefing mate- There is no clearly established right to keeping ibrary current and replacement of rial in cell is valid. lost or demigod books). telephone calls for convicted prisoners. Inmate entitled to notice of and appeal Telephone calls may s monitored (ex- Ceiba catlen r4 adequacy of law F.brary from censorship decisions. by law ibrarlan law professor. cept calls between h....ate and his attor- ney). ReccIrds of r a for transferring or Information nerds de:it:ening *thane is. Butte veining incoming publications. Trends Records of attempts t buss law 11. indudinglisposftn of unacceptable pub- Permitting at least emergency calls, brary access or privileged munica. . lications. lions. Regular telephone access for pretrial Records of any problems caused when detainees. Records of aN inmates seeking legal particular publication* are allowed into assistance and the help provided to them. Information needs Records detailing reasons for any N, Records of publications censored and Departmenlon regarding in.' breach of privileged communications by N reasons therefore. mate use of telephone. the institution. Logs showing calls rnede byy Inmates. Budget figures for law-related books Records of any abuse of t and suppees. V. Correspondence privileges (obscene calls, thsZ'.ei.ta).r Summary H. Access.to,counstel VIII. Transfers Summary Malltehwen inmates and those on the may be censored If it furthers Summary The right of an Inmate to communicate scanty r, or rehabiNtation within the Inmates are not entitled to hearings or with he &horny/ is dearlY recognized. kistKutfon QQtfidale censor or withhold other procedural due process when they !Provided the atlomey has place° He In- mat the inmate must be notified and the are transferred from one Prison to f1 Correctional case law demand information 15
another. However. transfers within the Xl. Isolation B.Medical care same institution to a seg regation unit do require be process. (See Sections X and Summary Summary XIX). Inmates are entitled to div process pro- Courts will not second guess medical Trends tections before pisameni In Isolation. Iso- staff, but will intervene where there is lation is cruel and unusual punishment if a deliberate Indifference to medcai Same due process required for trans- the deprivations and/Or WO of coh- needs by either medical or fers from prison to mental hospital or from flnement are shockingtothe conscience. non-medical staff. there back to prison. Trends Motivations for transfers being reviewed Trends (e.g., ks stop jailiouse lawyers). Roview of dietary reitricions during Iso- ' Medcal personnel/inmate ratios. . Effect of transfer on inmate being con- lation - Review of adequacy of mental _ Length and conditions of solitary are health care. Inmates have no right to transfers. bang closely Inked. Prventive medicine (regular! Inforniation needs unDefavorabprivatily. on ofclothing is looked upon physicals, etc.). Dietary needs. DPortir regulations on intra-state Visiting privileges while in solitary: S facilities for physically end Maete transient hpPed.anclicapecial Criteria for placement in every unit Information needs withsyetem. Regulatiorg governing placement in sol- Information needs, Guinideline% for selection to special pre- Medal staffing patterns. gams or units (work *ease, etc.). ?Recordsof hearings including evidence Hospital procedure:\ Including Reaeonsior Individual transfer's: relied on and reasons for placement in quarantine of persons with contagious Emergency transfer procedures. isolation. diseases. Log showing duridon of confinement Sick call ures. and number_ of inmates sharing cell. Individual medical and dental IX. Religion Plans detailing cell size and conditions. records breach inmate. 8 Summary Any special rules not applicable to gen- emergency procedures and eral prison population. Resy trictions of inmates! re.gious freedom records of emergency treatment. ma only be justified showing a coret Statistics showing numbers of inmates treated, type of medical pelkig state interest. nerelly, institu- XII., Search and seizure. tional security and economic considera- problem. etc. gumniaty tim the courts as Records of any special treatment sufficient for Infringing on in- Searches of cells and personal belong- programs. mates freedom. Religions mat ings and pat-down searches of inmates Inventory of medically-related be treated equally within the prison. may be conducted at any time. Search equipment. Trends'''. warrants are not necessary. Strip C. Physical conditions searches may routinely be performed Summary Review of regulations restricting heir after contact "its. langlb and beards where mutations are Courts will look at the totality of the in conflict with sincerely MO religious Trends conditions of confinement. Even beliefs. Probable cause necessary before con- though one thing standing alone (e.gi, Retigiously motivated dietary require- ducting strip and body cavity searches. iriadeq.iste plumbing) might not be ments are being renized. Receipts for confiscated property. cart and unusual punishment, the Security considerations which curtail re- Presence of inmate during search of total effect of the living conditions can bus activities are being closely re- Possessions. nse to constitutions! levels. o Privacy during strip searches. Trends nicotinedon needs- Notice to inmates regarding what ac- tions will subject them to strip searches. Clothing niuit be-leurtdeied Department regulatiCn polciei re reli- Body cavity searches by medical per- regularly and must be consistent with gious activities, including appearance sonnel only. the climate. codes and hindlIng of special dairy .Regular cleaning schedule. needs. Information needs Proper ct and rodent control. Breakdown of Inmate population by re- Regulations governing searches. Every cell to have toilet and hot and ligion. Records of ail contraband seized and cold water. - e Record of religious 'entices provided, manner In which it was found. ' Beds must be off the floor and of inducing payments to chaplains or part- Records of reasons for conducting . nonflammable material. time ministsrs. non-routine strip searches. 30 foot candles for cell lighting. - Record of problems created by particu- Copies of receipts given inmates for Information needs lar religious groups or individuals. seized property. , Record of reasons for denying any re- Disposition of all property seized. All architectural plans, particularly ligiously motivated for heating 'and ventilation systems. e Policies regardngm=byreigious or Staffing patterns of maintenance spintual advisors. XIIIConditions of confinement personnel. A.Overcrovidinq eMaintenana records. . Housekeeping regulations, X. Administrative segregation Summary Records of housekeeping Supplies Summary Double ceding is not per se purchased. a Records of articles of hygiene If the transfertoadministrative segrega- unconstitutional, but coins look at tion amounts to's "grievous loss, the- many factors in determining whether (soap, toothpaste, etc.) purchased Institution must provide duo process institution is unconstitutionally and furnished Inmates. inducing notice°, the rea- ovetcrowcied. Square fobtags Pest antrol contracts or records. ' sons for Me transfer, a hearing before an standards. adopted by various groups Fire mariners reports (at least . Me do not constitute constitutional Impartial fact ender and a !hilt! right to minima. present documentary evidence and call Staterhealth office reports (at least witnesses:- ---1 'Trends bimonthly). D. Food services , Trends . 0, Square footage Is just one factor to Summary Review of reesons for placement in be u *Wed, others are: time spent administrative segregation. in del, conditions of all, age Prison officials are required to provide .Poriodic review of inmates to determine buildings, amount of violence and a well-be:weed meal containing when they should be released. number of disciplinary infractions. sufficient nutritional value to preserve Criteria for release. Design or rated capacity not inmate's health. A trained dietidan Exercise privileges: controlling in determining shouid regularly review menus and overcrowding.... food preparation. Special diets Information needs Information needs . ordered by the medical staff must be WI WI rules giving notice to inmates provided. dalfy populaion figures by housing regarding actions which will cause trans- units. Trends fertoadministrative segregation. Written procedures for hearings. Square footage in each housing . Providing for special dietary needs Records of hearings, including evi- unit based on religious boleti. dence relied on and reasons for sentence Time spent in cod/dorm each day. Regular examinations of food Desirable and maximum capacity of nig personnel (free personnel ii:Ctlencriteria for *NW institution by housing unit. and initiates). Procedures for reviewing inmates In Discipline and violence figures by e Regular inspections of sanitary administrIMiva 'waggon. month. conditions In food preparation areas. Conditions in segregation units (spacer Review of amount of time inmates senility iodides, exercist.ffic.). are given to eat Anycep eelal rules spplicelble to magi- `don, but not other was of the prison. 22. 16 Correctional data analysis systems
Information needs XIX. Race and ax discrimination Lithibit 3:A ciontliwal) call law demand Ciob breakdown by title and type of skil Summary roquired. and Information modal individual inmate institutional wait Work and reitatiMation homing units must be red integrated =,cluding reasons for Job unless there is a rational for not Revlew.of dining locitiona (oil vs. doing so. Male and female prisoners must Regulations controlling Indoor and r Ire smiler treatment din haN). outdoor exerdse. ...Ringovirver of dietary restrictions in e Inventory of exercise and athletic Trends solitary conlnement, Including' equipment . number of meals a day. integration of multiple occupancy cells. Job assignments by lot. a. Infomabon needs )(VI. Rehabilitation Iner-racial visiting cannot be prohibited. Daily menus. Women prianers entitled to Health reports OA food handlers. flummery educational and vocational training Sanitation reports for food Courts haanot found that inmates have a programs of a and quality preparation areas. right to rshabiltake or treatment comparable ki main . Proclaim handling special programs during incarceragon. However, If Mate provides minimum security diets. as part of the total conditions of an -facilities, work release, etc. for male 7 -co-Complete reports of any suspected insertion, they often consider existence prisoners, women are entitled to similar food poisoning incidents. of such programs in decal mtwtether the =tio4riiiiegagiven to members E.inrhati safety Institution Is violating the against cruel and unuiterWili"rment, of Mama ethnic groups. Summary, rrends Information needs .Prison officials must exercise sDally radal breakdowns for housing sufficient control and supervision to Review of reasons for deny inmate the right tparticipate In available . units. protect inmates against physical .. Monthly racial breakdowns of work and assaults. Inmates cannot Mused to programs. guard other inmates. Employees may Selection of inmates for programs must Selection =flOrisfiousing, work, and not Use unnecessary or excessive be on non-discriminatory basis. rehabilitationte=nns. force against inmates. . Requking.baic education courses of work and Trends ,. information needs ritraVITionexpper=by sex. Review of classification system m Description of available programs. for work and ensure separation of potenally Selection criteria and reasons for mill:If:ionprograms by institution (to violent frommon-violent. removal from program. ° show that women prisoners are getting Proportional funding). AssignMent of only minimum Portion of budget spent security inmates to dormitories. rehabilitation. Annual review of each prisoner's Number of persons participating daily and Veady. XX. Civil rights actions-LadminIstrators' classification. defense! & Nadlity Review of shakedown procedures. Review of guard-to-guard and Summary prisoner-toguard communication XVII. Grievarfce procedures Prison °tildes will not be held liable In systems. Summary - prisoners' civil rights actions unless 1) the officials knew or reasonably should have Information needs , Inmates need not exhaust adminIstrave known that their actions would violate the e gasification criteria and remedies, Including Institutional grievance procedures, before filing suit in federal Inez:tie constitutional rights, or 2) the Pr_oo49.1 _ _ acted with rrialiWus Interest to court alleging constitution/it right Clear statements regarcinitypes of- cause a Constitutional deprivation. . inmates to t !tumid in each housing violations. c, Negilgilna or medical malcclone unit. a Trends r. will not au_pportclaim for under Reports of any use of fora by the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. . 1 ), employees or inmates, including Congress is considering legislation statements by examining doctor. (H.R. 10) which would require exhaustion Trends Record of all shakedowns, of grievance votaries before prisoner cave rights' actions can te Attorneys' fees may be awarded to Including items confiscated. prisoners ;Attorneys even where prison Information needs officials were in good faith. ..- Appointment of attorneys for prisoners XIV. Staffing Grievance procedures. Records of handling of all grievances. In civil rights cases. Summary Statistics on of grievance Where the loss is minor, prisoners may Sufficient numbers of employees to ,handling and their resolution., be required to exhaust administrative protect life and property must be hired. remedies prior to filing civil rights'actione. Prison guards must receive adequate Lack of financial resources Is no training. Employment must be on a XVIII. Discipline defense to dvii rights action. racially non-discriminatory basis. Summary Information needs Trends Before an Inmate can loss good time or be Note: Depending on the allegations , Requidog affirmative hiring programs to placed in Isolation or administrative contained in the lawsuit, any-of the reduce-racial disparity. segregation he is entitled to a procedurally information detailed In the previous Equal Job opportunity for women. correct hearing, including advance notice sections might be needed. psychological examinations of of the charges, ._rioht to paint evidence DoCumentation of communications of prospective employees. In his own behalf, and written reasoni for legal devolopmegts to prison Octal. Review of stalling patterns. the action taken aganst him and the Reports on all unusual occurrences evidence raid upon. Some form.of Within the prison, especially those which Information 'heeds assistance must be provided to Illiterate involve possible violation of laws or gmployee interview records showing inmates. institutional regulations thr employees. race, sex, and reasons for not hiring. Trends. Documentation of disciplinary actions Records of staffing o=:. Review of the nutrakty of the hearing taken againit employees who violate Statistics on daily inmate rights. 4' Records of all training programs, officer(s). inckiding curriculum and attendees. Due process protection when minor losses are involved. Written rules and specific penalties XV, Wortc/ideness/exercise must be provided every inmate 0Apdopriateness of penalty imposed. Summary inducing length of time assigned to Inmates are entitled to some minimal Isolation. amount of ercia,They are not, Review of use of inmate informants. however, entitled to meaningful Jobs Information needs during their incarceration. Disdpinery rules and procedures. Trends All individual disciplinary reports, Inmates must be given opportunity to including statements of the evidence work. read on and reasons for penalty inmates ended to 3-5 hours of outdoor exercise each week. StatNtlal breadown of disciplinary Review of recreational programs and Infractions, by rule, housing unit and _--1 equipment available to Inmates. penalty Imposed. 4>
a Chapter 4 each regulation, the correctional agency must develop policy guidelines for the dis- semination of information. An excellent ,example of such policy is the "Criminal Demand information: Justice InformationPrivacy and Security Cookbook" developed by the New MexiCc State of the art Criminal Justice Department. Anothercommon problem for which most agencies have a written policy concerns a "conununication with the media. The trust lost by inaccurate, conflicting ?sports from corrections is difficult to restore. To A majoro bjective ofthe CDAS project few have formulated policies and procedures nate confusion and ensure accuracy, most involves an assessment of how demand re- to govern the total respOnse process. Theagencies have policy which specifies the quests are processed in the correctional com- Oregon Division of Correctiqns is one agen- manner in which information can be re- munity. The assessmenf includes a descrip7cy which does have extensive Written policy leased Co the inedia. However, one correc- tion of how the process functions and major concerning all correctional activities includ-tional administrator commented that any- problems en 'untered by correctional agen- ing the derhand information process. Theone in that agencycoujd release information cies as they attempt to respond to requests.existence of such policies provides consis- to the media as long as it was the truth.and Literature related to demand information tent response throughbut the agency t" such did not involve population projections or is sparse. The data for this assessment was, questions as who has access to correctional budget projections for the next year. Open, therefore, collected by a telephone surveyinformation, what resources can the agen-free-flowing communication between the of each correctional agency and site visitscy afford to expend on demand informa-agency and the media is admirable but it to se'Vertteen agencies. The site visits ampli- tion requests, and what is the most effective has some dangers. What an administrator fied preliminary information collected by and efficient means or response? May believe to be the truth may in fact be telephone and lave the project staff the Many agencies recently haye becomeincomplete or out of date, leading to the oppoitunity,to directly observe the demand painfully; aware of the impact that informa- release of inaccurate information or to in- information process. The staff was particu- tion requests have on staff time and finan-formation which conflicts with that released larly interested inhe wisdom acqUired.liycial resources. Administrators of many agen- by another adMinistrator in the agency.. the correctional agencies as they experi-cies.are currently reviewing the problem in Written policy directing tne demandym- enced successes and failures in demant::n-an effort to develop formal policy and pro- . formation process results in response con- formation processing. cedural statements which will improve the.sistency. In the correctional community, 'There are many questions whicfi'couldefficiency of 'the process and reduce thehowever, much of the response process is be asked in an assessment of demand in-workload. For example, even though theinformally understood by agency person, formation responsiveness. Major questions Minnesota Department of Correctionsnet and has evolved over time rather than addressed in this chapter include the fol: prides itself on never turning down a re,having been planned. Requests are intui- quest for lack of data, the agency's admin- tively routed. The respondent may be the *What is the purpose Of policy in the de- istrators fmd it necessary to formulate policy best qualified to answer the .request or he mand information process? to control the influx of requests. Agenciesmay be simply the least busy at that mo- What arethe common procedural elementswith lesser response capabilities have even ment. in responding to a demand information re- a greater need for such policy... Similarly, response priorities are often quest? For some agencies, even though reoestsbased on subjective judgments-or past ex- What is the impact o) the inter-organiza-represent a significant problem, the addi-perience, rattlef Than policy. Procedures tional and intra-organizational relationships tional task-of-devettlping policy cannot besuch as these, which depend on experience on the demand information process? imposed upon the already overworked ad-and intuition, risk breaking down when, What technology is currently being usedministration. The Department of Correc-key staff chapges occur. Without agency and what are the major technological ob-tion in Tennessee has over 5,000 institu-policy, units within an agency may have stacles in the response process? tionalized inmates but no computer: The differing or even opposing interpretations *What are the personnel needs affectingtask of manually responding to a requestof the needs and priorities of the process. the demand information process? which requires a manual check of the rec-The result is inconsistent information pro- In order to present the demand informa-ords is formidable. A few correctional.duction. Policy which specifics theresponse tion, ploCess in a manageable format, theagencies, usually those with a very small procedures is the best protection from the prbcess has been divided into five facets.Inmate population and a correspondinglyinefficiencies of duplicated responses and These facets include (I) policy considera- staff are either( I) forced to ignore all wasted aline. Policy is also the best defense tions; (2) procedural techniques, (3) admin- but 'he most critical requests, or (2) actual- against charges of arbitrary andcapricious istrative- organization, (4) technological ly do not`ot receive requests in sufficient num-action. applications, and (5) personnel patterns. bers to be considered a problem. These By examining the parts of the process theagencies have not considered demand in-Procedural techniques different capabilities of correctional agen- formation policy a pressing need. cies ire more easily 'described and under- With the exception of Oregon, other Procedural techniques in demand infor- stood. agencies with demand information policies -mation include the mechanics of process- generally :rave, policy statements only for ing and the record keeping involved in pro- two demand information concerns. These ducing a response. Key procedural elements Holley considerations are privacy and security issues and/or com- for achieving control of the process and munication with the media. Privacy andefficiency in response production arc rout- Demand informition requests have onlysecurity regulations complicate the response ing and logging. These two elements com- rece.,tly emerged as a significant adminis-process. Federal, state, local and agencyplement and impact each other. The effec- trative task for corrections requiring a state- regulations may all elect how an agency tiveness of logging depends partly upon the ment of policy for control. Most correctional can respond and what information can berouting model of the requests, yet efficient agencies have recognized the problem but released. In order to insure compliance withrouting cannot be established without a-
17 24 4
. 18 Correctional data analysis system; knowledge of arrivals pan ided by the lug. Thc dissipation of agency resources Is resource allocation must be compiled from minimized bythe delep,ation of the response various departments. Routing task to specific departments. ' Efficiency of the process is threatened by If the agenCsy is to have control of the ' The opportunity for recording and log- errors in forwarding, and by the possibility response process, established routing pro- ging the-requests is snaximited.. of two or more locations compiling re- cedures are necessary. Routing increases ' Duplication of response created by iden-sponses for identical or similar requests efficiency by the systematic physical han- tical requests sent to various sectors of the Examples'of this type of rOuting.can be dling of the request. Duplicate requests sent agency is prevented. seen in the Georgih, Indiana, Florida, and to various sections of an agency arc threats *Co' :ado correctional agencies among ` to the efficiency of the response process. Disadvantages of consolidated others. Thc Georgia Department of Of- The pioblem creates the irritating and cosi,- request model fender Rehabilitation, for example, speci- ly situation of two or more staff members The.model may not be practical for very fies three primary respondents. the public each devoting time and agency resources to small correctional agencies nor efficient for information office, the director of institu- compile the vine response. Many times extremely 1;.rge agencies whose "central" tions, and the resar:h and eval4tion of- thcse thiplLate requests are not discovered office is spread over several sites. fice. Inquiries are distributed to thei.e three until requisitions for identical data from 'The success of the model depends upo n offices according to the subject of the in- different agency sections reach the data the centralization of all requests at one or quiry and the type of response required. processing department. If no routing pro- two designated points. For some agencies The Indiana Department of Correction al- cedures are established, then decisioamust this model is too restrictive to function with- so routes requests according tcithe nature be made independently for each request. in the normal operating procedures of theirof the subject, for example: The routing methods utilized by most agency. 'Requests concerning the adult authority, correctional agencies can be summarized The model assumes the presence of a poli- inmate appeals, etc., are trote'd to the ex- 14 the following three models: (1) consoli- cy which specifies a central authority which ecutive director.. .. dated request model, (2) preliminary sort- makes assignments, establishes pri_Tities and 'Requests concerning education, programs, ing model, and (3) individualized response insures the cooperation of all departments. transfers, etc. are routed to the classifica- model. In general, these models refer to Several correctional agencies which prac-tion and treatment director. routing the external requests coming to the tice this model orclimilar forms of consoli- ' Requests from the inmates and response agency. Requests originating within the dated request routing are Maryland, Mass- to denials are routed to work release. agency also require rbuting for efficiency achusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Juvenile inquiries are routed to youth au- but, with the requester present, miscommun- South Carolina. thority. ication and errors are less likely to occur. ' General information requests are routed Preliminary sorting model to research and statistics. Consolidated request model In this model the arrival locations are \ This model is a formalized method of not designated until the requests are prelim- Individualized response model routingrequcsts. Requests received through- inarily sorted by the a,ddressee. Requests In this model ad hoc requests are infor- out the agency are first routed to a desig- are then routed to three or four locations.mally processed and they are generally the nated location regarci;ess of content. After according to the content o(the request and/responsibility of the addressee. The recip- preliminary cohsolidation, requests are or the source of the request. Requests for ient may respond directly or forward the routed to the appropriate respondent, The policy or t hoseTrom the governor or legis- request to another individual whom he be- responsibility for producing a timely re- lature are routed to the chief administrator lieves is qualified to respond. Often an in- sponse may be assigned to the respondent or his assistant, inquiries which entail fig- dividual with time available or with more or may be retained by the original desig- ures and statistics are directed to the re- experience in the agency becomes the per- nated location:The latter is especially ap- search department, requests from the media son charged with the task of compiling the propriate if the efforts of several different are usually routed to the public informa- response. In a small agency where several agency units are necessary to complete the tion office even if the request requires data operational functions are blended into one request. It is not unusual for a response to from other sources. department, the staff members may-share require inforniation from a combination of the response task in an effort to equalize the 'agency sections, administration, re- Advantages ep riliminary Work burden. search;and data processing.' sorting model If the model is strictly observed, requests The routing process in this model elimi- Advantages of individualized which are addressed to specific offices and/ nates one step of the consolidate'd request response model , or personnel would be forwarded to the model, that of initially centraliziva t: , re- 'The individual method of response is pos- designated arrival location to be recorded quests arrival. sibly the most flexible and the most easily and routed. In practice, however, if.a spe- 'Many agency staff members prefer to make adapted to the various types of administra- cific qu -stion is correctly addressed to a-routing decisions individually rather than tive organizations found in corrections. particular individual such as a warden of refer all requests to a central location. They This model is common in, but not con- an institution, he will probably answer It believe they have sufficient information fined to, smaller agencies whose request rather than forward it to the designated about the various tasks and functions of volume does not support the need for for- location only to have it routed back to him. the agency to be able to forward requests malized routing procedures. Exdmples of designated arrival locations correctly. are theAssistant to the Director; the Public Disadvantages of iivlividualized Information Office, Research Depart ment, DisadvanrOges of pkiminary response model or Correspondence Secretary.. sorting model `Control and efficiency are reduced unl-ss 'Control over the demand information theagency is very small and has continuous process is diminished by the decentralizedopen communication among personnel. arrival locations. There may be confusion "The agency administrator has little oppor- Advantages of the consolidated about who has the responsibility for the tunity to review the contents of a response request model response, and setting priorities. or to select the respondent. The agency maintains tight control over 'Knowledge of the complete scope of ad 'The agency also has questionable com- the demand information process. hoc requests for planning, budgeting and mand over the execution of the response- 24- Demand information: State of the arb
whether it satisfies agency standards or con- cult with the widely dispersed arrival lo- policy statements and training should ad- forms to agency priorities. cations of the individual response routing dress the model. An exception may be an extremely Who can specfor the agency. Logging ,small agency with a self-contained staff. Importance of and methods for verifying_ The log of demand information requests Other factors, besides routing, which af- the accuracy of thc information. . minimally provides arecord of the receipt fect the logging procedure arc agency poli- Complete Understanding of all regulations of the re3dest, the subject of the request cy and the sourcc of thc request. Agencygoverning privacy and security. ancldate received. It may also include the policy may indicate that log records will bc.Compliance with agency policy and state date the response is due, the-individual re- maintained at.all arrival location3 or,io the regulations. .sponsible for the response., and the data absence of an agency policy, a specific re- Guidelines for.infarming adminiArators required for the respohse. There arc several ceiving location may have its own policy oinformation releases. advantages which accrue to the correction for logging requests. Examples of specific Realizing the potential for miscommum- al administrator when an aequz..c log of records are those kept by dr.ta processing caticrt and thc serious consequences of it, requests is. maintained. for billing purposes, or those records dfseveral correctional agencies have delcg3t- As the record of ad hoc requests the log media communicatoni maintained by thecd certain critical informmon functions to provides the data fgr all analysis, planning public information office insuring consis- specific offices or nicht .duals. Legislative and evaluation of the demand information tent news 'releases to all media. Even tcle. liaison and media contact arc the most com- process and its impact on the correctional phone requests from the media may bemonly recognized communications posi- agency. recorded. Offical requests from thc gover- ions.tf the 17 agencies visited, approxi- The logservesas an index to past responses. nor's office or the legislature often merit matcly 60 percent had identified public Some inquiries may be answered %full orrecordidg when other sources cio not. information offiters and approximately 25 in part by data already compiled for similar percent had thc position of legislative liai- %requests. "-Control of Information releases ion,TheCalifornia 4cparimen't Of Correc- The log provides a list of the consumers of The procedural elements discussed thus tions, Virginia Department of Corrections, co ?ectional information and what the top- far, routing and logging, have concentratedand the Federal Burcau of Prisons have ics of interest are. on the arrival patterns.of requests to corT,-both positions(Congressional liaison in-the The log provides the key to an analysis of rectional agencies., howev'er, there is also acase of thc latter). Whether or not an agen- demand information Impact on the agency. problem with information. disseminatedcy has a full-time legislative liaison may be Without-a log the drain on the agency's from the agency. Responses to deihand,jn-. partly a function of the calindar of the state resources from such requests cannot be formation requests are seldom subjectIto legislature. If the legislature meets tin. a identified. Plans for controlling the requests review or administrative control. kespoines,specitied number of uays every other year, or attempts to 'lieu de them in the agency's may Nary widely in quality and ray nota-full-time iiaison position may nbt be justi- budget are nothing more than guesswork. conform to agency, standaids. it can bc.fied. Other agencies may have specified cer- The log also serves as the basis of an extremely embarrasSing to the correctional ta .n individuals to bc responsible for those index fordemand intormauon requests. An agency for information to be released which functions when the need arises, but, their index allows the agency to locate past re- is in someway inconsistent with its goals.usual position within thc agency may be quests whose responses are reusable for Common problems°with information re-researcher. administritive assistant. etc. similar requests. WithOut a log of requests leases may include: and responses the administrator must treat Violation ofprivacyand securityregula- . each request asunique. Nearly every agen- tions Administrative organization cy maintains copies of the major requests Errors and responses, but these are usually li.cd Incomplete data The administrative relationship between chronologically by arrivarAdate and not in- Conflicts with other information the correctional agency and state gaern- dexed. Use of the file depends on the mem- Untimeliness of information., ment and thE relationship of the correc- ory of one or two individuals as to the The news media may call severe members tional agcncy to its data processing facility existence of a similar request-and its re-of the staff to _obtain information or to raises some questions conccrning the im- sponse. obtain interpretations or comments on pact of these relationships upon the de- As important as the logging is to thepreviously publicized information.ltis not mand information proccss. agency, It also has some disadvantages. uncommon for the agency's representatives Is an agency more responsive to demand Staff time and effort is required to main-to differ in their interpretations of the data. information requests if it is (I) operating tam an adequate log for future use. For example, the amber of inmates in an under the umbrella of another department To be totally effective, a log must be main-institution may be different for food service or(2) operating ai4 a separate department in tained by all recipients of inquiries. than for the administration, with numer- the state government? Requests received and answered 6y tele-ous inmates out on work release, furlough, Is an agency more responsive to demand phone, though numerous, are frequentlyor for court appearances. information requests if the data processing brief and troublesome to record. Some problems occur when staff, members service is(I)I ) totally in-house, (2) shared but :Many agencies have no routing proceduresare unaware of agency policy. For exam- with no limits on access, or (3) shared but established or are using routing models ofple, in one agency a bureau chief's opinion with limits on access? preliminary sorting and individualized re-(expressed to the media) regarding the lo- Many correctional agencies ate adminis- sponse which restrict log maintenance.. canon of a new facility proved to be at tered under the umbrella of another depart- Logging effectiveness and expediency are variance with agency policy on the location ment. Is thc agency's ability to respond to closely tied to the agency's routing Model.of new facilities. Another ernbarrassingsit- 7;1 hoc requests impeded by this adminis: Under the first model, consolidated request uation occurs when the administration is trative organization? Divisional agencies model.logging is a natural accompanimentIgnorant of certain news releises to the me- were compared to departmental agencies to the centralization of the requests arrival. dia. on the technical and personnel obstacles to With the two or race designated arrival Monitoring each response or information demand information processing No appre- locations in the preliminary sorting model, release may not be practical, but standardi- ciable differences between the two forms of zation is needed. Clear policy statements organization were detected. Apparently the .- logging procedures must be carefully for- mulated to include all ad hoc requests andand training for personnel cowl help pro- responsiveness of the agency is internally to insure an interchange among the loca-vide this standardization. At a minimum, based. tions. Comprehensive logging is very diffi- 26 O
20Correctiontil data analysis systems
The organizational relationship between Table 4.1 the correctional agency and its data pro- Comparison of the access to Information systems with the 7 cessing service 1. is defined as: (I) totally percentage use of automation In responding to ad hoc requests tn-house, (2) snared but no access limita- tions, or (3) shared With access restrictions. Access Access to data processing was found to be a - Percentage b).house Shared, Shared Manual factor affecting the response capability of Use no limitations with limitations an agency (see Table 4.1). Access restric- 2 0 tions included such problems as no pro- High '4 11 grammers and/or system analysts within Moderate - 3 5 0 . the agency, no interactive terminals within Occasional 1 7 the agericy, communication difficulties due None 1 3 9 to the remoteness of the information sys- Totals 9 17 17 9 tein fret& corrections, and the high costs in time and money for 'Wing the system. The in-house system is assumed to have no ac- Most agencies prefer on-line capability to cal capacity of the agency's automated data cess limitations, although there are a few directly update and manipulate their data processing system. The correctional agen- instances of inter-departmental problems bases. Interactive terminals within the cor- cies chosen for site visits exhibited varying which have restricted the use of the infor- rectional agency connected to the state da- degrees oftechnological capability. mation system in some specific situations. ta center may be very expensive or may not Technological capacity of an agency was The idea of a shared central computer be posstble at all depending on the relative categorized according to. (1) hardware, (2) for state agencies was originally intended location of the agency and the center. software, and (3)' agency data base. The to streamline data processing use within *I f a correctional agency operates through study revealed apumber of obstacles, par- the state. In the 1960s when the potential a central data center and has no technical ticularly with respect to data base and appheations of automated data processing personnel within the agency to assist with software which limited the response capa- were realized, many state agencies wanted systems planning and programmtng, com- bility of automated information systems. their own computer. The cost and the di- munications between the agency and theThe following discussion will include the versityof data processing installations,center may decline. Agency 110-sonnet may major technological obstacles encountered proved so great that centralized data pro- not know data processing requirements, by the correctional community. cessing facilities were established to in- and center personnel may not understand crease efficiency and to coordinate the data corrections' particular needs. Requests and Hardware processing activities of various depart- printouts must be transmitted and/or trans- The limitations of the computer hardware ments. Many states' regulations prohibited ported between locations, errors are much appear to be whether or not the agency has departments and agencies from purchasing more likely, and turnaround time is again a computer. The size of the computer or or utilizing any Computer other than the increased. who manufactured it was not reported as a designated central state computer. Turnover is'very high and state data center technological restriction in the demand in- The centralized computer concept, which personnel are often inexperienced. formation process. was originally an econoiro measure, now Priorities in a state data center usually At the time the data were collected, nine increases the cost and decreases the effec- place the state's administrative functions correctional agencies had manual informa- tiveness of data processing for some correc- ahead of corrections' needs. tion systems The status of several of the tional agencies. Lhere arc several reasons Correctionalagenciesulth several institu- manual systems is changing. The Wyoming for this development. ' tions may find that distributive processingState Board of Charities and Reform ex- I he price of computer hardware has dc- (each institution with a minicomputer eon-.pected to be utilizing the state central data crcaseJ such an extent that the purchase netted to the central office) is more effec- processing facilities by mid -1980. The New of a computer is no longer beyond the bud- tive. Each institution then has immediate Hampshire Department of Prisons and the gets of many agencies. access to data for determining work assign- South Dakota State Board of Charities and the capacities of automated systems have ments, counts, etc., and in the event ofCorrections are planning the implementa- inereas41 so that some agenZ.ies Can opey- technical problems affecting the telephone tion of the Offender-Based State Correc- ate clleetively with a mmicomputer, further lines (connecting the institutions with thetions Information Systems (OBSCIS). decreasing the purchase price. central office), the on-site usages of data Kansas, also an OBSCIS member, became file cost of programming and software processing can continue. operational with an IBM 34 (mini) in July, has increased. Agencies which are restriel- Agencies who reported access limitations 1979. Nevada Parole Commission' is a ed to the state data ',enter fur their program- to data processing also reported a much member of the OBSCIS system but has no ming and systems work arc also restricted lower percentage use of automation in re- automated inmate information system. from entering competitive markets for their sponding toad hoc requests compared with programming.peeds. agencies whose information systems were Spftware Vv hen the central computer breaks down. in-house or agencies with no access prob- Slightly more than 20 percent of correc- all agencies sharing the taolity are aIleetcd. lems. Agencies with access limitations also tional agencies report programming limita- Many state data centers have baLumc reported more technical obstacles in de-tions which restrict the agency's ability to overloaded as eqinputerized information mand information processing than do oth- produce ad hoc information The actual has multiplied fur each ul the agencies in- er alp:noes. Table 4.1 illustrates the rela-percentages of agencies with inadequate volved. Tairnaround time from the data tionship between itcuz.s to and use of automation. software may be larger because symptoms center increases as efficiency decreases.. of that problem include an overworked staff As agencies have turned more of their and unanswered requests for information. operations over to automated systems, Many administrators and staff, not recog- programming needs have become more so- Technology nizing what appropriate programming can phisticated. There is a greater demand for, do for the agency,telieve the difficulty to technically trained personnel which in- The ability of a correctional agency to be inadequate staffing. creases the Lost and may further delay therespond to demand information requests The most common software need, for turn around tune. depends a great deal upon the technologi-corrections is analytical programming; how-
.27 Demand hiformation: State of the art21
ever, the statistical requirements for ;Host entire data base consumes a great deal of Agency data 'base output reports is not complicated. Cross- CPU time. Two hundred to four hundred Data base obstacles to the demand in- tabulation of two or three factors is most dollars,per run was a common estimaie for formation process are primarily incomplete friquently requested, but even this simple a single SPSS application. records and errors in the data. If the errors statistical analysis can present a problem. If A few administrators are forced to take are in the data before the agency receives it, the agency writes its owr statistical pro-exceptional measures to obtain statistical then, obviously, there is very little that the grams, the benefit is cuF.om-tailored soft-information for their agencies. In an at-agency can do about it. However, errors ware, but the price is highly trained per- tempt to 'develop a substitute for SPSS, can occur in.the collection stage at admis- sonnel with time to design new programs the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and 4ions. Errors can also occur, during data and modify existing 'ones. CorrectionalCorrections has developed two programs ntry. Accurate recording and coding of agencies typically report a shortage of tech-an Extract program and a CrossTab pro- the data during data entry is critical. nically trained personnel so if special pro- gram. With these two programs, the agency Errors and incomplete data significantly gramming is required to respond to each can extract and compare variables required reduce the reliability of the information. request, the result can be no output at all in demand information requests. These two Users lose faith in the information system. from data processing.or output that is soprograms more efficiently satisfy most of The loss of confidence by the staff com- long in production that its usefulness hasthe agency's statistical heedsThan the SPSS pounds the problem of obtaining complete evaporated. package which, althoughavailable, is on a and accurate data. Correcting errors already Other agencies purchase proprietary pack-separate computer in the state data center. in the data base with a disillusioned staff is ages in order to have analytical capability. The Missouri Division of Corrections al- a formidable task which several correctional The most popular statistical packages in-so has difficulty utilizing statistical pack- agencies have faced. Of the agencies visit- clude SPSS, with 30 correctional agencies ages. When this agency requires statistical ed, the Oregon Division is one which has reporting access to it, and SAS with 5 agen- output, the programming mustbe modified had some success in revitalizing their data cies reporting access. When an agency re-and punched on cards in order to be re- base. The Ohio Department of Corrections ports the availability of analytical pack-ceived by the computer with analytical is currently conducting a similar "cleaning" ages, it is misleading to assume that thecapabiliv. In Maryland, the Deparment of their data base. agency does in fact have easy access to theof Public Safety and Correctional Services package or makes use of its analytical abili- must also rework its programs, strip tfie ty. Thirty-four correctional agencies report identifiers from the data, copy to tape and Personnel the availability of analytical packages (suchtake it to a university. At least two agencies as SPSS, SAS, Data Analyzer), but fullyadmitted to enrolling staff members in lo- Personnel limitations reported by correc- 50 percent of those agencies have difficulty cal universities as a means of gaining access tional agencies are categorized as an insuf- using the software. There are several tea:to university computers and analytical ficient number of staff (10 agencies) and, sons for this. software. Louisiana Department ofCorrec- inadequacies in the management of the *The analytical software package is housed tions and Alabaina Board of Corrections demand information process (10 agencies). on ,a different computer from that whichboth report access to SPSS out Louisiana Thirty-two agencies reported no personnel stores the correctional data base. The com- has no individual yet trained to use the problems. puters may be adjacent in a state data cen-package. In Alabama, the package and the The complaint of insufficient staff may ter but have no interface so that a tape oftrained personnel are located in the Statis- also be a symptom of inadequate technol- the data must be made and transferred totical Analysis Center. ogy, especially in software applications. If the second computer. One concludes that practical statistical a staff member must manually go through *The computer with the analytical pack-analysis is a serious problem for many cor- inmate records to obtain the data, the agency ages available may. be in another locationjectional agencies. The extra time and ex- may report that there is insufficient staff to blocks or miles aay adding transporta- pense required to take advantage of sta- process the request. Many ad hoc requests tion to the problem. tistical packages can significantly restrict which require minor computations effort *The issue of privacy and security must be the use of those resources. Those few re- are monumental tasks for agencies with a considered when transporting correctional quests which merit the extra effort involved manual information system. For example, data to other computers Correctional agen- in using a statistical package may include a consider the question of how many inmates cies frequently repon a university as their request from the legislature which impacts convicted of drug-related offenses are vet- source of analytical capability but, without tile agency's budget, or requests from the erans. If the data elements of veteran status computer security, identifiers must be attorney general who is assisting n the le- and offense are computerized, the response stripped from the data. gal defense of the agency. is a simple comparison of the two. *The corrections data base may have a In addition to statistical analysis, anoth- Even though technology may relieve some structure which dues not permit the direct er software need of correctional agencies is staff shortages, the problem of limited qual- application of analytical programming. For software which can generate a report di- ified and experienced personnel is vet y teal example, many correctional files are hier- rectly for a consumer. Many agencies must in the correctional community. Correctional archical, but SPSS can process only flat decode the computerized output to make it agencies are handicapped in offering com- files In these instances, the data must be meaningful to non-technical personnel. petitive technical and administrative posi- modified to permit the use elle analyticalThere is technology availablereport gen- tions. Although administrative offices may package. eratioriWhich can reformat the coded be in a major city, institutions are frequent- *The use of such packages requires trained output to mke it intelligible for the lay- ly located in rural areas away from the perso,nnel The correctional agency may not man. An example of a report generator larger urban labor pool. Pay is regulated by have skilled staff experienced in the ,oft--now in use in approximately eight correc- the state government and may not be com- ware application even if the agency has tional agencies is MARK IV, a package petitive with similar positions in private direct access to the package. The problem is developed by Informatics, Inc. The.Virgin- business or industry. Frequent turnover more acute when the corrections agencyia Department of Corrections in particular further compounds the problem of insuffi- must rely on the availability of k noWledge- is effectively using MARK IV. Another re- cient agency staff. Correctional agencies able staff in other agencies or the state data post generator is Easytrieve, a product of frequently have technology which is tem- center. Pansophic Systems, Inc. Easytrieve isused porarily unused due to lack of trained staff. 'Packages are generally expensive to oper- by approximately eight correctional agen- Formal training relating to information ate; To run an SPSS program against ancies, including Oregon and Nebraska. processing is lacking for correctional per- 22Correctional data analysis systeths sonnet. Training t . new staff is seldom stand particular capabilities or limitations*I,,ack of leadership and knowledge among provided. Newly hir..1 staff founder by trial of a computerized system. As a result thesethose responsible for systemsAnd compu- and error or they attempt to learn from administrators may incorrectly blame the ters already overworked sea personnel. state data center or others for errors which *Inadequate definitiOn attic duties State regulations may ohrbit pa, ing two result from poor internal coordination. Weak staffing tf the computer utstalla- persons for one position so a departing The advent of automated inforinationtion employee may not train a new employee systems in thecorrectional community bnngsOveremphasis on accounting types of even for a short time si. .e both cannot be more than faster and easier clerical report-applications at the expense of other vital paid simultancosuly. krequent turnover ing. Automation offers the potential offunctions defeats most training efforts. The Depart- completely new strategies for dealing with Lack of consideration for the human ele- ment of Corrections in Connecticut has problems and for improving the operationment in ADP particularly tough competition fur compu- of correctional facilities. With computersImbalance between supply and demand ter programmers from the many insurance the techniquesof simulation, linear program- of competent personn61 companies based in that state. An indivi- ming, PERT (program evaluation reviewFrequent lack of cooperation, sometimes dual with little or no programming expe- techniques), and advanced statistics are outright hostility between management and rience can obtain a job in corrections and among the new tools available for correc- those manning the computer installation. acquire experience which qualifies him for tions. An administrator unacquainted with a better paying position with the insurance novel solutions made possible by automa-Quantitative analysis of companies. tion has difficulty escaping the traditionalprocessing capabilities Management of an information system is bounds of problem-solving. These admin- difficult. To function successfully the sys- istrators fail to understand thepower of the The first section of the chapter reviewed tem must be the result of a coordinated computer to transcend conventional usesthe demand information capabilities of the effort of all sections of the correctional of information and they may react in one ofseventeen correctional agencies visited by agency. To ensure this coordinated effort, the following ways. the project staff. The diversity of t hestrengths each section must be included in the plan- The computerized system is forced to fit and weaknesses is not unexpected given the ning and evaluation of the information sys-the scope and format of traditional report- variability among the systems which com- tem. Too many administrators just view the ing systems. prise the American correctional communi- computerized output and believe they are Data collection and report production isty. This diversity of ability does, however, seeing the total information system when multiplied in terms of quantity of data, not raise some obvious questions concerning actually there are many steps to the infor- quality of information. the relationship between the demand infor- matioh process. Thsresponsibility for these Some administrators mistrust the auto- mation processing capability of an agency processing steps, ranging from data collec- mated system and insist that manual rec-and certain of its institutional characteris- tion to information dissemination, is spread ords be maintained to duplicate the in- tics. For example, do larger institutions have over various departments of the agency more obstacles in demand information pro- for man in. Other administrators, in an effort complicating the job of overall coordina- to take advantage of the reported capacity cess=th an do smaller ones? Do members of tion. of the computer, confuse the quantity ofthe OBSCIS community (Offender Based The distance between data collection and the data collected with the benefit of the State Corrections Information System) have data dissemination, besides complicating fewer response problems than those agen- information produced. Unfortunately, the the coordination of the information pro- cies using other informations systems? planning andcareful consideration' of which Cress, also reduces the communication be- To 4nswer questiOns of this nature vart-- data elements and which reports are neces- tween the locations. Misunderstanding and ious hypotheses were proposed concerning sary may be omitted. The data processing even resentment among the sections of the the relationship between the response ca- system can consume agency resources to a agen4 may result. There are several prob- far greater extent than it benefits the agen-pability of an agency and other institution- lems which contribute to the discord of the cy. Reports can inundate an agency and al characteristics. Analyses were performed information system. Field personnel seldom on the fifty-two correctional agencies in- never be read. see applications of the data which they col- It is interesting to note that problems included in the study. Foi a review of the frequency distribution of various agency lect and if no reinforcement is provided for the correctional community concerning the accurate and complete data collection, the automated data processing system are notcharacteristics see Appendix C. input h likely to becOme perfunctory. Re- unique.to corrections. J. Rose in The Cy- The characteristics analyzed in this chap- search staff and other agency personnel bernetic Revolution' reports pitfalls of au-ter include: frequently request additional data not real-, tomated data processing for business and Population izing the staff effort required to gather the industry which are nearly identical to those OBSCIS membership information. Some data collection forms Use of automation in response process. in corrections. Most of Rose's observations are revised so often that neither the field relate to management and personnel and personnel filling them out nor the data en- include the following: try personnel have the opportunity to be- Population comefamiliar with the forms. The opposite Lack of understanding of the role of A,D P The index of inmate population size Was may occur with the continued use of a form in a modern company the number of institutionalized adult males that is outdated and inappropriate. a computer is purchased for status reported in the 1979 edition of the Ameri- The administrator must recognize his ob- personnel believe their job securitycan Correctional Association Directory. The ligation to provide the necessary leadtiship is threatened number of adult males was selected as the and supervision for the information system. ignorance as to the computer's po-index of the inmate population for-several The correctional administrator may have tential reasons: some difficulty fulfilling his role as leader Concentration on computer hardware with- Some correctional agencies are responsi- because of the technical processes involved out adequate consideration of ble for juveniles as well as adults. in theinformation system. Most correction- the software Some agencies must supervise community al administrators have social science/cor, the design of the system corrections as well as institutions. rections backgrounds. They may not have servicing of the installation The few women incarcerated do not rep- been exposed to the technological language periodic review of the costs resent a significant portion of the total of data processing or they may not under- proper staffing population. 20 Demand information: State of the art '23
Agencies were classified as small, medi- Table 4.2 um, large, and very large according to the Size of population compared with technological obstacles following populati43. Small =less than 1000 (13 agencies) Technological obstacles Medium= between 1000-3000 (14 agen- Gize of agency None Data base or Programming Automation Totals cies) systems problems needed Large =, between 3000-10,000 (15 agen- cies) Small 5 5 1 2 13 Very:large = over 10,000 (10 agencies). Medium 5 4 3 2 14 The resultS suggest that population size Large 2 3 7 3 15 does not appear to be a major obstacle in Very large 6 4 0 0 10 -the demand information process; however, 52 thereii-a relationship between the size of TOtab 18 16 11 7 the agency and the technological obstacles in accessing the automated information system of the agency. All agencies expe- Table 4.3 rience difficulties with data base and sys- Size of population compared with personnel Obstacles tem problems but medium and large, Personnel obstacles agencies report more limitations in pro- gramming (see Table 4.2). The increased Size of agency' None Training and Insufficient Totals management staff size of the agency, may indicate a need for - . additional softw4e capability, which the Small 10 2 1 13 very large agencies have already obtained. Medium 9 3 2 14 Personnel obstacles, particularly the com- Large 7 3 5 15 plaint of insufficient staff, appeared more Very large 6 2 2 10 often in large agenCies than inother agcn cies. This complaint may be the result of Totals 32 10 10 52 programming limitations reported by these agencies AdMinistrators in these agencies may feel tlielkeed for more staff in order to Table 4.4 accomplishanually what their software is OBSCIS memberships and technological obstacles . failing to provide. Table 4.3 shows that training and management needs appeared OBSCIS Member to be equally divided among agencies of Technological obstacles Operational Developmental No different sizes. None ' 9 4 5 Data base or systems - OBSCIS membership problems 6 5 5 , .,. Membership in the OBSCIS community Programming 6 3 a 2 does not appear to solve all of the techqp- Automation Needed 1 0 6 logical problems involved in producing re- Totals 2? ' 12 18 sponses to ad hoc impliries. Some readers may be surprised by this apparent deficien- cy in the OBSCIS systen because the tech- OBSCIS members (6 operational,(.1devel- Table 4.5 nological potential of 0 SCIS is wellknown. opmental) (see Table 4.4). Software and the use of automation However, it should be -neted,that OBSC1F Aresponse is designed as an operational reporting sys- Use of automation in response process Existence of software tem and is not designed f'31 producing non- Use of automation Yes No standard reports or statistical applications. One questionraised in the study involves If an agency`implement5 all eight modules the extent to which automated information High: more than 70°/k_ 17 0 of the OBSCIS package, many responses to systems are utilized in responding to de- Moderate: 30%-70% 10 2 demand information requests would be mand information requests. During the Occasional: .less than 30% 7 2 available, but the responses would come telephone survey, corrections personnel es- None 1 13 from standard reports,Inot from special timated how many of the responses to ad data manipulations. In addition the reader hoc requests were supplied by automated Totals 35 17 should note that the full potential of systems (either from speCial computer runs OBSCIS technological advances is yet to be or from available reports which had been tomation in the response process than do realized by many correctional agencies. produced from the automated system). These agencies who have access limitations. Ac- Nearly one-third of the 9BSC1S states are estimates are understanda5ly rough but they cess problems greatly reduce the use of data still in developmental stages and not yet do indicate the importance of data process- processing in the demand information pro- fully operational. OBSOIS agencies with ing in the response process. cess (see Table 4.6). only the Basic OBSCIS (admissions, move- It is not surprising that the use of auto- A strong relationship exists between in- ment, national reporting) are very limited mation appears to be reiated to the exis- formation system access and technological in responding to ad hoc requests. tence of analytical software in the agency. obsta,:les. Agencies reporting no technolog- Of the 16 correctional agencies who re- Agencies with statistical patkages or in- ical obstacles appeared to be those with ported technical obstacles with their data house statistical programming use automa- in-house data processing or those with no bases orsystem structures, 1 I were members ted systems more than do agencies without access limitations to a shared information of OBSCIS (6 operational and 5 in devel- this capability. This relati3nship is present- system. Of the 18 agencies reporting no opmental stages). Of the 11 agencies who ed in Table 4.5. technological obstacles in their automated reported programming limitations, 9 were Agencies whose access to data process- system, only two agencies shared data pro- ing facilities is not restricted use more au- cessing facilities and had access limitations. 30 24Correctional data analysis .fystems
_ MIAs 4.11- Mformation system ammo and use of automation Acmes 3 0 In-housa Shand: Shared: UN otautomaton Os rtiaboniamasImitano n'with Imitations system High; Owlet than 70% 4 11 , 2 0 Mogan": 30-70% 3 4 5 0 Occasional: lass than 30% 1 1 7 0 None 0 1 3 10 Totals 5 17 17 10
SUMMarY Technology The results of this assessment show the Demand information processing in Correc- state of the art of demand information pro- tions is hindefed by a lath of analytical soft- cessing to be one of change and diversity ware and by deficiencies in the agency's data throughout thecorrectionalsommunity. The base. response process is rapidly evolving as cor- Many agencies lack adequate program- rectional agencies are recognizing and at-ming or easy.access to the software avail- 'tempting to solve the problems created byable elsewhere:- in the state system. Of some demand info rmaii on requests. For purposes 34 correctional agencies reporting the avail- of organization and to insure a thorough ability of analytical software, approximate- - assessment, the demand information pro-ly 50 percent must make special arrange- cess was examined according to The major- ments to actually use the software.The factors which impact the process. These data base file structure may p event the factors include policy, procedure, adminis-application of some types of software and trative organization, technology, sad per-'limit the eiploitability of the automated sonnel. The major findings in each area are,system. The data base may contain errors G as follows: and omissions. rendering it unreliable for producing information. Policy Very few correctional agencies have poli- Pirionnel c; governing the complete demand informa- Personnel limitations affecting the demand ( tion process. information process include: (1) lack oftrained Policy is a critical element in establishing personnel, (2) lack of formal training pro- -consistent- agency- response: Policy clotii; vided-by7the-correctional-agency,and-(3) ments the agency's commitment to regula- lack of coordination in the managemint of tions and standards. It also provides guide- the automated information system. lines for the role of staff and administration Some reported personnel shortages could in the response process.. be alleviated if the agency had more and easier access to technology. Other short- Procedure ages are caused by the rapid turnover of The key elements to procedural control of technical personnel in corrections and the the response are adequate logging and rout- absence of formal training for personnel in ing of requests. the agency. Log records furnish the correctional A successful automated information sys- administrator with data regarding the tem requires the coordinated effort of near- number and kind of requests which the ly all sections of thecorrectional agency. agency receives. The records also serve as Supervision of the system is difficult be- indicators of the resources used in'the re- cause (1) the input and output of the system sponse process. Routing the requests to an are removed from each other and, (2) be- appropriate respondent 'glows for control cause most ccirrectiona. managers are not of information dissemination, eliminates familiar with the technical abilities and lim- duplicate response efforts, minimizes the itations of system. dissipation of agency resources and in gen- eral fosters greater efficiency. Rolorenco ' Rose. J. The Cybernetic Revolution. New Administrative organization York: Barnes & Noble. 1974. A shared data processing system can in- crease costs and decrease effectiveness of automation for some agencies. Correctional agencies sharing computer facilities may experience limitations in ac- cess and use of the system. Those agencies with access limitations are forced to reduce their use of automation in demand infor- mation processing, and generally face more technplogical obstacles when the system is utilized. 3 Chapter 5 The principal objectives of this analysis of existing report generation and statistical software were to: identify software currently on the market which meets correctional criteria. Report generation and'analysis technology* Perform a comparative analysis of report_ generation software. Perform a comparative analysis of statis- tical analysis software._ The first section is an overview of the specific software assessed in this study. A typology of software is used to organize the software packages described. This section also summarizes software packages used by, state correctional agencies. The information collected in the telephone The state of the art in analysis and report The next section focuses on a compari- survey and site visits revealed that even generation technology indicates that theson of selected report generator packages, though a majority of correctional agencies purchase and use of commercial or proprie- while the third section compares selected do have some automated capability, thetary packages is more cost effective than general-purpose statistical packages. Assess- systems were developed to provide routine having a special program written for eachmentcriteriaare specified and the major reports only and are less than responsive tospecial report required. advantages and disadvantages of cach pack- age are discussed. .demand information requests. These infor- This chapter presenis, an assessment of -mation systems tend to be inflexible when In preparing this study of report genera- computer softwke relevant to the demand presented)vittrad hoc ordemand informa- tion and statistical software, Susan Wool- information data processing requirements dridge's excellent guide entitledSoftware tion inquiries due to a variety of reasons. of correctional agencies. The issues and The most common constraints include: Selection was most useful.'It contains a problems of software development are ones one data base configuration does not meet step-by-step discussion of the process of that are, perhaps, on the agendas of most input specificatioqs of proprietary packages. acquiring software ig a nontechnical and EDP managers. Correctional decisionmak- The data processing personnel are unfa-1 easy-to-folloW manner. The development ersbesieged by demands for informationof the report generator section is based, in miliar with the use of statistical softwareabout inmates, prisons, costs, effectiveness packages. part, on the surveys and reports published of programs and efficiency of operations by the DataPro Research Corporation.' Personnel or funds are .unavailable fordemand data from their analysts and pro- writing special programs to answer each Their feature report entitled "User Ratings grammers. Typically, the information re-_of Proprietary Software" is based on user demand information request. quired either does not exist or exists in a Many demand information requests are ratings of over 1900 software packages. form which is difficult, if not impossible, to for lists of a subset of the population, iden= The section on Statistical Packages drew use. The software considered in this chap- tifying those individuals meeting a variety heavily on the report of Ivor Francis en- lei has either-been used by a state correc- --of-changing parameters or characteristics. titledA Comparative Review of Statistical tional agency or,based on their attributes, cOther requests require some single statisti- Software.' Francispresents a comprehen- should be considered for use. This includes cal manipulation usually far less sophisti- sive assessment of 45 statistical packages. software packages which have been found This report is a-sourcebook on statistical cated than the range of functions available satisfactory in the development, main- on many commercial proprietary packages. software capabilities replete with sample tenance and analysis of correctional bases output from each of the packages and an Data processing personnel frequently haveand in generating reports that are respon- 'neither the time nor the statistical expedite excellent bibliography. sive to the decisionmaker's needs. to write from scratch programs to produce these statistical manipulations on such an The purpose of the chapter is to describe the Available software ad hocbasis. Over the past few years much relative attributes of selected software pack- money has been spent to develop sophisti- ages which appear to meet the requirements Over the past decade the computer en- cated information systems that are largely of demand information requests submitted viron ment and markethas been one of the unresponsive to the changing,ad hocde- to correctional agencies. These software most volatile and difficult to administer in mands for specific information. This is packages, both report generation packages the public sector. Results have not kept primarily due to data base configurations and statistical analysis packages, are com- pace with the funds spent for development and software requirements rather than the paredwithrespect to correctional needs and maintenance. selection of data elements. Figure 5.1 illus-and assessed as to their transferability and Battle stories of enormous investments trates a solution. utility. without results abound. Many of the prob- lems in the past centered on hardware. However, i.omput:r hardware has steadily improved in qualilyd iy and,gener- ally, decreased incost. Softwareproblem:, have been at the core of many stories of abandoned systemsthe failure of programs to meet expectations. new applications not available when promised, insufficient pro- gram documentation, insufficient resourees for programming needs. While manyof these issues have been dealj, with, projections of
Much of the material pre+ented in this chapter was prepared by Seth IIfirshorn. Ph I) . Associate Proles. figure 5.1. Data base /software Interface sor. Interdisciplinary Studies. Public Administration. University of Michigan. Dearborn
25 26Correctional data analysit systems , futuredata processingcosts invariably point Increase in hardware expenditures of only specifically, the software packages used foi to the escalating price of software devel- 20 percent.' statistical analysis. These include such pack- opment and programming, generally, as a In this section an overview of proprietary ages as the Statistical PaCkage for the Social major issue confronting the EDP manager. software p&kages is presented. This over-Sciences (SPSS) and the Biomedical_pata For example, in a statewide survey of local view is organized into two parts. r ,,, thePackage (BMD). Exhibit E is'a list of'such governments in Massachusetts, software general categories of software are defined,statistical packages This list also includes expenditures increased by over 175 percent and the report generators and statistical thezndor of the package to contact for between 1976 and 1978 compared to an packages currently in use in correctional further information, Most of these statisti- agincies are identified. Second; lists of the cal packages were developed in a university report generators and statistical packages, environment, are well documented, and some of which are examined in depth in have proven capabilities. While they vary Table 5.1 specific sections of this chapter, are pre-iiitei ms of functional emphasis, most have Typology of software packages sented. a wide range of data analytic capabilities. °panting support program; To facilitate the-discussion, Table 5.1 Some these systems are interactive, e.g., 1. Operating systems presents a typology of software based onSCSS, MINITAB II and SAS 7.5, but most IBM OS, DOS (Operating the software's generality of use. This typol- arc batch-oriented..In preparing Exhibits System, Disk Operating ogy follows the categorization developed in A and B many quality systems were ex-, System) eluded. The choices made were based on Burroughs MCP, NDL. MC$ Waster Software Selection by Wooldridge. While it Control Program, Net- is no; comprehensive, it gives some exam-considerations of the needs of EDP and work Dolinition research staffs in 'corrections, reported ca- Language. Menage ples for each category. Control System) dperating support programs are ma-pabilitiesorthe software, prior software, CDC NOS, KRONOS (Network chine-oriented and are frequently referred assessment results and availability of the Operating System, Time- package. sharing option named for to as "system software." These include the Greek god of lime) widely known and,used operating systems The telephone survey of state departments 2.tCorripiers developed by computer manufacturers such of corrections reveals that 30 percent use a FORTRAN (Formula Translator) as IBM's OS and DOS and CDC's NOS.report generator and that Easytrieve and COBOL (COmmon Business Oriented Language) .Compilers .fOr Fortran, Cobol and otherMark IV are preferred (see Tables 5.2 and BASIC ((Beginners All- purpose programming languages are a second type5.3). In contrast, 65 percent have access to Symbolic Instruction statistical .packages with SPSS the most Code) of operating support program. A second RPG (Report Program category of software is designed specificallyfrequently used, although less than half Generator) to aid the programmer in performing suchactually use the package. Most departments 3. Assemblers tasks as editing and documenting pro-still rely heavily on custom programming Programmer aids grams. Utility programs are a third type offor their report generation needs because 1. DebuggIrrozialds data base configuration is incompatible with CANDE (Command AND software. They support data handling such Eat language as performing sorts and merges of files,packages; a package is housed in a different 2. Flowcharting producing output, and proVide support tocomputer; personnel are not trained in the programmers a wide range of applications. use of the package; or there are insufficient 3. Documentation aids The fourth type of software is dividedpersonnel. Only 10 of the 50 states reported 4. JCL generators into two major groups: (1) data base man-no automation. Wades . agement systems (DBMS) and (2) report Part of the explanation for the wide 1. File and Record Handling generators. DBMS are comprehensive soft; availability of SPSS is its use in undergrad- 2. Output Production ware systems designed to construct, main-uate curriculums around the cplihtry and Generalized file processors tain and access a data base. Examples ofthe excellent documentation and user's 1. Data base management systems DBMS Include IDMS, ADABAS and IMS. guides available. Another factor contribut- Cullinane IDMS (Integrated Dsta Report generators differ primarily in theiring to its widespread use is its compatibility Management System) functional scope from DBMS. Most reportwith most hardware environments and its Burroughs DMS (Data PMnage- . ment Sptem II) generators are capable of handling singlecomparative case of use: The telephone IBM IMS (Inftrmaton files, while DBMS manages an entire datasurvey data indicate that, in terms of level merit System) UNIVAC IftrISTOO(Data base that may consist of over a hundredof development, most state correctional Management System for files. As will be described in a later section,agencies have yet to automate fully their 1100 Series Computers)' Softwa: Ag ADAMS however, many report generators are, to-data base and that important software day, fully oapable of many common datadecisions are ahead. The following discus- 2. Report generators sion of report generators and statistical Informatics MARK IV base management tasks in addition to pro- Pansophic Easytrieve viding a full range of report productionpackages may guide the administrator? .Burroughs Reporter II features. Examples of frequently used reportdiscussions in terms of the capabilities Program Products Data Analyzer generators are Mark IV, Culprit, and Easy-sought as well as provide information on trieve. Most of these systems have beenthe characteristics of some of the leading ASI.ST "Igg=ns specifically developed for business envi-packages. Application software ronments and for IBM compatible hardware. 1. Statistical padcages While most hardware venthirs have devel-Report generators SPSS, Inc. SPSS (Statistical Package for Social oped their own report generators, e.g., Sciences) Burroughs"Reporter,' there are a number The name given to software packages SAS Institute SAS (Statisdcal Matysis System of packages developed and marketed bydesigned to produce formatted ad hoc re- Burroughs Intoatats/statistics software vendors, e.g., Dylakor Softwareports from a data base with minimal in- UCLA BMOP (Be-Medical Systems' Dy1-260. Exhibit D is a list ofstruction is "report generator," These soft- (Unlv. of Calif. Programs) eLos mgewle such packages, including the company nameware packages have been developed to allow 2. Other Appiceion softer. and address. nontechnical access to computerized filet. They are highly sophisticated languages with Source: Adapted from Susan Woodridge, Solt- The last software category involves all wwe Selection (Philedelphla. Auerbach Pub- general purpose application software and,detailed file descriptions Which, after being lehers, 1913), pp.3-10.
or) Report generation and analysis technology27
Table 5.2 Table 5.3 software Packages available, departments of corrections, by Jurisdiction, 1979 Software packages available or In use, departments of corrections, 1979 State RG Stet pack Custom No EDP No information Report generators N Percent of 52 Alabama, SPSS .X Mika Easytrieve # SPSS X MARK IV 8 15% Arizona SPSS Easy:rieve 8 15% Manua SPSS* X Golden Retriever 2 4% Others 8 15% Caltomla MARK IV /ADAf3ASSPSS X 26 ',Colorado . ORW/OLP SPSS - X Connecticut Easytrieve .SPSS (at Univ.) STAT packages Percent of 52 Delaware x SPSS 301558% 29% D.C. x SAS 6 12% Florida. MARK IV SPSS X Others 6 12% Georgia Golden Retriever 42 HaWaii MARK IV SAS/Cross tabs X Percent of 52 Idaho X No automation 10 19% Illinois - Easytrieve SPSS X ., Wiens'. X In use Iowa , SPSS Source: See Table 5.2. Kansas X . Kentucky MARK IV SPSS X Louisiana SAS/SPSS X process for selecting a new software pack- Mains Easytrieve SPSS /10 SCORE X age for statewide use in 1977. Their prod- Maryland X uct was especially useful in suggesting a Massachusetts SPSS X k... Michigan .Reporter X format and specific criteria. . Minnesota Asi-st SPSS X The criteria are divided into six main Golden Retriever SPSS, SAS, MINI-TAB X groups: (1) file creation and management; ;' .=tr SPSS Montana Culprit/MARK IV SPSS/BMD/TPL - (2) programming; (3) analytic capabilities; Nebraska Easytrieve SPSS (4) output;(5)training and support; and ° Nevada X (6) acquisition and costs. Most of the spe- New Hampshire" X New Jersey MARK IV/0Y1.4260 cific criteria in each group are stated as r New Mexico Easytrieve SPSS standard of minimum performance; e.g., it New York SPSS X should be able to handle up to 10 input files North Carolina ' SAS (at Unii/.) X (Exhibit A, Section 1.5). Jargon and tech- North Dakota X nical references have been kept *to a min- Ohio SPSS /CROSSTABS Oklahoma SAS/SeSS (at Univ.) X imum, and each criterion has been made as _Oregon Easytrieve SPSS explicit and concrete as possible. Penneybania X Rhode Island ' X Once the criteria were developed, a list
South Carolina SAS/SPSS - X of seven report generators was prepared for , South Dakota X comparisons. This list consists of most re- Tennoseas X Texas Data Analyzer X port generators in use in correctional agencies; report generators of sufficiently Utah SPSS . X Virginia MARK IV SPSS generalized scope'to be of interest to cor- Vermont X rectional agencies; and those which had Washington RPG SPSS X established reputations as indicated by West Virginia X Wlecon0,Iii RPG/MARK IV "SeSSWISTAB X either EDP managers in corrections or ac- Wioraing X cording to user surveys such asthe-Data- Federal Bureau Easytrieve SAS/SPSS/BMDP Prosurvey. All of the systems reviewed are Data Text I good; however, they do vary in interesting Restricted access or unable to use. and.significant ways, Most of the systems have been modularized so thatfor exam- established by data processing technicians no technical personnel available within the ple, a statistics package may be purchased and catalogued in a computer library, would agency and the use can reduce cost where and added to the basic package. In this allow personnel other than computertpro- all access must be through a centralized comparison, while such options are noted, grammers or ,analysts to request and run data processing department on a 1 hourly It is the basic system which is being com- special retrieval programs using their own billable basis. pared. inquiry parameters. Report generators also There has been an enormous growth in The report generator assessment criteria serve as work horses to enable data pro-number and quality of report generators can be used to guide evaluation and discus- cessing technical personnel to produce more over the past few years, as well as an emerg- sion when a report generator is being con- special request reports in much less time ing consensus as to the criteria by which sidered for purchase. Even when all com- than custom programming. they may be evaluated. One measure of the puter facilities are controlled by a central A report generator is especially useful to consensus is the increasing similarities in or administrative data processing depart- correctional agencies in that it facilitates performance of the packages. The critena ment, correctional users may request the use of established data bases, reduces time in Exhibit A were developed by (1) review- purchase of a report generator and should to prepare special reports making nonstan- ing the literature on this technology for be aware of its features if nontechnical per- dard information available to administra- capability statements and evaluative crite- sonnel are to be trained in its use. tors on a more timely basis. Frequently, ria; (2) interviewing EDP and research per- Tables 5.4 through 5.9 present an,assess- statisticians, research analysts and assis- sonnel in several correctional agencies to ment of each report generator ..onsiden.ig tants can, with little training, use these identify a basic set of requirements; and (3) the correctional environment, an analysis packages freeing data-processing techni- interviews with software developers. The of the content of demand inquiries, and the cians for new development. The use of such State of Minnesota, Information Systems capabilities of the packages. a package can also allow an agency access Division, developed a sinbiar set of require- The tables are organized in a manner to its computerized records when there are meRts for a report generator as part of their consistent with the criteria identified in 34 28 Correctional data analysis systems
Exhibit A. The last section of the criteria- summer or1979 when this survey was per-tiple input files. Frequently a report most 6.0 Acquisition and costsconcludes the formed. Indeed, many additional systemsbe prepared that involves a hall dozen comparison. may be fully qualified for inclusion. Second, data-times (variables)focated on six differ- The procedure used to determine the this type of assessm-nt entourages aggre- ent files. For example, the data required relative strengths and weaknesses of each gation and the development of a singlefor a particular report may be stored in package Included telephone interviews with Indicator. Without an understanding of thepart in separate files such as admissions, representatives from each of the software relative importance of each criterion withinpopulation, release, movement history, dis- companies and a review of the documenta- a particular agency and appropriate weight-ciplinary records, and program participa- tion and operating characteristics of each ing, such an indicator may confuse issues tion. These must be reformatted and merged package. Once these ratings had beende- more than it clarifies. Finally, arbitrary by a separate run if the report generatdi veloped,states using each of the packages judgments ultimately were the basis for does not access multiple files. Programming were contacted and, independently, assessed these particular criteria and ranks. Another around a system which permits only a sin- the package which they used. The ratings independent reviewer under similar circum- gle input file may be time consuming and reported in Tables 5.4 throt.gh 5.9 reflect stances would, hopefully, closely replicate costly, if not impractical. Data Analyzer adjustments made as a result of correctional the results reported. and Culprit ace report generators that pro-a user insights. Finally, a three-point scale It appears from this assessment that thesevide maximum flexibility in this regard. w as selected to rate the software in which a report generators are excellent at produc- It should be noted that the report gene- 'three" represents totally satisfied, a "two" ing list-type output and for simple variable rator software packages were compared as represents only partially satisfied, and a table construction. The generation of com-to features and cost at their lowest or "one" means no or little capability in the plex tables with percentages, however, is stripped Models. Correctional agencies which specific area. prablemati,, for most of t he systems reviewed, indicated a heavy use of these packages ThreeWuRlsof caution in using this and, clearly, data analytic tasks beyond realized cost benefits in excess of expecta- intormation should be noted. First, the addition, subtraction, multiplication, and tions and could therefore purchase many software development field is intensely dy- division is not what these systems were de- optional functions which increased their namic. For example, a brief conversation signed for. However, most have an add-on abilities. The Virginia Department of Cor- withonedeveloper with whom the criteria at extra cost such as Reporter's Infostats, rections reported great satisfaction. with were reviewed resulted in an effort on their that provides a full range of basic analytic MARK IV and a cost savings over previous part to fully meet the criteria. In other functions such as crosstabs, frequenciesreport production. This agency purchased words, these rankings represent a snapshot and percentages which would eliminate the a deuxe model as did the Ohio Adminis- of sprinters in mid-stride. need for a separate analysis package. trative Services Department. The Ohio f he current state of development of each. Another area of divergence with these Youth Commission also reported satisfac- system may be quite different from the systems is their capability in handling mul- tion with case of use, cost efficiency, and
Table 5.4 o Report generator comparisons: file creation andmahagement rr r I-. .c. V1 c. r-. NJ (...,
'1 CA 01 ,i CA 01 , 0 rr 0 M ei,..,1,.. °..5 V452, fe EL ro o m.o., m o., mn m i- tic 0-. rnt-.0 n m m 0 rr M m 0700 m C 0 M 0 m.M OM D 0 rt rr 0 11, 0,,... a ea ' CI 0 Inel' '0 m m m A- rrM a rr .= V) MP1 C I-. g rr 03N 1-.. W PI 9. K < 7 M rt. rt r-. o o 0 0 - 2 2 Dy1-260 3 3 3 3 (6 max) = 3 3 3 2 13 (with 2 3 Auditor) . . . MARK IV 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 (with Auditor)
Data Analyzer 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 (6 max- - with option up to 100)
P..1y t r 1 eve 3 3 3 2 1 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 (2 max)
c'ulpr it 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 (256 max)
A:A -st 3 3 ..1 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 2
Ropor ter 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 (not (4 max) (Info- ' cards) 5tats) Report generation and analysis technology24
Tab lb 6.5 Report generator compalleons: programmIng.,;
1. Command 2. Data 3. IreMoprary. 4. Error 5. Macros gy DMBS0: Language Fields Fields Messages
Dyl -260 3 3 3 3 2 'INS, IDMS DLT, TOTAL ...., o DsOMP
Mark IV 3 3 3 3 2 IMSe. IDMS, TOTAL, ADABAS
Data Analyzer 3 3 3 1 2 IMS, IDMS, DLI, TOTAL,
. DBOMP .
Easytrieve 3 3 2 3 3 IDMS, IMS TOTAL
Culprit 3 3 1 3 3 Most DBMS
Asi-st 3 3 3 3 3 most DBMS
Reporter 3 3 3 3 2 DNS
Table LS Report generation comparisons: analytical capabilities
1. Math2. Descriptive 3. Compute 4. Frequencies 5. Tables 6. Logic 7. Round Statistics Trunck
. Dy1-260 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 .(with Auditor (with
. Auditor)
Mark IV 2 2 2 .1 2 3 3 (with Graphics) (with Graphics)
Data Analyser 3 2 3 3 2 - 3 3 (2-way only)
Easytrieve 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 (with program- (with pro- (No round) *ring logic4or gramming Pan Audit) logic or Pan Audit),
Culprit . 2 3 2 2 3 3 (No Percehts)
Asi-st 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 (Counts (No round) only)
Reporter 2 2. 2 1 I 3 2 (with Info- (with (No round) (with stats) Infostats) Infostats) N O
30Correctional data analysis systems
Tab,* 5.7 Report generation comparisons: output
1. Formats2. Labels3. Media4. Clarity 5.Interface 6. Throughput
Dy1-260 3 3 3 3 2 1 (Auditor) (1 Report/1 pass)
Mark IV 3 3 3 3 2 3 (Audithr, (255 Reports/1 pass) Graph) 4 Data Analyzer 3 3 3 3 2 2 (Graph) (80 Reports/1 pass) 0
Easytrieve 3 3 3 3 2 2 (PanAudit)(Multi Reports/1" pass)
Culprit 3 3 3 3 2 2 (Auditor) (100 Reports/1' pass)
Asi-st 3 3 3 3 3 2 (Multi Reports/1 pass)
Reporter 3 3 1 3 2 1 (with (1 Report/1 pass) Infostats)
Table 5.8 Ripon generation comparisons: training and support
1. Training 2. EDP Knowledge 3. Manuals 4. TA 5. Train Availability
Dy1-260 2 days Not needed 2 2 Yes
Mark IV 1 day Not needed 3 2 Yes (Audio .Cassettes)
Data Analyzer 3 days Useful , 1 2 Yes
Easytr ieve 2 days Not needed 2 3 Yes
Culprit 3 days Useful 2 3 Yes
Asi-st 3 days Not needed 2 3 Yes
Reporter 2 days Not needed 3 2, Yes
No 37 Report generation and analysis tecluglogy
Tibia 5.9 Report generation comparison: acquisition and costs
Hardware Compatibilities PrbS
1681370, 360 %equivalent Ucense 88400
. . Renewal .$20 Lease 81500/yr . OS DOS' . IBM 370.360 or equivalent -4 License 820,000 815,000 Mark IV Univac 9030, 9040. 9080. 9080 Renewal' $ 1.600 $ 1.600 Data Analyzer, IBM 370, 360 or equivalent , OS DOS . License 618.000 816,003 Renewal $ ).000 81,000 a IBM 370, 380 or equivalent. OS DOS Easytrieve Univac License. - $18,500 814,500 VS9 Renewal $ 1.950 81.450 .IBM 370, 380 or equivalent License $20000 Culprit Univac Renewal $ 2,000 HoneyweN Asi-st , :. IBM 370, 360 or equivalent License $20.000 . . % Renewal $ 2,000
Reporter . Burroughs CMS System License $ 2,000 - O ', Renewal 8 200 Leasi $ 183/month ,%. M prices quoted are for the basic package without options as of September 1979. / range of ability while another agency which purchased the basic system has not realized such satisfactions. Before any report generation software package is purchased it is wise t^ talk with a user who is performing the functions needed by correctional agencies. summary, this survey and comparison :of report generators indicates: They are heavily tied to IBM compatible environments. *Some are linked to data basemanagement o %, systems. *Most have add-on statistics modules. *Agencies using some of these packages A are generally satisfied with their performance, indicating an incrhsed efficiency in pro- ducininonsta ndarti reports, and, generally, improved access to the data base. *These same agencies, however, continue to rely on custom programs ebr many pro- -a:I.:A:don resorts; although over a period of years these ate fiktfy to be phased out and replaced with report generator routines. *The missing link to, greater utilization of Availdble report generation software isa reformatting interface between the software and' var(ous data bas' configurations. f While adequate documentation to use the pac)'ages exists, frequently agency person- nefclo not have sufficient copies or training ytheir use.
38 32Correctional data analysis systems Statistical packages technical references and jargon have been minimized and most criteria are similarly 1,The content analysis of demand infor- stated as a minimum performance standard mation requests revealed that many responses and all are made as explicit and concrete as required manipulation and computation of possible. data rather than just lists. It is much easier A three-point scale wis again used to rate to compile statistics wjth canned statistics each of the selected packages. The same software packages than to have a Comptiter caveats* in using and interpreting the crite- programmer write a custom program toria and ratings discussed in the previous produce the'Mformation. There is a fairly section apply to these criteria and ratings. large range of statistical packages available The ratings are presented in Tables 5.10 on the market today which could be readily through 5.13 and are organized to parallel used in corrections. the organization of the criteria in Exhibit B. A procedure and reporting format sim- The most frequent uses of statistical ilar to that used in the report !enerator packages in correctional agedcies were for fection was deireloped to compare 11 dif- cross-tabulations, scatter-plots, frequencies - Terent statistical packages. The assessment and descriptive4tatistics. The major prob- criteria arc identified in Exhibit B. Theselems users reported with these packages L have been divided into five major groups: (1) were in creating input files, the difficulty of file creation, editing and management; (2) working widisystem JCL and, particular, analytic capabilities; (3) output; (4) train- the lack of familiarity with the capabilities ing and support; and (5) acquisition and of the packages and the opportunities its costs. As with the report generator criteria, availability created.
a
a0.
Table 5.10 Statistical package comparison: Me creation, wilting and management 7'4 g . cr Package X
g;
ffr1 B1CP-77 3 1 ; 2 2 3
DATATEXT 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2
1 2 1 1 1 1 "i MINITAB II 2.
OMNITAB 78 3 2 1 3 1 2 3
OSIRIS IV 3 2 3 :. 2 2 2 3 2
P STAT 78 3 3 3 3 2 2 2
SAS 76.5 3 3 3 3 2 3 2
SPSS 3 3. 1 2 2 2 2 .2 . .SCSS 1 -3 2 2 2 2 2 2 P SOUPAC 3- 3 2 2 2 2 1
39 SCSS SPSS p Takla SCSS SPSS SAS 4 Pac UM* SOUPAC -STAT OSTit/S Statistical SOUPAC P-STAT OSIRIS Stalistioal SA576.5 01111ITAI3 MINITAB DATATErr 11$1DP-77 Package- 5.12 0 11.. 76.5 ONNITAB MINITAD DATATIXT litiDP-77 5.11 (7.1) 10I 78 IV 78 II wimps (7.1) 78 IV 78 II package 1. 3 3.. 3 3 3 3 3 3 183 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 " 3 1 Output compirtiion: 3 ' 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3' 3 comparison: - output. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 analytical 1. 3 3 3. 0 ed. Ile 2 2 3 ., 3 2, Stat trainingand 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 - rt a i 2 2 3 2 oimebilitios '3 Training 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 - 3 3 3.4 4 N, support 3 ' 3 3 3 3 3 3 . 3 3 3 lok . at 2 3 3 .- . 3 \3 3\\ 3 \ 2.1!DP 2 2 2 3 1 2 2 1 3. 2 3 . \. 2 Training 1 1 - 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 40 i \ 2 e 2 2 3 , 2 2 1 .2 3 I< a 1.- a.- 06 ti s -.. 3. 2 -, . .. ill 0 .t 0 4 Report ..- 2 - 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Docu- 1 2 2 2 3. 1 ' 2 2 k r W...5,1 ! r 0 1.6 4 ,e mentation ' i 1 2' ...e - 2 a ,.... F. geieration .4. N 2 2 .... O 1V'4 PI . - and . , 2- 0 0 ,,.., 1.0 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 7' analysis 3 3 3. 3 3 3 3 3 3 " 2 2 1 3 1 1. 3 2'I 2. r to 0 a 0 .11 a .. ,.., J.; , 2 - 2 - technology - Maintenance* - 0 0 -,,.. .. .: f 2" . 2 0 2 1 . t '8:I 0 ,ffgs F. 33 a
34Correctional data analysis systenis
. - Table 5.13 . Statistical packade comaarlson: hardware coni pad bility and costs
1 Hardware compatibility . Price ,- IBM 360/3700S, OSNS Univac 1100 The y fee for BMPD is IBM DOS Univac 70/90 $500 foru raft'ss; $1000 for CDC Hitachi governmentsaild non-profit organize- Honeywell - Fuideu tens; and $1500forall others. The BMDP-77 .. POP-10 Riad 20 fee Includes program source modules. PDP -11 ICL System 4 load and/or object modules(drequest- . HP-3000 Telefunken ed), and installation instructions ort all . magnetic tape. It also indudes mainte- Burroughs 4 nance and one copy of the BM PD-77 - manual. . First Year Renewal Annual lease . price U.S. Univer- sities $750 $300 DATATEXT IBM 370,360 Not-for-profit organizations $1000 and non-U.S. universities . Service bureaus (special arrangement)
- M others` $1500 $660 - . IBM 360 models 30 and up ' IBM 370 niodels 115 and up Univac 1100 series .. DEC system 10 and20 PDP-11 , . MIN ITAB II CDC 3000, 6000, and Cyber serie Lease-3200/yr. Burroughs Xerox Sigma 7 and Sigma 9 Hewlett- Packard 3000
-.. Heels /7 PRIM E 300 and 400 - NCR Century 200 Honeywell ;
IBM Burroughs -
Unliec Xerox - 1 OMNITAB 78 POP RCA $1500 one-time charge CDC GE / . Honeywell / , '
IBM 360/40, AMDAHL 470 V/6 One -time charge CDC 6000 series, CYBER 70 Newusers Previous OSIRIS IV Siemens $1200 $800 Commercial Univac 1100 installations DEC PDP-10 800 400 Academic, governmental installations . / . ICPSR instal- . 400 200 / tattoos IBM 360-370 XDS SIGMA 7 Initial Each CEC CYBER Univac 1106/1108 year renewal. DEC 10/20 Burroughs 6700 year Burroughs 6700 Honeyerell 6000 Annual lease ta " 12-STAT 78 Honeywell 600 Degree Sigma 7/9 / granting Univac 1106/1108/1110 ,i' institutions $1000 $ 500 / IBM - OS, V8, TSO, VM-CMS DC'S-VS Others 5000 2000 CDC - NOS, SCOPE 3.4 - DEC - UNK 10 OVERLAY / IBM 360t370 and ,r $3500 for fi rst year: 51500 ior SAS 76.5 ! each year thereafter for plug-compatit$ mainframes commercial organizations; J 57504300 for educational organizations
Burroughs B3700, B3800, 84800 . 6700,7700, 7800 CDC 8000 aeries IBM no. 370 / CYBER series, , ICL 2900 series Perpetual license DEC System 10,20 ICL 4-75 annual maintenw nee (optional) SPSS (7.1) DEC PDP 11 i ICL 1900 Fawn 230-60/75 kderdata 7/32 Academic Non-profit Commerdal Hurls /7 ; 8/32 $1000 $1500 $1500 ,, HP 2000-3000 ;, Prime 400, 500 800 800 atog . litac 8700, 8600 ; Siemens 4004, 7000 Honeywel160/66pa Telefuniten TR 4400 `-- 8000, 600 Univac Sense 70,90 e . Unlvac1100 series ' Xroli Sigma win 14 1 Report generation and analysis technology35
IBM 370TSO and CMS Annual lease: S41500 DEC20 - CDC Discounted to $1500 for tax.: Xectec exempt organizations. SCSS Univac DEC 10 Discounted to $1000for degree- . granting institutions.
IBM 363 mod 75 with MVTOS Cost SI GO tor initial copy. : CDC CYBER 175 with'NOS (includes 2 manuals, instruc- SOUPAC r ticos for installabon) S85 for updates when desired 'Primary source of inforMation for this section was Ivor Francs/. A Comparative Review of Statistical Sokyonv. International Association tor Statistical Computing, 1979.
, Conclusions There will be a predictable increase in the use of the types of software discussed in this chapter over the next few years if personnel are able to get training in their use. This will be due to increasing demands for timely and accurate data and to de- , creasing funds. Using an elaborate data base only to produce standard operational .7 reports is not a cost-efficient utilization of resources. The consequences will be significant in terms of an agency's ability to more fully re- spond to demand information requests in the cost-effective manner possible. However, the process of integrating such software into the decisionmaking, data and com- puter environments of the agency should not be ignored; it has been, in some agen- O c cies, a painful and costly one. But other agencies have used the software so effective- ly that more reports are being generated at V. a reduction of monthly data processing costs. Virginia recouped the purchase cost in savings in a matter of months. The key is e proper utilization through planning and processing. Exhibit C summarizes some of the major findings of this report. They are offered not "as conclusions but rather as impressions about the state of this art as it relates to correctional agencies.
References is ' Wooldrige, Susan.Software Selection (Philadelphia: -- Auerbach Publishers, Inc.. 1973). ..---- 2 DataPro Research Corporation. "User Ratings of Proprietary Software" (Detran, N.J.:Feature Report D09-200-001, December 1978). See also Herbert I.. Gepne r. "User Ratings of Software Packages,"Darama- rim December 1978, pp. 163-227. ' Francis, Ivor, ed. A Comparative Review of Statis- tical Software, International Association for Statistical Computing, A Section of the International Statistical Institute, Exhibition of Statistical Program Packages, New Delhi, 1977. ' Ahern, Francis D. and :::::horn, SethI."EDP Indicators: the Case of Massachusetts." A Paper pre- sented at a meeting of the American Society for Public Administration, Baltimore, April 4, 1979, p. 14. t 42 36 Correctional data analysis systems as It should be able to produce multi-way 1.7 It should be capable Of edit runs. `Exhibit 15.A hierarchical tables, including: 1.8 Command language should be logically Report generator assessment criteria counts structured and use Engish-like state- ments. Pirme:sints,alrandard&Mations. 2.0 Analylc ceps':46es 1.0 Fee ortolan and miner:moot 3.6 It should be capable of selecting subsets 2.1 It should be able to parka; the following based on logical operators (e.g., lees than, 1.1ft should be abli to handle data in any arithmetic procedures: add, subtract, mul- standard form (pad*, display, binary, equal to, greater than, or, and, not, etc.). tiply, divide, exponentiate. floating point, Mc.). 3.7 Ames should be rounded ard/or trun- 2.2 It should be able to calculate the following t2 it should be able to handle data in any cated. 'statistics: record form (w riable-length. variable- 4.0 Output mean, median, mode biock; lixed-length. undefined. etc). 4.1 The following output formats should be standard deviation, variance 1.3 It should be Mei to handle all storage available: minimum, maximum, range media (disc. UP*. cards, 444 liste output percentiles. t.4 It should be able to define and file complex hr,b output 2.3 It should be able to perform a compute data structures (matrices, vectors, variable multi* Ines for page headings statement, including the use of a numeric by case:case by variable. hierarchical). variable length row and column headings or procedural constant. dem* options on page numbering, line 2.4 It should be able to produce frequency 1.5 It should be able to handle up to 10 input control and column spacing. flies. distributions, histograms and bar charts. 1.6 It should be able to define and build a file OtAptit labels should be flexible in terms of 2.5 It shoUld oe able to roroduce multi-way size and characters used. hierarchical tables, including: .!7Y It should be amiable of outputting tape, counts adding records disc, or and flies. percentages deleting records" means; standard deviations. selecting maids Output be unngderstandadretype and pub- merging records lishahoutblewitshould ed and 2.8 It should be capable of selecting subsets matching records based on logical operators (e.g., less should interface with statistical software than, equal to, greater than, or, and, not, records (e.g., SPSS, SAS, MOP, etc.). lie. etc.). 4.6 Multiple output Mee and reports should be 1.7 It should maintain information on the form generated by one pees through the input , 2.7 It should be capable of stepwise regres- and content of Mee (i.e., dictionary, glos- sion, have a wide variety of residual plots sary, etc.) available and present standard summary 5.0 Training and support statistics. 1.8 h must access flles.without their modifica- tion. 5.1It should requiremaximum of one week's 2.8 It should be able to perform ananalysis of training to leant variance and covariance, and probit and 1.9 It should have controls to prevent unau- legit analyses. thorized access to data (e.g., keywords, 52 Users should not have to know JCL, As- sic.). sembler language, Fortran, etc., to use it. 2.9 It should be Able to perform multi-way 5.3 Manuals should include: contingency table tests including the use 1.10 It should be capable of edit runs. of log-linear models. It shobid be capable of test runs on part of explanation of features 1.11 detailed sample programs 2.10It should be able to perform factor, dis- the data (e.g., n records every Kth record, a criminant, and duster analysis as well a itsP-Indebi-siP Warning guide random sample). an as multidimensional scaling. 1.12 It should provide automatic and complete detailed documentation for EDP person- 2.11It should be capable of performing time data checks for Input errors, inducing: nel. series analysis. range checks 5.4 Technical assidance to diagnose and 2.12It should provide a variety of non- wild code chocks solve programming problems should be parametric test statistics, logic checks between items. available. 2.13It should have graphics,capabihty. 1.13 It should be capable of 5.5 Training should be provided. 2.14It should have two and three step least recording 6.0 Acquisition and costs squares estimation of linear and non- I9htIfKI linear equations. creating new variables. 6.1Installation time should be less than one week. 3.0 Output 2.0 Programming 8.2 Identify current or planned hardware com- 3.1 Output labels should be flexible in terms of 2.1 Command language should be logically patibilities. location; size and characters used. structured and us* English-like state- ment. 8.3 Identify special software /hardware require- 4.0 Training and support ments. 22 Data Welds should be addressable as 4.1 It should be usable by anyone who has either numeric or alphanumeric. 8.4 Identify cost options for using the software. had one college level statistics course. 2.3 ft should provide redelnable work fields 4.2 It should be usable bey anyone who has and temporary fields. These should: had one college level EDP course. permit a variable number of decimal Exhibit 5,B 4.3 Documentation should include a user's , places; Statistical package assessment criteria guide, an introductory text, a system permit the rearrangement and redefini- guide ana explanation of statistical tion of data as necessary; methods. permit assignment of a name; 1.0 File creation, adding and management 4.4Package should be maintained and un- not require file space. 1.1, It should be designed to handle a 30,000 dergo continuing update. 2.4 Error should be explained in the record data set 5.0 Acquisition and costs output and documented hi a manual. 1.2 It should be able to handle data in any 5.1 Identify current and planned hardware 2.5 It should facilitate the use of: standard format or record form. compatibilities. macros 1.3 It should be able todeflne and file complex 5.2 Identify cost of acquiring the package. production reports. data structures (matrices, vectors, vari- able by case. case by varlorga, hierarchi- 2.8 It should interface with data base man- cal). t systems, such as ADABAS. TO- Exhibit 5.0 1.4 It should provide automatic and complete . lrt.n,11r4S, IDMS, DU. Summary of findings a data checks for input errors including: 3.0 Analytic capabilties range checks 1.0 General 3.1 slt should be able to perform the following wild code checks There has been a substantial increase in the arithmetic procedures: add, subtract, mul- logic checks between items. quantity and quality of repon generation software tiply, divide, exponentiate. 1.5 It should maintain information on the form in the marketplace during ."le past five years. 3.2It should be able to calculate the following and content of files (i.e., dictionary. glos- The market has been dominated by lem- statistics: sary, etc.). compatible software. mean, median, mode The market has not been responsive to m b- 1.8 It should be able to define and build a file and mini-systems. standard deviation, variance ty: Correction agencies have little history with this rninknum, maximum, range particulartechnology. percentiles. adding records deleting records EDP priorities In correction agencies are first. a3 It should be able to perform a compute selecting records operations; second, management reporting; and statement, including the use of a numeric merging records third, research and analysis:The consequences or procedural constant. matching records are: 1) ittle need for an on-ine capability; 7) or- It should be able to produce frequency sorting records ganization of data making access difficult; 3) data 3.4 elements captured are different. distributions. histograms, and bar charts. updating a file. 43 Report generation and analysis technology37
e Aneksis h e s h i s t o r i c a l l y b a r o n oriented to pr e p - 12.OOMS a r a t i o n e l theAnnualitsport with automation, O uo data Corporation reimiarch is now store pioleci-orientsd. 196 Trumbull St. 2.0 Repertgotwolont Hartford, Ct. 06107 613467238777 Most monomaniacs aro orcellint at prockgi- 13. In° Ista; pine ars isioellent !Weiss; and a few S56dentsiut are. Inc. rovidistallstlesicepabilitleswilhoutslgnificant add-olis." Pike Daylo7,1541746439 Two maidllties are, pettlaii. frost critical In ((5)35.9514 the oodullons' ovArorirnent: (1) being ibis as 14. Ramis II handle multiple intaitlisi; end (2)the desibriont of Mathematic' Products Group mining orinveliddata. Agreddeal of varkilico P. O. Box 2302 simill9fIcat9fihfindxsodsiskitt Princeton, N.J. 08540 Most @pod generators are Mistimed with the (809) 790-2800 isedng 011/1s; few are linked tostatistical appli- 15. SIR cation peckeass. Agendas with ROs have hod. (Scientlec information Retrieval System) gehera pcel- Sdentlic Information Retrieval, Inc. expensnoes, although still relying on custom P.O. Box 1404 programming for rainy production reports. Evanston. lino' 60204 3.0 Statletkalpackegm runts en inausing_nollence on statistical packages, particuleny SPS.S. for compiling de- Exhibit &E sootily* stalletics General purpose statistical packages StalisliCel packages are frequently used in departments of corrections for cross- tabulation,. scetWirems; and frequencies. 1. SPADP 77 Mardude:(1) (Blomedcal Computer Programs) crerearriglipfrultuilsliegt(2) Iadcof Health Sciences C ng Facility familiarity with pecksoe's weblike; and. (3) try; University of Ca/ifomia tern JCL. Angelis, CA 90024 Cortainitadelicel pac. kagee are more eficient 2. DATA-TEXTDATA-TEXT (version 3.4) and less axpenalva with large data sets. The DATA Tea PROJECT 5995 Sepu: reds Blvd. Suite 301 Culver City, CA 90230 Exhibit 5.D 3. MINITABII Report generator software packages T. Ryan and B. Ryan Department of Statistics 1. Ael-st Pennsylvania State University Applications Software, Inc. 215 Pond Lab 21515 Hawthorne Blvd. Unlvers6 iry Park, PA 16802 Torrence, California 90503 (814) 85-1595 (2131.5040-0111 , 2. byl- 4. OMNITAB 78 version 5.14) Office of Stoldard Reference Data =SoRivere Systems, Inc. A323 Physics Bulldog Ventura Blvd. National Bureau of Standards Sults 806 Washington, D.C. 20234 (Encino, California 91436 5. OSIRISIV 955-0150 Institute for Social Research 3. Daft Anandur - P. 0. Box 1248 Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108 2othrstnutRidge Rd. 6. P-STAT 78 Montvale. N.J. 07645 P-STAT, Inc. (201) 391 -9800 4. Culprit P. 0. Box 285 Princeton, New Jersey 08540 Cullinane Corp. 7. SAS 76.5 20 William St. SAS Institute, Inc. W31*M02181 P. 0. Box 10066- g/1g4: Raleigh, NC 27605 5. 9. 'SPSS Pansophic Systems, Inc. SPSS, Inc. 709 Entrise Ave. 44.4 North Michigan Avenue Oak Bro. I. 60521 Suite 3300 (312) 986-6000 Chicago, Illinois 60611 6. Mark IV 10. SOUPAC Informatics. Inc. Statistical Services/Computing Software Products Division Services Office 21050 Vanowen St.. 84 Commerce West Canop Park, Ca. 91304 University of Illinois 1213)U7-9121 Urbana, Illinois 61801 7. Reporter 11. TPL Burroughs Corporation Commissioner of Labor Statistics Bu Place Bureau of Labor Statistics Detroitffoughs, Mi. 48232 441 G Street N W. (313)972-7269 Washington, D.C. 20212 8. BatchQuery (4/3), GIS IBM Corporation Data Pr. dvision 1133 W Ave, While Plains, New York t WOW,(914) 598-1900 Digital Equipment Corporation 146Main St 17" 10. Extracts Opdpro, Inc. P. O. Box 815 SlockExchang Tower Montreal, Ouotec H4Z 1J8 Canada (51441438107 11. POI TM Poise Co. Inc. " 210 N. Nevada St. Rowell, NM 68201 (505) 8238564 44 Several articles are emerging concerning Chapter 6 the transfer issue in the various trade publi- cations. An international seminar to dis:_ -- cuss software portability was also held at Systems transfer technology the University of Kent at Canterbury dur- ing 1976.2 for contemporary corrections* Most of the work on system transfer is being done at either a conceptual/theoreti- cal level or a very system-specific level. Few, if any, articles discuss specific concepts that must be addressed when one is attempting to move a program or syste in of programs from one user environment to another. Reinvention of the wheel is very common at In the past several years corrections has OBSCIS system. Design and programming the transfei stage. Yet program transfers undergone several changes in philosophy, was done under the direction of SEARCH are as inevitable as death and taxes.' operation and administration. A commonGroup, Inc. to operate on a Xerox com- As with many computer and information trend underlying these past, current and puter independent of any state specific system concepts, the notion of system trans- future trends is the need of correctionalrequirements. SEARCH then transferred fer means different, things to different peo- administrators, legislators, the press, and the system to a Data General minicom- ple. The system designer has one view, the other interested persons and groups to ob- puter, still operating as a test file with ficti-programmer has a second, the data base tain accurate, reliable and timely informa- tious data. The first live transfer was donemanager has a third, the user has a fourth, tion regarding the entire range of correc- by the Iowa Department of Social Services the hardware designer a fifth, and the DP tional issues. To meet this increasing need Division of Adult Corrections in 1978, onmanager has yet another. An attempt to for information, many corrections admin- an IBM-360 system. Since then versions ofdevelop a definition of system transfer to istrators.' and departments have turned to the Basic OBSCIS Software Package have satisfy all of these groups would be impos- the utilization of computer and informa- been implemented in Kansas, Cone: :ticut, sible. However, for the purpose of the pres- tion system technologies. Alaska, and South Dakota. ent discussion, system transfer will be de- An added complication is the concern The objective of this chapter is to providelined as the process whereby software and for more cost effectiveness throughout the corrections administrators with a brief back- software related materials are transferred public sector. Thus a critical issue in cor- ground on the theory of systems transfer from one hardWare installation to another. rections concerns the most cost effective and on specific issuesthat should be consid- Most computer professionals will argue that way to use computer and information sys- ered by those considering system transfer. universal transferability is an unobtainable tem technology to provide the increasingly This chapter reviews pertinent literature objective. However, a degree of software complex and voluminous amount of infor- on system transfer and attempts to pull transferability between most hardware con- mation required for both internal and ester- together the key concepts which are rele- figurations is obtainable and is determined nal consumption. vant to the problems posed when an admin- by the number, extent and complexity of One of the highest costs for any installa- istrator wishes to transfer software from changes necessary in the software. tion using computer technologies is the one installation to another. These problems This section presents the key concept's ,amount (dome, personnel and money spent include consideration of such things as the concerning successful system transfers. The in the design and development of software physical environment, hardware, software, closer a system comes to these concepts the for specific applications. One method to purchase or development of systems, per- higher the probability for a successful sys- help keep the design and development costs sonnel, consideration of the performancetem transfer However, an exact prediction to a manageable and acceptable level is to outcomes, etc' of successful system transfer is very diffi- transfer software and systems of software The remainder of this chapter is divided cult, if not impossible, to obtain. A later from one installation to another. An early into four sections. The first section presents section of this chapter will present a de- example of correctional informationsystems a review of the key concepts in the systems tailed list_of specific considerations for sys- transfer was a system developed by the Illi- transfer literature. The second presents atem transfer. nois Department of Corrections. This sys- typology of systems to be transferred. The The concepts discussed below include: tem was modified and installed in the Ohio third section presents a categorization of*Documentation Department of Corrections and later by the the factors which must be considered in a Standards Ohio Youth Commission. This table driven transfer project. Finally, the summary com-Performance evaluation reporting system has subsequently been in- bines the previous two sections to give the *System design for transferability stalled in the South Carolina Department corrections administrator a guide to theUser. of Corrections where it is in operation to- critical questions to ask when a transfer day. This transfer of software is not, how- project is being considered. Documentation ever, without problems (e.g., cost overruns, Many professionals believe that good incompatibilities with existing hardware and Key concepts for system documentation is the primary key to suc- software, time consuming installation and transfer cessful system transfer. Good documenta- inability to use and understand the outputs). tion should: The Basic OBSCIS Software Package is There is a growing interest among com- *Be complete another example of transferable software puter professionals relating to transfer of*Be concise fora correctional information system.' This software systems and their components *Be understandable system was designed to provide three core among different hardware configurations. *Contain step by step instructions for.in- level modules of the eight modules in the This concern is based upon economic (high stallation and execution cost of transfer), hardware (the rapid growth*Contain flow charts depicting overall log- Much of the information presented in this chapter of new hardware developments), network- ic and specific information flows was provided by Mitchell Joelson and Lance Wilson of ing (networks of computers and data bases)Refer to nonstandard locations (activities) Minesota Crime Prevention Center. Minneapolis. Min- where changes may be required due to dif- nesota. and user (applications programs) issues.
,4 5 Systems transfer technology for contemporary corrections39
ferent computer architecture, configuration other machines is performed ca a trial andprocedure for reporting and correk.ting these and user preferences error basis with "quick and dirty" modifi- problems is required. *Include successful benchmark test runs cations being made to get the transferred *Cite experience of other installers andsystem "up and running." The second ap- Users known installations with similar transferproach, predictive, attempts to determine Perhaps the most important and often experience the range of machines on which the sys-least considered factor in the transfer of Include lists on program optimization and tem's) may run, uses prior experience in correctional systems is the user of such sys- debug aids. transfer to determine appropriate languages tems. Regardless of what other parameters The above documentation elements shouldand language subsets, then develops the are considered in the development of a sys- be viewed as a minimum requirement. Mostsystem for a range of machines or families tem or program, it is necessary to consider computer specialists recommend at least 25 of machines. TheBasic OBSCIS Software its potential use and mode of use by per- percent of the system development effort be Package is an example of the predictivesons for whom it is intended. It is necessary devoted to the creation and update of doc-approach. This predictive approach can to design the system to be flexible enough umentation. provide greater reliability, efficiency andto suit a range of users' needs, habits, and felxibility. In essence, the corrective approaCh preferences. Standards faces new problems each time a new im- A correctional information system is not Problems during transfer can be mini-plementation is made whereas the predictive created to keep the data processing depart- mized when s...ndards are followed in the,.approach strongly emphasizes advanced ment fully employed, but to serve the agen- creation of the system and its documen-planning, building a program using onlycy's users at various levels. Source infor- tation. Documentation standards includestandard features of a common language, mation comes from intake units, institutions, PRIDE, FIPS, and other standard forms.and being aware of the target machine's program and treatment units, and counse- PRIDE stand for PRofitable Information characteristics. lors. Output information should also go by DEsign through phased planning and The design of the system must consider. back to sources as operational data as well cor : and is a copyrighted documenta-the following live - categories. hardware struc- as to regional and central administration as tio,ystem of M. Bryce and Associates.'tures that most profoundly affect the archi- management information. There islittle FIPS is the Federal Information Process-tectureand operation of the software system; enthusiasm for accurate input if the only ing Standards Publications, a product ofoperating systems; storage; manipulation, output is an annual report published 3 to 6 the U.S. Department oLCommerce, National and protection of information; languages months after the reporting period. The us- Bureau of Standards.3 and their translators; and building and ers to be involved in the development pro- The use of standard languages ANSI measuring the performance of the system.' cess should include records management, (American National Standards Institute) Control of errors must be considered in classification, counselors, program and treat- standard COBOL (COmmon Business Or- the design phase as it pertains to the hu- ment personnel, security, wardens and su- ienrd Language), FORTRAN (FOR mulaman elementelements such as the human perintendents as well as central office ad- TRANslator), and BASIC (Beginners All-factor in keyboarding, providing operator ministration. purposeSymbolic Instruction Code) are offeedback on the screen or terminal, forms A system designed for contemporary use utmost importance to facilitate transfer. The design for ease of filling out the written should at least be able to serve the present CODASYL standards for data base man- form and subsequent keyboarding, etc.") users. The best plans may go astray because agement systems are also important.6, The actual techniques used to develop the people who are to use the system have Other standards include those for flow code for transportable systems should fol-not been considered or consulted. An ana- charts, program testing, and implementa, low the well-known standards for structures, lyst defines the task to be accomplished, a tion. The use of standard languages and logically separated and modularized pro-designer decides how the results will be procedures provides a common base with grams. An additional method of "separa- achieved, and the user is concerned with which to begin a transfer project. Parties on tion structuring" is common to well-designed what the system will do, what kind of re- each of the transfer process have a common transferable systems." Separation structur- ports will be .eceived, what kind of input is frame of reference on which to base their ing refers to the logical and physical isola- needed, what it will cost, what training is communication. tion of components which are, or could be, needed, what to do if the system fails, etc. machine dependent. These logical and phy- The "what" musi be communicated with the Performance evaluation sical separations help the installer locate user and a written description of user needs Closely related to standards in gathering and isolate potential problem areas. agreed upon, system objectives specified, information for design, programming, and Careful planning for maintenance, cor- and efficiency estimated. implementation is the concept of perform- rections, and extensions after successful de- The best way to guarantee success of anceperformance evaluation and per- livery is essential for the transfer process. implementation is to involve the user at formance monitoring.' A standard set ofDesigners and installers of portable soft- each stage of the development process with tests should be exercised at the host instal- ware are familiar with a common constraint particular emphasis given to positively in- lation and again at the user installation toof portable software, namely, uncovering forming the user about the system and its assure performance at the time of transfer. hitherto unknown bugs as the receiver uses Impact. This process of education must fo- To assist in performance monitoring after the software. These undiscovered bugs bur cus on several, if not all, levels of manage- transfer, these tests should be available to face in the new environment because trans- ment and operation including people sup- the user for use at any time should malfunc- portable software tends to use more memory, plying the information through the written tioning occur at the user site. external references, macroprocesses or util- forms, technicians, operators, programmers, ity programs previously unused in the new people using reports, and higher manage- System design for transferability operating system. Patches made in the soft- ment. Education can be in the form of sem- Another key element in transfer to sys- ware by the receiver to affect compatibility inars, training manuals, self-study courses, tem(s) is the system design. At least twowith the new environment frequently bringdemonstrations, hands-on training and dis- major approaches to the design of transfer more technical problems tb light or cause cussions. systems exist. corrective and predictive.' additional hidden bugs. Corsequently, de- An added ingredient in the system transfer The corrective .approacti essentially de- tection of the problem is often very diffi: process is that there are at least tw u distinct velops a system for one machine without cult. Portable software will also have prob- users or sets of users. Those who have the _ regard to other machines. The transfer to lems because no program is "perfect." A system and those to whom the system is
4G 4), Correctional data analysissystems
IPEOPLEI COMPILERASSEMBLERSI MACBOPROCESSOR FPROCEDURESI TEXT DEBUG LOADERS. ISEARCHING & IAPPLICATION PROGRAM31 EDITORAIDS SORTING
IDATAI i/0 PROGRAMSFILE SYSTEM ISCHEDULE,'LIBRARIES MEMORY DEVICE 7
Figure 6.1. Computetcomponents Roars 6.2t Hantware-dependent Involved In transfer components of transfer being transferred. An essential element fortaining better operating performance from usually showing a repetitious internal struc- successful transfer is the communication the computer. Partitions within the library ture, called records, where the content per- between these two user groups. For exam- are usually unordered as are the programs tains to a particular subject area. The inmate ple, personnel from the South Carolina within a partition. Examples of programs database could consist of the following files: Department of Corrections traveled to Ohio within the storage allocation partition would high security, medium security, work re- to see the systemin action. Later, personnel be memory management functions, joblease or furlough eligibility. A block con- from Ohio checked results from South Car- swapping, or linkage functions. Programssists of an arbitrary number of recordi. The olina for consistency. Here, "users" is taken are composed of phases. In large programs size of the block depends on the size of in the most general sense and is meant to each phase may be a program in itself. A internal memory. A record is the basic include not only persons who only use the phase in the memory management program component of the file. A record is a set of outputs but also those charged with the would be protection of memory. A module data that pertains to an individual instance design implementation and maintenance of within the protection phase may emphasize of a topic. the system at each end of the transfer. protection by software programming tech- niques such as use of status words or use ofAdministrative procedure transfer Systemeto be transferred passwords. Another module may empha- Transfer of administrative procedures size protection through Lardware switches. refers to the transfer of procedures and/or The systems components to be transferred Modules are combinations of routines methods relevant to the-collection, process- can be divided into three categories: pro-that together can direct the computer foring, presentation and security of data/in- grams (or systems of programs), data, and such a small group of operations that a formation and to the procedures developed administrative procedures. Figure 6.1 illus- routine requires other routines to perform for the receiving, evaluating, prioritizing, trates the relationship of most computer a function. Within the protection softwareand processing of requests for information. environment components that can be in- module a routine ,will exist for checkingFor example, identification of the location volved in a transfer.". legitimate passwords. Routines'inay be com- of source information, where coding and Figure 6.2 describes the computer envi- posed of subroutines. Many times routinesdata entry are to be performed, the means ronment involved with transfer-illustrating and subroutines are considered synony- and time frame for submission of data, those components that are dependent upon mous. However, a routine could be largeverification, and error correction of input; the specific vendor hardware, operating enough so that it will have subroutines (e.g., the distribution of standard output or peri- system and other vendor supported soft- an algorithm). A subroutine performs oneodic reports; identification of restricted in- ware and peripheral equipment. function. Algorithms perform a specific task formation and those with access; method such as square root, absolute value, or Programs transfer of dissemination for ad hoc reports. Some roung :ing a real number to a specified num-of these require correctional agency policy Transfer of programs (system software ber of otcimal numbers. while others are the purview of the manual or application software) can be viewed as of operations for the information systems. consisting of any of the following parts Dais transfer The vehicle or media for transfer of data arranged in a vertical hierarchy according ransfer of data can be viewed as con- or software can be hard copy documenta- to their level of complexity. sisting of any of the following elements ar- tion and/or machine readable form where- ranged in a vertical hierarchy of com-as the media for transfer of administrative Level of complexity LogIcalor conceptual plexity. procedures is strictly hard copy documen- High Library tation, as these procedures are implemented Partilicsi Program Level of complexity Logical or conceptual upon management and organizations, not Phases Kg h Nanization sank on machines. Niod"Ses Database Routine I File A key area of administrative procedure Subroutine Block transfer occurs when a correctional agency Low Algorithm Record is converting from a manual to a computer:: Figure 8.3. Elementsof program(*) Low Data Element transfer Figure 8.4. Transfer of data ized environment. The setup and capture procedures for relevant, accurate and time- A program library is the largest and mos The most inclusive grouping needs to ly data revolve around at least three areas: inclusive grouping. An example of a pro include all databases of a correctional agen- (I) the necessity to set up data acquisition gram library in system software would be cy which could be called the agency data- and data preparation procedures, (2) the an operating system (also called master bank. Within the agency databank there necessity to set up files of information and, control program or executive, e.g., IBM's will be several databases. For example, for(3) decisions about the method for change; DOS-Disk Operating System or TSO-Time a corrections databank the following data- over. Sharing Option; Burroughs MCP - Master bases could exist: inmate database (current, To convert She input, specific methods Control Program orMCS-Message Control past), personnel database, finance database, must be deVeloOd to acquire the input da- System). An operating systym consists of a and facilities database. A database consists ta, to prepare the data (coding), to put the set of programs that assist the User in ob-of a number of files. A filet 7set of data data into machine usable form, and to com- Systems transfer technology for contemporary corrections41 municate this to the computer. This involves are essential to insure proper updating of all Each of the forementioned categories in- both manual operations and machine op- data bases and to preserve their integrity. cludes a list of key questions which will erations. Even if the data is gathered as a Data, once prepared by the input prepa-serve as a guide for persons involved in byproduct of other computer equipment, ration group, can then go to the computer either the development of transferable sys- sorting, editing, batching, control, and ver- for processing. Specific procedures covering tems or in the transfer of an existing system ification may be needed. the handling of dath must be given to thefrom one site to another. This guide will Accuracy, validity, uniformity of format, computer operator. These directions will provide the nontechnical user personnel with timeliness, consistency in data acquisition, specify for each application what data is to reference material which, when met with and close observance of deac...nes are as- be used for input, what conversion operations, satisfactory resolution, should prevent any pects that must be achieved through cleri- if any, are required, and what input equip- major errors of omission, development and cal and machine procedures. Special atten- ment is needed. Methods to avoid using the implementation slow downs, or project tion must be given to providing forms,wrong input are neededidentification la- hang-ups. supplies, and equipment at the time and bels, different colors for different media, Although an attempt was made to in- place needed. Personnel matters (e.g., mo-etc. Input handling procedures should spe- clude as many elements as possible, no doubt rale regarding job security) are very impor-_cify ways for maintaining protection of the some installations must add additional con- tant during conversion to facilitate limitinginput dataforbid leaving input data in siderations which are site specific. Further, the number of mistakes made in trying toaccessible open trays where they can be the responses to these considerations must perform two jobs at the same time. removed, logging procedures for entering be evaluated by each site to determine the In the area of input preparation mostor leaving the data storage vaults. constraints they impose upon transfer to standard operating practices require a clear The handling of output is in one sense their specific installation. Although desir- separation of personnel responsibility. In simpler than input. The procedures depend able, it is virtually impossible to assign prior correctional enyironments it is rare to find in part upon the form in which the data is to probabilities for successful transfer to each personnel associated with operating the be transmitted to the final user, e.g., output (or combinations of) the elements. computer and also preparing the input. This in printed documents must have the car- separation frequentlyresults in an evasion bons removed and then burst and bound. Hardware of accountability for the quality of data On the other hand, the presentation of Hardware problems encountered during submitted, a distrust of the accuracy of the output to the end user may involve sub- transfer refer to differences in representa- output, and eventually a corruption of thestantial training (or retraining) concerning tions due to different machine architectures database due to "dirty data"incomplete,the interpretation and use of the informa- and different associated peripherals. Trans- inaccurate or inconsistent data. This is oftion. In some correctional agencies, reports fer is easier when the hardware is of the major importance in proper utilization ofwere produced and stored, but the infor- same manufacture and model, but still not an automated database. mation was not used. When a question arose too difficult if the specification differences Input control procedures cover three that could be answered from the report, are identified and documented. The key major points. completeness, accuracy, and someone else had to retrieve the data and transfer questions associated with hardware protection. The procedures for a smooth prepare a special report. are presented in Exhibit A. functioning operation must include clear In most instances, users will be exposed and complete directives for the clerical to new or at least differently formatted in procedures. These procedures involve prep- formation than they are used to. Care must ExhIbite.A aration of a procedures manual giving pre- be taken to ensure the appropriate use of Hardware cise directions on how each person or piece that information. In some instances a tem- I. Will the available hardware support the re- of eqUipment is to operate in each situa- porary liaison must be created to bridge quired tiondirections covering how to prepare Fetween the DP and user personnel. A. Character set (including special charac- the input in the required content and for- Finally, experience suggests that in many ters and control characters) B. The number of alphabetic characters per mat, sorting, editing, converting the data, instances the administrative procedures as- word and number of characten/word and such simple mechanical matters as how sociated with system transfers are very dif- C. CoNating sequence D. Double-precision arithmetic to get forms and inaterialc. It is up to the ficult to execute due to organizational en- E. Addressing scheme (byte vs. word, shift. correctional 'administrator to emphasize viron ments (personnel, organization history ing, etc.) F.Floating-point anthmetic accuracy in data collection and entry. A and inertia) and resource constraints. G Proposed workload to satisfactorily gen- policy for accountability in all aspects of eratetimely reports information processing is needed, followed H. Machine base (octal, hexadecimal, Systems transfer considerations binaryneeded for nkxfifications and by procedures for verification and policy dumps) implementation. The previous sections discussed the key I. Software 1. Operations systems Procedures are needed for auditing One concepts in system transfer and presented a 2.Programming languages effective procedure is to have one employee typology of approaches to traneer. This 3.Data base management system 4.Files and file handling job be a check upon that of another. Asection and the appended exhibits provide 5.Addressing and addressing scheme second desirable audit procedure is to build a categorization and an itemization of the J ohyslcal characteristics for I/O devices audit trails into the system. In the prepara- 1.Magnetictape specific elements and key questions to con- a.density tion of computer applications it is common sider before embarking upon a system trans- b.7 or9 track tape to provide forsome intermediate results for fer project. Five categories of elements are c.cartridge cassette audit purposes. Another audit procedure presented which cover the minimum ele- reel (size) requires that all data have been processed ments to be considered in the transfer deci- d.character set (control characters, !specialcharacters) and processed in a consistent manner. Aud- sion. These elements should be dealt with e.bootstrap format (# of words In iting can also be performed by building by the full user group so that all aspects of BOOT BLOCK) f. label formats into the program various checks upon the the transfer problem are thorough;y consid- g.parity data to be proCessed and upon the process- ered. The categories include: h.number of magnetic tape devices ing method of the computer. Checks such *Hardware issues 2.Magnetic disc a.removable disc pack as hash totals, sequence checks, proof fig- *Software issues b.character set (control characters. ures, record counts, limit checks, break- *Documentation issues speeded oharacters) c.bootstrap formats points, checking numbers or check digits, *Performance issues d.parity tape label checking, and record label checks User issues. e.size of disc storageimegebyte) 48 42Correctional data analysis systems
3. Terminals E.E(comparrormessage handing to a n1/0 device 4. Vendor support a.screen size a.Cost b.cursor and screen addressing Error message) in English and explanatory b.Is system aid available on site or c.character set (control characters, F.File accessing methods must one depend on phone calls special characters) 1.Sequen C. What type of assistance is given d.lower/upper cue characters 2. Random for instillation e,ond-of-line, start of fine conven- 3.Indexed d.Is the vendor reliabie end commit- tions 4.Other ted to support the system f.eras* characters G. Initializinion of memory 5.Training and documentation g.full-page conventions H. File considerations: a. Manuals (1) are fines added at bottomand 1. Who performed/boons, doses, o b. Course available a line pushed Off top writes, rewrites, roads, recovers, de- C.Are manuals accurate, complete, (2) is the page erased and a new letes, creates, naming, renaming and up to date page started 2.Limitations: 8.asun wage Interface h.number of terminals a.number of files open at a time a. ade with host language 4.Printers and terminals iodine printing b.concurrnput ent use of2 or more files ( L, FORTRAN, etc.) a.size form(s) as or output 7.Staff requirements b.satisfactory generation of the C.Nideritl ftt- ti on a. What technical qualifications are number of partsilomi d. end of file conventions required of the data base manager, C. number of Ines per page 1 e.header and taker labels monk andmanaper d. number of characters per Ins 3.Promotion 8.Physical characteristic ofof Cie com- a character set (control characters, I. Input/output data puter special characters) 1.Reformatting files required a.Size memoryrequired f.carriage controls 2.Usable output format to meat user re- b. Spedal hardwarefeatures re- -5. Card readers q a.size of card accepted (80, 51, 96 3.All required data for input is available c.=rerequired (operating sys- co J.Text editor source editing) supperits tem, library routines, etc.) b.code(Hollenth, binary) required character set (special char- d.Error message wmpagbility with C. punch code -028, 029 acters 0 devices K.Appropriate interrupt handling K. Job control language M. Support software L Size memory 1.Length of password, user numbers, 1.I/0 devices required M. Parity account number 2.Utility routines (call and return com- N. 'Console switch settings 2.Runstreams executed from disc or 0. Time limits (satisfactory amount for loop- Wm 3.tabtirailVroutines(call and return com- ing before aLort) 3.Formatfor job stream (card and deck) patible) P; Word size L Database Management (If the target sys- 4. .bug routines tem uses a DBMS, these considerations 5. Son/merge routine Software are necessary. If not, the file considera- 8.p_ Fatingloating-point arithmetic (software) tions must be addressed.) I N. Oer system Interface Programs transferred into a user envi- 1.Services 1.Performs I/0 fundions ronment must be compatible with the soft- a.Is the security satisfacterf= 2.Perform full opening, dosing, re-__ ware of the user's environment-operating security/privacy down to the file, writes, deletes, naming, renaming record, field level 3. Handles local and permanent files 'system, utilities, database management sys- b.Lodcoutfeatures satisfactory (by 4. Modes of pcotedion tem, text editing, file handling, etc. Exhibit passwvid, account number, user 5.Blocking factor for type/disc number) 6.Initialization of B emphasizes software characieristics that C. Utility roubnes available: 7.Compatible systmrals horn applica- must be analyzed when transferring a pro- 1 Load and unload tion program gram. 2 Reorganize files 3 Recovery and badcup (4) Statistke for date base man- Documentation agement Information Transferring a system requires complete Exhibit8.8 d.lathe try and report generating Software convenient-does it at d accurate documentition. Documenta- have a natural language tion should not only stress the program 1. WIN the available software support the re- e.Is th ere a data Oowry and die- quired -Urinary awilabb (20K has)to being transferred but should also include; A. Program size (bytes, Instructions, words) prevent recompiling when compatibility with the user's software and Programming changes are made 1. StandardICICingtagrINSICOBOL f..1sIftere concurrent update and hardware environment; preparation of da- 1974, ANSI X3.23. 1974 (may Weedy inquiry capability ta for input; and training or user personnel, levels of standardization for different g. Does the system allow for multiple The type, kind, and amount of documenta- feature) data baps to be °ben at one end example: nucleus Level 2 h. What islhe number of keys al- tioq transferred depends on the type of sort-merge Level 2 lowed software-being transferred, i.e., proprietary table-handling Level 2 I. Is error massage handling sails- etc_ factory vs. non-proprietary. Exhibit C illustrates 2. Standard FORTRAN (ANSI FOR- j. Other support software psovideid: considerations of appropriate documenta- TRAN 1966, ANSI X3.9, 1966) wrth Sort/merge following extensions: blocked or un- i2 Floating point arithmetic tion to assure portability of the technology. blocked1/0 read and write random 31 etc. An example of documentation of a correc- and indexed files, etc. 2.Operation tions information system is the Basic OBSCIS 3. Other a.Operating system interface B.Cornoller pecularities (1) Perfomrs I/0 functions Software PackaW Documentation which 1.Lengeth of Identifiers (2) Performs fuel opening, dos- includes sections on Systems Guidelines, 2. Length of integers (18 bit, 32 bit, etc.) ing, wades, deietesenarn- 3. How are arrays accessed , ing, and renaming Installation Guide, Operations Manual, 4. How are matrices stonid (3) Handles local and permanent System Design Documentation, System Test 0 5. Are variables InitiaNzed .. files 6.Run-time checks (array size, string (4) Modes of protecbon offered and Acceptance Plan, State Specific Docu- size) zfothddng.01. fo; mentation, and2section for user notes. - 7. Separate conlpdation- program may Each implementing state prepares its own be too large to compile on target ma- FilIs InitializedtaPe chine Cs,ornpallappri=system calk; operations documentation. 8.Execution ol bops II range ie OUt of from order - is an error detected b. Complexityofthe DaPtiaWnlisition C. Unkage Wale main program/system language and the Data Manipula- 1.External referebee satisfied tion Exhibit CC 2.Overlay structure for separate pro- 3.Phisicallarcotrgnuaor Documentation ' gram a. How eMdent is the I/0; can page a.tree or chain compatibility size (progr size)bedrarged I. Explanation of non-standard nomenclature b.compatible communication be- b.Mode oi laftlaclalas) Armen segments (1Interactive II. D. Format for delivery to user site (2 Maximumnumber of ususers A.Operator manual 1.Bootstrap (machine language (3Concurrent use of one B. Reference manual software) data bass C. Insteastion/converflon procedures 2. Cards (souroe, object, code compati- c.&boss methods used D. Library routines- operator and reform ble) , Random al 3. Tape (compatible labels) (2 indeitad sequential 'E. Utimanulityrouftnes -operator and reference 4.Disc (compatible labels) (3 Claw manual' 4 Systems transfertechnology for contemporary corrections '43
F.DBMS evocatorand reforencs manual checkout, listing's. documentation. and type of system to be transferred (programs,` G. I/0 devicee operator and reference assietance to the assn for See and pro- manual am conversion data, or procedures). H. Debug routinesoperator and reference Delwable Moms: A matrix, indicating the type of system to manual documentsion specified be transferred and general considerations I.Float2-point operator and reference object code In use format source code In user format for the transfer is presented in Figure 6.5. .1.Input preparation manual Deliverable msdum: This matrix may be used as a guide to help K. Training (programmed text. etc.) m anti- magnetic tope (certridge. cassette) al (disc peck, cassette) ensure that all relevant and appropriate III. Ustings (source) Zglidisc(Lccol., 51 col.. issues haVe been considered before making A. Transferred program(s) other , 8.. Ubrary routines Cost (bundled software) a final decision regarding the transfer. C. UcliasroutInes documentation from design The matrix may be used as a simple D. programs from hoot E. I/0 devices personnel from host., -check-off to ensure that the area has been F. Debug routines updated coftwsre releases covered; the administrator may also wish G. Floating-point software to indicate problem areas through the use IV. Floivcharts Cost (bundled software) A. System documentation of subjective probabilities for success. This B. Program matrix must be completed for each poten- V. Fde documentation =tedsoftware releases VI. Dedsion tables Frequency of software releaser; tial transfer site. ConversionArriplernentation to be per- To illustrate the matrix some 'examples formed the user are taken from the test installation of the Performance & Operationbyal benefits Evaltiating the performance of a trans- 1.Fewer fomis needed Basic OBSCIS Software Package in Iowa 2.Greater sows to data and informa- as they fit the considerations of the exhib- ferred program or system includes assess- tion its." 6 ing the impact of the transferred technology 3.Faster processing of reports TanObiebenefits Under the headings Hardware/Program on the organization in terms of costs, ben- 1. &Wag responsibilities to govern- some exceptions which required changes efits, and general effectiveness. Evaluating ment and other requests for data 2.Facilitates better and more thorough rather than checkoff were: performance is an ongoing process. To as- planning Character set(Exhibit A, I.A.). The sure receipt of a satisfactory performing Suport services for proprieWry software 1.Time (days. Mc.) to fix a change from Xerox to IBM hardware product, Exhibit D cites considerations software problem' would not recognize the character (") dou- -thht should be observed during the transfer 2.Frequency of updated versions and ble quotatibn mark which had to be phase and aids to assure satisfactory per- dowmentation 3.Aupportievfrom donor to receiver kir changed to C) single quotation mark. formance after completion of the transfer. writing programs interfadng with the __transferred proArern Addressing scheme(Exhibit A, 1.1.5). he ongmardesign-called- forrelative-ad- Exhibit 6.1) dressing method and even though the op- Perforinance Summary p erating 'system was supposed to support this feature, it did not. The addressing I. Standard tiets available for execution A. At time of delivery This chapter has attempted to provide anmethod had to be changed to an index B. Each time a change is made to the overview of systems transfer technology formethod. software C. For use any time the software is malfunc- persons who are not computer profession-Magnetic disc(Exhibit A, LJ.2). Disc tioning als but must be involved in decisions con-space for on-line virtual memory instead of II. Expected output from standard tests (est- cerning the transfer 'of systems between having a dedicated disc drive. r :4) HI. Test procedures/manuals Installations or the development of a trans- Under the headings Software/Program IV. Error reporting procedu;er ferable system. A. Standardivd form for reixxting errors the changes Made in OBSCIS were less a B . Software malntenanoe agreement (if In order to facilitate the transferability feature of getting the program to run than necessary) of software developed under government for greater efficiency. Most size and memo- V. Performance monitoring A. CPU time to run the program with present contract for corrections installations, thery constraints of language compilers apply amounts of data Law Enforcement Assistance Administra-when going from a large capacity computer tion and related agencies have indicated the to a minicomputer. The Bas ; OBSCIS Users software must .be written in standard lan- package was first programmed on a mini, A key factor to guarantee success ofguages (COBOL, FORTRAN or BASIC) so compiler ptcuRarities were rare. The file implementation is to involve the user atand must follow the Federal Information access method and storage medium were each stage of the development and imple- Processing Standards Publications (FIT'S changed to take advantage of increased ca- mentation of the transfer process. Exhibit PUB) standards for documentation. pacity. This heading also covers job control E lists user concerns that need to be recog- This chapter indicates there are more (and language (Exhibit B, 1" 1-3) which is spe- nized to assure successful transfer of com- sometimes crucial) dimensions to transfer-cific to both the hardware and operating puter technology. ability. First are the concepts of performance, system cc;!..figuration and to the specific system design and the user. Second is thesite requirements. Exhibit 6.E User I. Personnel required A. Operator B. Programmer Transfer Considerations C. Input profaner (code and verify) 1 II. Training required type of Transfer A. Operator iardwaresoftwareDocumentationPer formanceUser B. Programmer C. Uw o' report D. Input prepaw Program III.Satisfactory error control on Data A Input data (editing for legitimate ranges. etc. Procedures 8:Oper)ator feedbadc C. Fill Identification (magnetic tape. disc. stacks of cards) IV. Management A Initial cost Includes cost of program. Figure 6.5. Matrix for system transfer considerations compilations, conversion and complete 50 4 44Correctional data analysis systems
The matrix headings Docume ntatidn/Pro- " Toellner, John. J. ToeUner and Associates. "Per- IExliNt formance Measitrement in Systems and Programming," gram, Data, and Procedures all required 111141ograpIty Inforystenu (VoL 24, December on). specialized reformatting to cover Iowa user o " Hague and Brown. op. dt. specific requirements in all'areas. Documen- 1. rA$sn, Thomas J.,Alansgingth now ol I Chapiq. Ned, Computers, D. Van Noytrand Co. (New York. N.Y., 1971). tation of a system to be transferred is the leohnology, AMT Prase, 1_ ...PT 2.Brown,Pby J..enciors."Poltlti.rAmputenvaid8W:usyss ROOMY. " In April 1978 the Iowa Department of Social Ser- key to successful transfer. Since the Basic vices, Division of Adult Coriections, was selected by OBSCIS Software Package was designed 28, 197S. LEAA and SEARCH Group. Inc. to become the first for transfer, the .Data and Procedures sec- 3. Brown, P. J.,Solhvare Porfebilty.Cam- test in a live environment of the Basic OBSCIS Software bridge UniversIty Prase, New York, N.Y., Package. This package bad been prepared to perform tions were left blank for user specification. 977. Under the matrix heading Performance/ 4. Chapin, Ned,Comm**,D. Van Nodtrand three modules of the OBSCIS Model and to allow for CO:, New York, N.Y., 1971. the insertion astate specific requirements. Details from Program, Iowa experienced much difficulty. S. Hague, S. J. and Ford, Odan,"Portablity- the Iowa transfer experience are given to illustratethe. Data were impossible to measure for each Predlcacet and CorreclIon,"Soeware.- matrix (Figure 6.5) in we but the details are simplified. Prebeceand Experience,Vol. 6, 197& stage of the transfer because there was no B. Module, F.,"Plenning, People, Prac- input data included in the original package tice Seen KeySnioolh SwIth,"Com- at time of delivery for benchmark runs. pufenvosfd,Ally12,1978. 7. Merlin, Mei G., "Program Transfers 'Ine*;11- However, such a set of test data now exists ebb PiDeal,Tome,'"Computenvorfd, for modifications to the software a ncrsub- June 14,1970. 8. Patna, Robert L,"SI:dy Ingredlenta for Bet- sequent transfer installations. ctesrAllems,"Dmannaloti, Vol. 23, De- The matrix headings User/Program, Data, 1977. 9. Tiistra:C. F.,"Standarde for Infonnadon Sys- Procedures proved to be the most critical *nage- considerations in the Iowa transfer project. mint 1978. , While training of technical personnel is nec- 10. T John, Toelner,J. and Mioxiatee, "Pefforflunoe Measurement In Systems and essary in any transfer project, other users =lg." Woeystsme, yol. 24, De- frequently overlooked are more vital to 11. "Tranepdrtabilly Should Be Base of Sofhvare project success. The system users must be Standards," 4.:ompufenvond, Demobs( V, thoroughly trained in the utilization of the 1976. 12. URISA 1W76, "Standards Key to Effective input and output procedures of th_elystem Technology TnInsfer," Cornputenvodd, Sep- o\ chaos results. Reports must provide op- ternber 6, 1976. erations and management with information ,13. Warren, Po.labilty: A Surrey of and Problems," to `aid in the decision process and the in- CompCon,@brow/ 1975. forMation provided must be valid and ac- 14. Wellman*, James C., SyshomsAnalysis for curate User InVolvement throughout-the--Met Publishing projectessential. Thus the key concepts involving system References '1 transfer are then: documentation, stan- ' SEARCH aroup.Inc... &sic OBSCIS Software dards, performance evaluation, system de- Package Documentation, Grant No. 76-55-99-6048 from sign, and the user. In order to develop a the Systems Development Division. National Criminal system that has a high probability of being Justice Information and statistics Service.Law Enforce. transferred to different environments with ment Assistance Administration (Washington: Depart- ment of Justice. 1978). %, minimum amounts \ of change and frustra- 2Brown, PJ., Sofnvaro Portability. Cambridge Uni- tion the system should be well documented; versity Press (New York.N.Y., 1977). use standard languages (e.g., ANSI ' Merten. Alan G.. "Piogram Transfers 'Inevitable u Death, Taxes, " Comproenvorld. (June 14, 1976). COBOL), use good state-ofIthe-art pro- ' Bryce, M., and Associates. PRIDE: PRofitable In- gramming practices (top down, structure, formation by DEsign through phased planning and separation structuring); use a predictive control. system design approach; and \consider po- s U.S. Department of Commerce. NatiOnal Bureau, of Standards FIPS PUB 38, Federal Information Pro- tential users and their requirements. cessing Standards PublicatIon (February 15, 1976). Although there is a dearth of literature U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau concerning system transfer, even more so of Stands idsliandbook 113. CODASYL.Data Descrip- with respect to guidelines for noncomputer tion Language Journal of Development (1974) Report of the Conference on Data Description Languages, A professionals involved in the transfer of DataBasc Task Group. systems, this topic is becoming increasingly ' Tilstra, C.F., "Standards for Information Systems popular as the notion of system transfer Manual,"Journal of Systems Management (July 1978). becomes a potentially viable alternative to ' Hague. S J., and Ford. Brian. "Portability-Predic- t ion and Correction," Softivare-Practice and Experi- "reinventing the wheel" at each installation. ence (Vol. 6. 1976). A selected bibliography on systems transfer ' Brown, PJ.."Portability,1 ReliabilitySeen as Ig- has been included in Exhibit F. nored by Vendors." Computerworld (May 28. 1975). o
Chapter 7 Data report. This- 5-year report describes the average inmate population and the dis-0 tribution of funds spent each year includ- ing' state funds, federal funds, and' other Transferable demand revenues. The report also gives the daily Information technologies and yearly average cost per inmate, cold- paring the percentage of state funds expend- ed to total funds. The South Carolina De- partment has found this particular report sb helpful in responding to ad hoc requests that the report has been described as "chained to the desk" to insure accessi- One objective of this project was toiden-Model data bases bility. tify useful procedures and technologiesLitigation and data processing Following similar tactics, the Oregon which correctional agencies utilize in de-Transfer experience. Corrections Division analyzed the demand mand information processing. The purpose information requests it had received over a of this chapter is to summarize some ofReports designed for 2-year period in order to detect patterns these technologies which can be transferredad hocresponse and similarities in requests. As a result, the to other correctional agencies. Oregon-Division designed two monthly re- After conducting telephone conversations Correctional staff members who routine-ports which provide response data for an with every state correctional agency andly respond to demand information requests estimated 80 to 90 percent of demand in- visiting seventeen agencies, two conclusions find that many requests require the sameformation requests. One report summarizes regarding demand information processingdata elements. These elements usually per-the inmate population according to the appear_ warranted. First, no single correc-Lain to the number of inmates incarcerated,county of commitment, ethnicity, crime tional agency has an ideal method for deal- the cost of providing for inmates, the crimestype, drug and alcohol average ing -with the total demand information for which they have been convicted, inmateage,, average sentence, a so forth. The problem. Second, several agencies havedemographic characteristics, etc. Becausesecond report summarizes new commit- developed useful procedures and technol-of repeated requests for similar informa-ments and paroled and discharged inmates ogies for resolving iamb' of the problem. tion, several correctional agencies haveby county of commitment. One page of this Valuable and transferable technologiesfound it expedient to compile very briefstatus report is reproduced in Figure 7.1. were identified in the following areas: statistical reports which present the most The Texas Department of Corrections Reports designed for ad hoc response commonly requested information. Avail-produces several reports which are routine.: Routing and logging models ability of these reports has significantlyly supplied to inquirers. The Department Automated policy indexing' ystem saved response time and money. , fOund from experience that these reports analysis and report generation- The South Carolina Department of_Cort_provide answers to the majority of requests / software rections produces ?: Population and Fiscaland eliminate many spiciareoinjiateiriin-s.
12/17/70 1101,111$.117/4 AS OF 11/10/79 67 1$67 1.1.101C06 2 TOTAL raivious oviltoe AiL2 i ma AVf8 Watt 201h u* ;LTAlMIE0 07 0611:10;T:fr 4,:f-.';Ex ISMicftu It lit CONF. COs,M:TIEN,T SFAIISEAY 6 6 1 4 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 28.5 6 4 2 9.4 4.7 1.14f. 451 441 34325 11II 2 2 774 113 52 24 37 72 21 21 144 9 '40 194 26.5 420 76774 IN. 4 I. A 74 76 61 7 2 1 23 41 4 5 2 .9 17 4 33 23.6 73 67 9 6.0 1.7 1.161 177 133 122 3 I 2 2 48 44 9 3' 19 3 4 St 1 1446 24.6 128 10924 6.4 1.2 411.11 31 31 21 15 13 1 4 t t 2 i *2 5 15 '27.4 30 27 4 6.4 1.4 74481 175 174 154 7 4 7 2 az 70 It 4 4 22 6 8 61 3 36 77 24.7 170 (39 33 7.9 1.4 47A4 2 1 2 1 1 2 11.0 2 7.5 3.8 14T 1 1 , 1 36.0 1 1 0.0 0.0 slas 1116 1095 6E73134233 1 14 465 336 43 69 47 173 73 55474 15 191 491 27.3 1040 1143212 11.7 2.1
lesS.1 1 1 1 1 21.0 1 1 33.0 1.7 CAC I 0.1) 0.0 0.0
701.4 63 45 40 1 3 1 23 17 S 4 4 7: 2 2 22 1 9 18 25.3 4) 38 7 NA 7.1
%Fa 1 I I 1 37.0 1 1 10.0 1.4
T11.1 17 2. II 1 3 1 12 12 2 4 4 2 9 1 , S 14 73.8 24 22 4 10:3 1.4 140 04 144 16 4 4 46 SO It 4 1; 5 13 4* 13 54 25.9 106 96 12 6.1 1.3 U111,1 71 22 37 5 13 2 17 3 II 27.3 71 22 4.5
UT 1 1 I 1 14.0 1 1 15.0 0.0
1 1 1 1 31.0 13.0 ,1.8 vA 1 2 1 2 26.6 7 3 16.6 0.6
All 1 1 1 1 28.0 1 7.0 1.7
WASC 1 4 27 27 IA 1 6 1 1 II 7 3 1 ; 2' 14 2, 13 27.5 i7 23 4 3.1 1.9 WASH III. 113 10 6 g 4 38 46 96 I. 14 7 9 56 16 S2 23.8 107 93 20 10.1 1.9
*Kr 1 I I 1 1 1 1 26.0 1 1 17.0 1.1
104.1 44 42 40 2 le 70 4 2 3 8 4 4 15 1 6 15 27.2 40 32 10 8.3 1.2 TerMdl I I 3336 3213 2556341176475'3917621195 294 206224479 las194137138 478 1486 26.3 3128 704549 9.11 1.8
sows a.0 AGE 771F17411 AGC AT 10,44T DATE ERAGE SENTAN:t IS NUNE8 OF YEARSAVEAAGE 1E49E0 IS AVER6OE NUMBER OF 1FA45
Figure 7.1: Population report, Oregon Corrections Division (reduced copy) 5') 45 3 O
46Correctional data analysis systems
One report is the FactSheet.A portion of this report is reproduced in Figure 7.2. , The Fact Sheetincludes the following summary data: *Population characteristics 1. number received Telus Department 2. paroled ,.. .3. discharged 4..giopulation by sex of Corrections f. by age ri 6. ethnic breakdown INMATE POPULATION . l 7. IQ scores ./,8. number enrolled in various educa- and projection tionarprograms *Major offenses Z ;a13 ' Convictions according to Standard Met- ropolitan Statistical Area *Prior confinement in the department *Administrative divisions *Policy of the department. -Other reports produced by the Texas Depaitment of Correctioniinclude theAn- nualReport, the Annual Statistical Report,* and30Years of Progress.TheAnnual Re- portis designed to reflect the administra- 2 tive and fiscal organization of the agency. This report is produced for the Board of Corrections, the governor, and. the legis- lature but is, of course, available .to the Public.The AnnualStatisticdlReport is a .0comprehensive document presenting a sta- tistical summary of inmate demographics, those admitted to, released from, and con- fined in the department during the current calendaryear,Examples of th e inforthation included in heAnnual .§latistical Report are: *Texas population compared tcrime rate
oand inmate Itatiistics Inmates per 100,000 population by Texas Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas Suminaryof inmate count by unit spopulatiOn summary *Comparative-statementinmate cost per FACT SHEET day 'Inmates enrolled in the school programs Ihmaies enrolled in the college programs *Inmate population by-sex 'Inmate population fluctuations by month Figura 7.2: 'Offense breakdown 'Rate of admissiOn b`yisajoi off ense.. The report entitled30 Years of Progress traces the historical development of the a. ' Texas Department of Corrections from 1947 through 1977. It includes a list of the ad- ministrators, board members, and certain staff members involvedin the department during this period. The report alsochroni- cles the development of programs and se. - vices in the department and the buildings. constructed during thisperiod of time. Correctional agencies concerned with :he incicasing'amounts of agency resources di- verted to the demand information process may wish to analyze these excellent reports. These rePorts illustrate the data most fre- quently reqttested and they depict formats for presentation of information. 1 Franifirable demand information technologies47
CONVIC2101111 It UNA 11/2120/111111101111-1201.0211112111MATS RATIO .I11101OS. 1101 pepiUm.1 -.. 4 /Win le . flied P44414q Imeaufefler SUM fiaistir Ullman Pewees yew .' arprepteeses IMOlfrou 0 DelisePt Ware 6.174 . KU II limized. SAS 5522 1M1 411 TA Sem 1.122 , 7C 4.21 7.3 liememul-OrseoelArier772 346 . 1272 4.31 II Maui US 4.5 f.f 061111 AIMS LIS IS 11114 I* SS 'FT TA 7.4 MAJOR 0711:100 0111444 Die 21.1117 mil/Um Gime fluerherretlam43 POIPULA71ON SUMMARY Tema 'Thee Pau leas Sew WeiPsee Dleirerud '.11111117 filif Prehbery 2.2111 14.131 +.111 LIM Mover. MI MIT MVO TAO LOS LUB MINI MB 1912 OM, 4.7$1 LOS I.U/ Lamely 2.774 1fn 71.01 7.1101 . *MalANN* US 11114 fLUI 7.1111 4.111 2.411 r111117/ US WM MS kW 4.4111 3.10 Olket 2,2111 HIS AM UM 11111 SAS 004LUnei1eUe IN WWI S.1311 UM NO heruse141sesele pudears 141414 ins LIU; ea !MINCE 1.7611 Ireese Y MIT ses Mee MI wool Irma Ii DM U. WM missal - 5.5 Leer Mirriese 0 IMMO Perreal
11411.411 P0fULTION ST SIX Lac UN 1 yew lard Ge Dm 241551 fspriales.1 . Lasthem2y4em 33 '141 Ler Mon um C41441&2401 .P4p110144 flobe Laelliesums 7 . L0416845 uere .5N 1144.3 LealhaeS uere 111 11.512 ISMS 1147 ' 1.us1kaa7 yaw 277 Mt 111.15 ISM 1400411yees aft 6.712 13.138 4 46 Lagar yaws' 46$ INS MOM 74412 Lustful *mu .7 1314 *553 55.312 2 -1e yore, 1145 ULM - WS 127, INI 1177/ 15115 LS-0pm 44 II411 WM 35-55).35 55 ,7 26.-71 years 11 ilyernadoew I 222 Life .21 Data UeeveWie 7111011 CONFOISMINTS IN TUC flowed ea" Doe. 21. 10/ peplum AGE OF INMATES lams. atm Sl. 1477 940414eras Ne., 41 fade Tema* Coariesur Loci roue,bows Ponta A. Seiebrielbeeres k Parma ,. ?AM f lust Kr Lau Use 17 2.. et One i 4.7411 ....)27 -I 222552 7.2 Doi 21 551 a - a - me 17 14 Three Pe La 13-221 US 27:3 Pere' IS . 1.41 ..., 55 -55 2AI1 ., 12* IN 0 /We mum wailludi . ,.. i / A portion of the "Fact Sheet" from the Texas pipet:flint of Correcdens (reduced cppy) a
54 O 4 Coffectional data analysis systems ,Routing and logging modals
Many obstacles to generating responses to demand information requests originate in the mechanics of receiving and recording the requests. For, example: Duplicate requests are frequently received NILNISOIA CiPANIIINT Uf CORRICTIONS in separate units of the agency and elicit- Research aM Inform:Aloe SYstelts duplicate response efforts. ft.tueSt.roro A request rouied to an inappropriate re- spondent must be reassessed and forwarded. An analysis and evaluation of the demand Dete TIN, None of Person Making Request information process requires formal logging. Orpeoleatloo PhOmil No. Key elements in an efficient response
Address Dote 0.. process are routing and logging. For the sake\ of efficiency and accountability the InformotIon Requested: response process must control the routing and logging of the requests received. Du- plication of response efforts and misguided use of agency resources must be avoided. There is a variety of routing and lbg- ging methods used throughout the correc- tional community. The Minnesota Depart- ment of Corrections utilizes a model in which all requests for information are ini- tially routed to one office in the research section. A "Data Request Form" serves as the log record (see Figure 7.3). The person assigned to answer the request is usually a Dote Corpleted Completed by member of the research staff unless there Approxtroile Hours to Cooplete are others better qualified to respond. In the Oregon Cbrrections Division all r.s [:= y .s 1=1 Me l= Mov Dock Ni. Procedure Sere requests for information requiring compu- MOO No = N6 ED ter assistance are routed to a policy com- mittee. The committee consists of all di-
After CorpletIon, Please Return for file CPU 'floe: visign administrators, and together they decide policy issues involved in developili the response. Examples of these issues a e: Who will have access to the information? What is the priority of the request? Whether or not a charge will be assessed Research for the information? 04/04/79 Decisions by the committee piomote cooperation among the departments. These committee decisions relieve the data pro- cessing section of that responsibility and help to ensure consistent and expedient ac- tions by the entire staff. The logging system used by the Georgia Department of Offender Rehabilitation is Figure 7.3. Demand information request form used by the Minnesota automated. The log, on a Univac 1100 Sys- Department of Correcdons (reduced oopy) tem, employs 'a key word search capability
SEIOESTLU MICE OAT. iscvvm INKOSAMII ACTION fARIN DATE COMPLETED KANNOUAS IRCIPMIllt1
Figure 7.3. Needing from the "Informition Request Log," South Carolina Department of Corrections (reduced copy) 55 Transferable demand information technologies49 and comment selection. The system records
the title, up to 9 key words, 10 statements, 111..11.1 11 . . 11 s4 141111 ph.. ...7 liru II11 .4 .* (4416 IIF Ild the author of the response, the time spent in sei preparation, the type and location of the hif Of mipo mfL report,, and the cost of compiling the re- AI- HIP SN:1tei sponse. An example of the system's output A:- MEw FFUFAn A:.--FFOGFAM EUNAmamcm is container) in Figure 7.4. ETMAJOR AD.HOC. UITH LLT1LP 1 Several states have manual logging sys- p2--MAJOP AD HOC. wiTighiT LETIFR CI--mINOP AD HOC. UITH LETTER tems for recording requests and correspon- E2--MIMOP AD HOC. wITIP.M LETTER dence. The systems usually consist of a DI=-LPIEFIMO SLKINARy 02--PPEIEHTATIUM columnar ledger with entries for basic in- EI-11H-PEPSOM TALK E2--PHOME CALL fofmation items such as the date received, E3--LETTEP source of request, description of the request E4--MEMO FTPAMPHLET and the individual to whom the request is F2--1'Ew:FAFER CLIPPING referred for response. F3--LOOK F4--JOUFNF4. APT1CLE In additiOn to these basic entries, some F3--MOMOGFAFH correctional departments add entries which O --IS OILY UND FOP GuFUE PUm TYPE TYPE OF EIITPY? may be of particular benefit to that agency. >DI HOLDING UmDER ACCESSIOH MUnIER 790510.06 For example, the log sheet used by the South AUTHOR'? Carolina Department of Corrections also >TIM CARR USERS ORGAIIIZATIom7 includes entries for the date the response >DOOR USERS NAME? was completed and the number of man hours )DAVE EVANS consumed.(see Figure 7.5). In the Califor- TITLE'? nia Department of Corrections the log of >REvIEL, OF EVALUATIONS OF 'SCARED STRAIGHT PROGRAM the Director's cot respondence includes many MORE TITLE (Y.m)7 of the demand information requests received PULLICATIOM DATE,
by the agency. California classifies its cor- STORAGE LOCATION' -respondenceinto approximately 15 subject >EVAHS OFFICE WORK PRODUCT ----areas with the log sheet recording the sub-1 nAti-HOUPS jectiiiffe-number;-designated respondent,' >8:00 PUNS? date due and date mailed (Figure 7.6). Log >0 sheets for the Maine Department of Mental COSI" >0.00 Health and Corrections are exceptionally K EYWORD HUMBER 0017 )SCARED STRAIGHT comprehensive. They record the date in, KEYWORD NUMBER 0027 nature of request, date due, date of response, >JUVENILES KEYWORD HUMBER 003' time spent in preparation, source of data, >DETEFFINCE comments, outside contact piople, and fold- KEYWORD muNEER 0047 >RAWAY STATE PRISON er number of response. KEYWORD IIUMER 0057 )IIIMATE PROGRAMS These routing and logging models are KEYWORD MAHER 006 transferable to other correctional agencies )1HTERACTIOm TENEEN INMATES AmD JuyEHHES ENTRY TOO L0103--CFrra EXCEED 20 CHAFACTEFS with needs in those areas, although some TRY AGAIN. USING THIS mEASUR1m6 L1UE: elements of these models should be designed i.EYwORD numEER0067 to fit each agency's unique requiremelts. >MEW JERSEY yEyIJORD NUMBER0077' The transferable elements of\these routing )LIFERS and logging methods. include: >EywOFD MUnIER0087
Routing methods ANY COMMENTS 7 t routed to one office (Minnesota) >Y routed to policy committee (Oregon) Logging techniques automated log (Georgia) manual recording (California,,Maine, Figure 7.4. Example.of output from the automated logging system, South Carolina) Georgia Department of Offender Rehabilitation (reduced copy)
emeoe...96.0*.eaelmsmsalailoiasaime.ormeesse...... 0...... a ***** olleassemsee.e.eceseeee***** «se..
Subjeet IData Received From "'Atoned Shat. IDate Date Dote Letter No. (I(sedateato NameasNo.) To i signed Due PA I 1 led
Figure 7.6. Hooding from the loo ;,f the Director's Correspondence, California Department of Corrections (reduced copy)
56 X
50 Correctional data analysis systems
prvIION .NNE 20. 1470 OmEGON COMAECTIONS OIVISION MASTEN IMOEX Pia( ni.FCTIPC Tvoi Or DIRECTIVE ACCESS In CONOUTENIEEn EOM INFOQoATION
ACCEIONT}NO mR00000FS 1410CEOURE STATEMENT oFOamnING CONImOL OF FUNDS AnotNis/AATION or Goon out.. I
AnOPTIoN OF NuLES UNDER onif TmE ibmINISINATIvE ooliCEnnort ACT IAPAI ArrIANATIvi ACTION PINKY
LECONOL AMU Donn, INfpApy POLICY FON NOPK PELVIS' twoLircs
APPLIcAlluft *No topooLLPENT Rut.: TN WON'T MFLEAS, VOCIONAN
ARKS, VAPOANT6 FIIN PAOCEOUAL STAIfNENT mroSONS ON cfmn4IinNAL prLtAcr STATUS. orOOECTIN6 APO'S. ANT) Akkr$T1NG ANT) nrIAININ4 PAMOLECS, pposaTioNrms
AunIT6 rsTEDNAL 4610 ilToccoott STATEMENT INTERNAL
pn.p yporATS AND SUSPECTED PADCEODAC STATEMENT ICTTEm A0hS
poNATIDT OCCUPATIONAL P OLICY oHALTricAtIoNs
NunGri pprpANATION Awn P OLICY rsPkNOIIDOLc PNOCISS
rPILoPTNs srmytcEs LETTER OF AnotrmENT nlvistuN coopto.TivT ""'t"FNT YiIN copPEcTio,c nivistoN cTpcuLATInN or p"TioNc Rue, MY INMATES no n IN rn..irrlOkS DIPI rAcILITIts
Figure 7.7. Computerized 1.14. ester Index, Oregon Division of Corrections (reduced copy)
Automated policy indexing agencies have been stow to develop and published and bound in separate volumes. system __document policies and procedural rules. The A computerized master index of all policy lack of formal policy statements and the statements includes an alphabetical listing The content analysis of demand infor- resulting inconsistency of administrative of each policy and its status as either a letter mation requests discussed previously indi- procedure has caught the critical eye of the of agreement, agency rule, policy, or pro- cates that requests concerning agency policy courts, bringing about charges of arbitrary cedure. This index also includes the date of constitute the third most frequent request and capricious action on the part of correc- last revision so the staff member answering received by correctional agencies. There are tional administrators. the request can check the currency of the two problems in responding to such requests: In some correctional agencies, particu-policy. -*The policy in question may not exist in larly administratively large and complex An index for each volume (i.e., policy, written form. agencies, it is difficult for the respondent to rules, etc.) has also been computerized and The person answering the request may be fully informed about the policies of allthis index indicates which areas of agency not be fully informed about all the agency's agency sections. The respondent may not administration are affected by each direc- policies. know if a specific policy exists, if there is ative. The index includes the date the policy Many agencies are ill-prepared to respond formal statement of it, if the statement is or rule becomes effective. In this case, Ore- to questions about their policies Until re- current, who is responsible for enforcing gon's computer is used like a word proces- cently, some correctional agencies were ex- the policy and who is affected by the policy. sor for agency policy. The system allows empt from state laws requiring formal policy The Oregon Corrections Division has quick and easy index updating and provides development (review through public hear- developed an automated policy index sys- printed copies of all indices for distribution ing, legislative committees, etc) This exemp- tem which significantly expedites the pro- throughout the agency. Examples of the tion has been recently revoked in many cess of responding to policy requests. This output of the Oregon automated policy in- such states (e_g., Wisconsin) and these agen- system is a good candidate for transfer to dexing system are provided In Figures 7.7 cies are now faced with the task of fat mu- other institutions. In Oregon, all correction- and 7.8. tating formal policy statements for all aspects al policies, procedures, rules and letters of Various aspects of this automated policy of agency operations Other correctionalagreement governing administration are indexing system are transferable to agen-
r2I Transferable demand information technologies51
TIN 0811 huVLISALIty..),tor., 1VItIvy RE R="41. S AFT (CT (0 PAGE PRG(FNURALLSTATEMENT RULES GENERAL CULP JAn wok, nnvt. ST A705 82.1171. St R C ES PSFAIriS co2Pprt IPNC F1201U eV: ic,ard,.141Tiu(f(PLIFRICECI vrS Yr; (FS YES MI S vrc P(1,9. ADRIF IF '1 RIR I. A )(PIER A9911it4t 4I STRAI ION OF own YES 3 A.I.JeT 19N loF MIL ES 1191R YES Al yi 5 YE S IFS YE% PERK. AortPt to 47 AU9INIS STRAT vie ,CC E 1(.I . Ycl YFC PF0'... A99.1E9 4 KP25.=f.t'a g2V,Vm
S 5SSIG14E7:1 CII7.1115 le VFS YES 1:4R. A19P UN It/ 79 741 17 %ZI(N.1 IRI'IJGIAS 510 TR:411 LI 1,Itl IA ICS iwrr 4 :IL ALIA I trRRECT IfrIAL 1,AL S TO RENT IL F.F41 IN UNISI SIt INS l ITUI1E.F.5 4 LIRCULAT ILI fir R7 AS S ALA PET.4. 1JIFITEJ iNIF. IFS (w 11.4.RS IN EUIRIC TILLS VI Il SII.N P A:. it II IFS
7 r.t..P,..4ity c-.pEtt to.; S Yr% 00:1, FSyi.t. .1R; t CF CVIVLY AMA IFA')I lt.51( SO YE vr S , YE PEPR. 4.1001E5 FUICAL CAL I L I lY EL IS I9E C( S OIVISluv Faculty'ECT I YFr 9 Cr141 LL 1 ICIdt UTIS INN At At S YCC yFi P(09. 405077 Y/78 12LIIVF /CO I EC I ly;S GIB IS II I. LL IL1 A IILFISNI PS to rstst.,o,tivtt, Cr ,A-to vt 15/77 tc.vtts SLPI"SI SKR FILL I''AI I.N. Mrs YFS *CS VI 5 y, 5 vF .tootto "II(.11,IF RI: I 11 CvRwEC 110.15 :1115I6F. I ECCR..ISl'Y IWO- 'SILO Pala LIES
Figure T.B. Computerized Index to Volume on Rules, Oregon Division of Corrections (reduced copy) cies experiencing response diffif.ulties to situations, the agency must make a tape ofhas developed a CROSSTAB program to policy. Obviously, the idea of assembling the data and transfer the tape to the other perform this cross tabulation function in all policies into a single source and index- facility. Another problem with commercial place of a complete statistical package. This ing policies by administrative area is wise. packaging is that the file structure of theprogram is frequently used with the data In addition, the system concepts are trans- agency data base may not fit the configura- elements selected by the EXTRACT pro- ferable as are various aspects of the output tion requirements of the report generationgram. Data elements that are repeatedly used in analyses are extracted and stored design. a or statistical software packages. In these instances the agency must manipulate the on a separate file for a limited time rather data before these packages can be used.than being extracted for each application. Statistical analysis and report The extra cost of running commercial pack- Both of these programs, the EXTRACT generation software ages is a further consideration. These re- and CROSSTAB, are designed for use by source packages are technically available in nontechnical personnel from remote termi- Statistical analysis and report generation the correctional community but practicallynals. The programs are interactive and easy technologies are frequently required to re- the use of them is very restricted. to use. spond to demand information requests. To To counteract restrictions imposed by The Georgia Department of Offender meet these programming needs, correctional commercial Packages and to reduce costs, Rehabilitation is operating an in-house de- agencies either design in-house statistical agencies have supplemented in-house pro- veloped report generation packageGolden and report generation packages or acquire gramming by designing complete retrieval Retriever. In addition to performing the commercial packages toperform these func- packages, or refining the applications offunctions of a report generator, such as tions. the commercial packages. For example, the retrieving the necessary data elements from Unfortunately these programming re- Ohio Department of Corrections has de-the data base and formatting the report, sources do not solve all software problems veloped in-house an EXTRACT program Golden Retriever outputs the computer time in responding to ad hoc requests. In-house for retrieval and listing. The program ex-and cost for each application of the pack- programs are limited by the ability of the tracts those data elements from the data-, age. Knowledge of the time and cost in- agency staff to design and maintain software. base that are needed for the response so volved in the response is essential for plan- Also, in-house programs are usually designed that other analyses may be performed on ning and managing a demand information for a specific function and are less general- only those selected elements rather than process. The Georgia package, designed to izable to the range of capabilities required against the total database. This procedure operate on the Univac 1100 series, is re- for demand information processing. reduces the computer time necessary forstricted to a single file structure and a fixed Commercial packages also have limita- the analysis and saves the agency time and length record. It is used daily in the Geor- tions. Correctional agencies may report money. gia Department for special runs and for that such packages are available when ac- Sophisticated statistical analysis packagessome standard reports. tually access to them is through an outside such as SPSS and SAS are not cost benefi- Other agencies using MARK IV, a com- agency. Access may be via the state data cial when the most frequent applications mercial report generation package, have center or the computer fa' Aides of a univer- are limited to cross tabulations of two or taken advantage of its capacity for accom- sity. To make use of each package in these three data elements. The Ohio Department modating multiple requests in one compu- 58 a 52Correctional data analysis systems terrun. Up to 256 sets of logic can be processed in one pass of the data base. Nine different reports can be formatted from one IIINTRODUCTION set of logic inputs and multiple files can be coordinated. The Virginia Department of Corrections combines all fnforniation re- quests into two MARK IV computer runs The primary missimi of the Minnesota per week and has significantly reduced the Department of Corrections is to protect analysis costs of the agency. The Ohio Youth the public.In order to accomplish this mission, the department iscommitted to Commission makes similar use of MARK the development and administration of IV. They estimate that MARK IV is used in policies and programs that will both con- over 90% of their special requests. troloffenders'inappropriate behaviors and assist offenders in functioning as law/ Model data bases abidingcitizens.These policies and pro- grams deal with both juvenile and adult The quality of an agency's data base is offenders in institutions as well as in the determined by the amount of data collected community. and the accuracy of the data maintained. To achieve its mission, the department's The data base of the Minn6sota Depart- odministators must make rational choices ment of Corrections has both data element in the areas of policy, programmingand breadth and is highly reliable. Demand in- management.Rational decision making formation requests received by this agency requires the use of reliable, timely, and, are rarely, if ever, denied for lack of infor- relevant infotmotion. Research, Records', mation. Management andInformationSystemsl, staff work with personnel throughout the The Minnesota agency's Research and department to help ensurethat quality in- \ Information Systems"Activity Report" for fixmation and analysesore available to July 197.9 describes the informationsystems assist both opxational and management - of the agency. The report includes an enu- staff. meratioti of the systems which are currently active, the systems currently being devel- Because of shored interests andrespon- oped, the new systems which will soon be- sibilites, staff of Okse three units func- come integrated parts of the Corrections tion as a team to gather, maintain, and analyze operational and management in- Management Information System, and sys- formation. The Records Management tem enhancements"designed to better satis- staffisresponsibleforinitiating and fy user needs. Figure 7.9 presents tht details maintaining manual and computerized of- of this report. The reader should note that fender records. The Information Systems the chronological file included as part of staffdesign and maintain manual and the offender tracking system has more ap- corfiputer systems.The Research staff analyzes resultant do a. There is ex- plications than merely recording the move- tensive interaction among these ment and actions of the offender. Each areas as correctional concerns seldomcan be ad- inmate action, such as program participa- dressed by one activity clone. This team tion, work history while in prison,-disciplin- approach maximizes the use of staffex- ary actions, etc., can be pulled from the pertise to ensure that the department chronological tile ,and organized into a employs the best management practices complete record of all occurrences of that in the conduct of the public's affairs./ one activity. The comprehensive nature of the Minne- IIRSEAFICti sota data base enables the agency to be responsive to nearly-all the information The Legislature has recognized the im- needs of the agency. The tiles are main- portance of research by directing the De- tained on an IBM 370 series computer in portment of Corrections to establish a the state data processing center. research capability so that correctional programs and policies may he fully ad- dressed (MS 241.05, subd. 5).
Research activities focus on issues which have practical applicationto the daily operations of the deportment. These ac- tivities center on four major areas:pro- gram evaluation,policyanalysis,fact finding,and technical assistance. The
59 Figure 7.9. Transferable demand information technologies53 followingexplanation of these four area evaluation design includes con- nomic or the rehobilitotive ob- is intended to be brief and general. sideration of the Centers' assist- jectivestowardswhichthey ance to crime victims, the na- were directed.In tote 1976 the Program evaluation research focusesan tureofcommunity attitudes "Free Venture" model was devel- the process and outcome of activities generated by the Centers, the oped to rectify this problem.It sponsored by the department which as need for the Centers, and the is an attempt to structure and I intended to produce desired changes in desirability of establishing new operate prison industries in a ' offenders.Program evaluation research Centers., manner which resembles their contributes to the improvement ofcar- free world counterparts as close- rectional.programs4 Two reports, "Legislative Re- ly as possible. Since 1977 LEAA port/Crime Victim Crisis Cen- hasprovidedMinnesotawith Policy analysis focuses on the selection ters, 1979" and "Crime Victim funds to implement the model in and evoluatiai of alternative strategies to CrisisCenters/Research Re- certain shops.In October, 1978 achieve deportment goals. Policy analysis port," (March I, 1979) are avail- the research division in the De- can also help to identify issues that must able. A finalreport will be partment of Corrections was a- be addressed by departmentol policy and completed by December, 1981.; worded o two year LEAA grant to evaluate the effectiveness of current to research the progrom.. The policies.. 2.Sex Offender Treatment Pro- purposes of the project ore two; gram Evaluation,. fold: (I) descriptive: what Fact Finding consists of the activities type(s) of inmates are attracted Tovolvedin responding to requests for The Department of. Corrections to and/or selected for porticipa- information necessary for reports, plahr. initiated a specialized treatment ning, and decision making./ program for sex offenders at tioo In the Free Venture shops, Minnesota Corrections Facility? aid what do they do? (2) evolve Technical. assistance involves providing Lino 'Lakes (MCF/LL) in late five:how does employment in advice and services to corrections person- 1978. A Law Enforcement As- such o ,shop offect an inmate nel 'regarding research issues, methods, sistance Administration (LEAA) during his/her involvement and and techniques.. grant provided for a two port during the post /release period; evaluation: (I) an assessment of how does the existence of such In addition, research services may bepro- the operotions of the progrom shops offecttheinstitution? vided to persons or organizotions outside based on measures of the treat- The anolyses will involve com- of the deportment.:* ment group while in treotment parison of the Free Venture in- motes from Minnesoto Stote Pri- and (2) determination of the ef- Activities of Research Stoff son (MSP), MCF/LL, and / Min- fectiveness of the program fol- nesota CorrectionolInstitution lowing releose.Doto are to be for Women (MCIW) with riandom Program Evaluation Research analysts collected via telephone 'contacts in the deportment ore involved currently samples of troditionol industry with parole agents regarding re- and stole services workers se- in evaluation of a number of correctional cidivism and other measures of programs. Each af" these is described lectedfrom MSP,MCF/LL, adjustment such cs occupational StateReformotoryfOr Men brieflyinthesectionbelow. Other and residential nobility. This is smaller scale evaluations ore done as re- (SRM) and MCIW and matched on rested. on effort to determine if spe- significant background voriobles. cialized treotment improves the An interim report for 076/77 socio/sexual adjustment of se- will be avoiloble in November, I.CrimeVictimCrisisCenter lected sex offenders aid, thus, 1979, and a final report for the Evaluation. reduces the likelihood that they 1978/1979 periodin November, willcommit furthersexof- 1980." In 1977 the Deportment of Cor- fenses. Comparisons willbe rections was directed by the drown between men who com-Policy Analysis State Legisloturetoestablish plete the program and o group Crime VictimCrisisCenters. who have ncst participated. TheResearch Unit conducts severol pro- Three such ,centers were opened jects designed to aid in the development In October of that year in Min- A preliminary report regardingof departmental policy. Current projects neapolis, St. Paul, and Mower both aspects of the evoluotion include inmate cinszificotion, community County. Each offers a variety of will be available in December,corrections impact, parole decision/rock- services including crisis inter- 1979, and up/dates will oppeor at ing, and population analysis., vention, emergency building re- six month intervals thereafter. pair, and counseling and referral Extensive follow/up dato will be 1. inmat" Classificotion: to victims of many types of included in the final report at crimes. the end of the grant period, The purposes of the Inmote Cios- June, 1981.. sificotion Project are the devel- Speciol legislative appropriotions opment and implementation of 3. Free Venture Evoluation/ through June, 1981 ollow for on/ an objective, behaviorally/ going evaluation of the Centers oriented system of clossificotion in terms of their impact on the Prison industries have frequently which will place an inrnote on criminal justice system. The foiled to serve either the eco- one of the four security levels
The "Activity Report" from the Minnesota Department of Corrections describing the research and Information systems (reduced copy) 54Correctional data analysts systems
maintained by the Department of Incarceration assigned by the Technical Assistance.''- ofCorrections.. Information board,andthenumbersand used in matting initial classifica- types of departures mode from Nat all research activity engaged in by ticnandre/classificaticnde- the guidelines.. the Department of Corrrections is done, cisions will include the inmate's directly by the Research Unit.The Re- prior criminal conviction history, The purpose of the project is to search Unit has the responsibility of re- prior incarceration history, dis- provide an ongoing monitoring of viewing all research activities under the ciplinary record during prior in- the Minnesota Corrections Board management of other Department of Cor- carcerations,commitmentof- decisionsandtheextentto rections units and, when necessary, ren- fenses, and disciplinary record which they adhere to the guide-dering advice and technical assistance. during the current incarceration.' lines.The study also providesTechnical assistance can take the fol- data on the expected time in- lowing forms:reviewing and advising on The project is funded by the No. mates will serve. These data ore research goals and methodology, 'helping tionalInstitute of Corrections useful forprojectingfuture design data collection forms, performing and Is scheduled for completion changes; ininstitutionalpopu- dato processing, and assistingin data in December,1979. A pre- lation., anal liminary reportdescribing the structureofthe classification , The study is ongoing, and reports Research review and technical assistance system' and the appropriate de- are currently available on Torget are provided in the following contexts: cisioncriteriahas been pro- Release Date (TRD) decisions in duced.. 1977 and 1978, and On guideline Major studies and evaluations of cor- departures for these some years, rectional progroms are occasionally fund- 2. Community Corrections Impact ed by the department by grant or sub/ Study 4.Population Analysis.: contract and conducted by outside firms or ogericies.The Research Unit will re- The Impact Study involves the PopulationAnalysiscoversa view research components of such grants collection and analysis of data variety of both long/term and and sub/controcts, formeasurability of on sentencing patterns in the short/term projects. Itis de- goals and objectives, appropriateness of district and juvenile courts of signed to aid decision/makers in research methodology, and potential use- countiesparticipatinginthe the department in .planning for fulness of any research findings.One CommunityCorrections'.Act, effectiveutilizationof re- such project currently in progress is the which wos passed by the -Min- sources. Population projection Maximum SecurityPrison Tronsition nesota Legislature in 1973. The Studies are completed and dis- Study funded by the National Institute of doto on sentencing patterns are seminated as needed for plan- Corrections. collected for the purpose of pro- ning. Demographic profiles of viding decisionknokers with in- the institutional populatials may The deportment also has the respon- formoticn an the extent to which be producedperiodically to sibility under the Community Corredtions cnychonges in the proportions of examine such factors as race and Act (CCA) of reviewing and monitoring adultandjuvenileoffenders oge catfiguroticns and their im- local CCA unit research plans and activ- committed to stole institutions pact upon the variousin- ities. can be ottributedtopar- stitutionol programs either being woe ticipationintheCommunity offered or considered.; An units within, the department may Corrections Act.Further, the request assistance in developing surveys dote provide information on any Fact Findinc or questionnaires or may request dato changes in locol sentencing pot - processing services.In the post, the Re- terns. The Research Unit responds to data re- searchUnit has helped Personnel and quests primarily from other units in the Community Services as well os the insti- Deportment of Corrections. Exomples of The Impact Study is on ongoing fusions with special projects.The Re- project.An interim report was dato recentlyrequested include: ,the search Unit helps the Victim Services produced in 1977, and graphs and number of inmates of SRM under the age Division and the Serious Juvenile Offend- tables on sentencing pattems ore of twenty/one who do not have a high er Progrom. Technical ossistonce is also periadicolly up/dated.. school diploma; the number of incarcer- being provided to the correctional indus- ated veterons; the current agent for of- tries program. 3. Porole Decision/Making fendersreleased from Minnesoto cor- rectional institutions. Future Plans The Parole Decision/Making Study involves the collection of If the information requested Is not cur- Research activities also include planning informotion on the use of the rently available on the computerized Cor- futuee research.Proposals moy'be de- paroledecision/mokingguide- rections Management Information System lines( parole "matrix") used by veloped to answer questions posed by De- (CMIS), the Research Unit moy olso col- portment of Corrections administrators So the Minnesota Corrections Board lect data from inmate base files and other in determining parole eligibility. aid in planning for new facilities or pro- sources. Exomples include dato on incor- grams, or to assess the impact of past Thisinformationincludesthe cerated women offenders (requested for tabulation of risk and severity policy changes.Picas may include pro- planning purposes) and the monthly segre- jects to be done by the current research levels of inmates receiving a gation report, which tabulates inmotes new admission hearing, months staff and resources or, for larger. studies, days in segregation.The Unit also re- may in addition involve outside funding sponds to numerous national surveys sent sources. to the department.
61 Figure 7.9. (contInu9d) Transferable demand information technologies55
Two new projects will be initiated during87-counties of the State.Minnesota law CMIS Data Bose Files:, the next six months, (Chapter 241.06) requires that this in7 formatien be recorded, organized, and re- Master Index File I.Community Corrections Act portedfareachindividualan a co. Evaluation: ordinated' statewide basis. The Infer - The purpose of the Master maticri Systems Unit was established to Index File. isto provide a A new Community Corrections perform theseinformationfunctions means ofrecordingand Act evaluation will go beyondquickly,accurately, and economically. maintaining historical name the current impact study.The Information Systemsprovidesmodern Identification data on of- study may address such issues ascommunication, information processing, fenders. costs,social control,equal- and data storage for institution, field ser- ization formula, and the importvices, and community programs. Coordi- Identification File on state and local correctional nation is provided with state agencies, facilities.Current staff will be and other state and federal criminal jus- The identification file con- involved in the project while ef- tice data systems. The Information Sys- tains information regarding foils are mode toobtain ad- tems Unit provides the means and tech- A on offender's status, living ditional funding. nical staff to: and work assignments, hear- ing actions and demogroph- 2. Inst?tioional Usage . Ald operational units plan sys- ics. tems to meet their needs. This study will develop a plan for Offense File the integroted use of the de- . Analyzecurrentsystems end portment's correctional in- needs The offense file contains in- stitutions.; formation regarding the . Design new approaches to meet sentence(s) andoffense(s) Other smaller scale projects will identified needs forwhich a specificof- be developed to. meet de- fender has been committed. partment needs.. . Assure the systems meet user needs, Visitor File
. Modify and enhance systems as The visitor file contains in- RECORDS MANAGEMENT needs change formation on offender's visi- tors, and those individuals Responsibility for maintaining central re- . Train ..operating staff in system banned from visiting. cords rests with the Records Unit of the operation and use Deportment of Corrections.The chief Chronological File clientele using this data ore Deportment . Plan for future modification end ofCorrectionsstaff,law enforcement enhancements asnew tech- The chronological file con- agencies, and state and federal agencies.. nologies become available tains information on move- ment and actions token re- Records Mcnogernent is designed to coor- . ;Assuresystemsfunctionef- garding at offender. The dinate, standardize, and iystemotize the ficiently and effectively chronologicalfilereflects storage, retrieval, retention, and dispos- these events In chron- tion ofrecords n'taintained within the ological order.. state correctional system.it also deter-Systems Management mines the most economical and effective 2. Jails and Lockup Systems methods of records control., Systems management is the ongoing su- pervising and maintenance of cooperating The jails and lockup system con- Records are managed and maintained insystem. This includes modifitotions to tainsdata on each individual computerized, microfilmed, and manualthesyitemandaccompanyingdocu- adult and juvenile booked and files for the Corrections Management In-mentation, updating procedures and re- confinedat approximately 165 forrhation System (CMIS), Criminal Jus-lated training. local correctional facilities. tice Reporting System (CJRS), Computer- Doto are entered on site using ized Criminal History (CCH), and CountyThefollowingsystemsorecurrently the state Criminal Justice Net- Juvenile Court Report (CJC), systems.active: work. The Unit maintains complete crid.upitoi dote records for ready information re- 1. Offender Tracking System. 3. County Juvenile Court System trieval.All data are maintainedin cc- cOrdcrice with Minnesota statutes gov- The Corredtions Management In- The statewide County Juvenile erning records retention, disposition, ac- formation System, (CMIS) is an Court System gathers In- cess, and dissemination. online data base system.Data formotionfromcountiesre- ore entered into terminals far gording individuals receiving dis- transmission to a central com- positions from County Juvenile IIINFORMATION SYSTEMS puter where they.areim- Courts. mediatelrovailable for use. More than 2000 pieces of information about offenders in the seven Minnesota correctional facilities are generated each day. Information Is also generated by the
2 36 Correctional data analysis systems
k.Gemrnunity Corrections System I.Uniform Parole Reporting 2.Inmate programs will monitor the placement and performance The Community Corrections Sys- The Deportment is required an- of Individual offenders in insti- tem contains information on ac- nually to report parole data to tution programs. tivities regarding individuals the National Council on Crime supervised by Community Cor- end Delinquency. Currently a 3.Field service reporting will co- rections Act units. manual procedure is being uti- ver -the caseloads, categories of lizedto meet these require- supervision, due dates for pro- S. Criitinal Justice Communication ments. An analysis is being done gress reports on cases assigned Netviork Interfaces to study the possibility of using a to state agents, CCA county a- computerized method.: gents, andnon/CCAcounty A. The Minnesotu Criminal °gents.; Justice Information System 2. National Prisoner Statistics Re- (CJIS) prOVides o means to porting 4.InterstateCompactreporting exchange information state- will account for offenders from wide on crime and crim- The department is required an- other state and federal juris- inals.It also maintains di-, nually to report data on ad- dictions., rectcomputerinterfaces missions and releases to Notional withboth the S. National Prisoner Statistics.An analysts Count control° tracks the' loco. Crime information Center ticn of inmates at all times dur- (NCIC) and is being conducted to determine theNational if using a computerized method ing the.day and furnishes reports Enforcement Law Tele- is feasible., to support counts by the staff., communications Network enabling 6. (NLETS), in- 3. Inmate Classification Discipline reporting will record formation access by local, and maintain information on in- state, and federal low en- The Deportment has requeited mate disciplinary reports, hear- forcement agencies. system support to develop an ob- ings, penalties, and appeals.: B. jective method for determining The Criminal Justice Re- the security level System Enhancements,, porting System (C.iRS) or- at which an ganizesthe offender willinitially and sub- collectionbf sequently be supervised. System enhancement is the result of a statewide criminaljustice cooperative effort between users of the data for the Uniform Crime 4.Industry Accounting system and those responsible for the man- Reports (UCR), Com- agement of the system. As users define puterized Criminal History The Department has developed a new needs, the needs are analyzed, and the StateJudicial (ca-), privateindustry/Free enhancements designed and implemented Information System (SJIS), Venture to satisfy the needs., the Correction Management work program inmates. An automated 1 stryaccounting Information System (CMIS), . _system The following enhancements are currently and Local Criminal Justice is ededto provide mcnagNnent with timely and =- in design and will be implemented in the Information Systems third quarter of 1979.. (LCJIS). As o component of curate reports to control the in- di iidual work programs. thiscommunication net- I.Identification, demographics, of- work,the Deportment of. fense,and Systems Design: chronologicalre- Corrections is charged with sponse screens ore being changed theresponsibilityofre- a to improve readability. porting, through the CJRS,Systems design begins upon completion of the system analysis. the actions taken regard: ,g It defines the final 2. system in detail and creates the necessary A caseworker code will be added individualsinthestate's' to the offenderindexreport. correctional system., methods and procedures under which the This report will then become a system will operate. daily, aniline report.. S stems Analysis, The following systems, which will soon become integrated parts of the Correc- 3.Visitor subsystem responses and reports are being expanded.. Systems Analysis is the study and eval-tions Management Information System are uationofinformationneedsandre-in the design stage, quirements and the design of a system to 4.The CM1S operating manual is meet those needs.Projected benefits, I.Health care will record and re- being updated, and a CMIS ad- costs, and time schedules ore included in porton mental and physical ministrative procedures manual the analysis.. is being written.. health .ossermentandtreat- ments.Basic features include The department is currently engaged in quantificationofhealthcore four system analysis studies: uniform needs, unit scheduling, outside parole reporting, national prisoner sta- service reporting, and detection tistics, inmate classification, and industry of epidemiological trends. accounting.,
Figure 7.9. (continued) Transferable demand inforMation technologies 057 Litigation and automated These examples represent only a cursory sure dis'aster. A predisposition in either di- data processing look at the role which data processing plays rection negates the realism of the transfer in litigation efforts. The most common le- and interferes with its success. Correctional Civil litigation in corrections has created gal issues for which the computer is invalu- staff should be fully informed about the a great need for information. Adequate in- able involve comparisons of inmate demo- transfer to reduce the fear of change but formation can ease the litigious demands graphic and legal characteristics. Examples overly optimistic promises should be on an agency in two ways. First, informa-are such items as the length of sentence, avoided. tion can be used to prevent or remedy situa- housing and job assignments and parole re- To avoid these problems the correctional tions which could be grounds for law suits, leases by the age, sex, race, offense, and administrator anticipating the transfer of a especially civil tights cases challenging the county of conviction of the inmates. product to his agency should learn about conditions of confinement. Second, infor- For purposes of transfer, the correction- the transfer process in addition to learning mation can assist in defending the agency al community will want to note several about the product. It may be helpful ;- against allegations of wrongdoing. features of the Texas model utilizing datathese administrators to contact other cor- The number of lawsuits in corrections processing for litigation needs: rectional agencies who have experienced has reachici such proportions that most Concept of the modelextensive use of the transfer process. Some of those transfer agencies do not enjoy the luxury of being autom..ed records to prevent litigation and efforts have been highly successful, others able to prevent lignation. Some of these defend the agency before the courts. have been only marginally successful; how- cases are frivolous and are dismissed with- 'Team approach to meeting litigation de-.ever, the experiences gained in these transfer out going to trial but others represent a mandsattorneys, researchers and data efforts is highly transferable in itself. Agen- potential cost to the state of millions of processing personnel. One assistant attor- cies with such experiences include: dollars. In all cases, and especially in those ney general is also a computer specialist. The Mississippi Department of Corrections with "high stakes," Itis crucial that the The researchers are familiar with the in- has transferred Golden Retriever, a retriev- correctional agency be represented by the formational form and content needs of at- al software package developed by the staff best possible defense. Yet, even the best torneys as well as with the contents of theof the Georgia Department of Offender attorney is powerless without information. agency's various data bases. Rehabilitation. The package is operating The Texas Department of Corrections is TechnologyData Analyzer, a proprie- on IBM 370 hardware. one correctional agency in which informa- tary report generator and analysis package The Louiiiana Department of Correc- tion production is recognized as essential in allows the Insertion of Fortran program- tions! system is a modification of CRISYS, satisfying the legal needs of the agency. In ming at 16 logic points. The package can be a package originally developed for Wash- the Texas Department the data processing .used for simulation modeling, as well as for ington, D.C. section is an integral member of the legal extracting and analyzing data. Computer The South Carolina system is adapted team. The Texas Department is exception- output may be used directly as court ex- from the original Ohio System. That sys- ally large, over 27,000 inmates, and is in- hibits. tem, (now abandoned by Ohio Department volved in over 600 civil cases at any one of Corrections but still utilized by the Ohio time. There is very little information that Transfer experience Youth Commission) is table driven with this agency could furnish about its popula- master file, indexes, and chained push- tion without the aid of a computer. The transfer process is not as simple as down files. For example, an issue subject to recent physically moving a product or a concept The New Mexico Department of Correc- litigation was the charge that overcrowded from one correctional agency to another. tions and Criminal Rehabilitation has conditions increased disruptive behavior of The process Itself requires special consid- adapted a portion of a former Arkansas the Inmates. With theassistance of counsel, eration for the transfer to be successful. system but the transfer there does not ap- the research department and data process- Transfer process details such as cost, time proach the turnkey operation as that in ing section examined the disciplinary reports required, staff capabilities, the degree of South Carolina. of Inmates living under various conditions modification required, the documentation The Virginia Department of Corrections of crowding. The analysis included a com-available and staff expectations are often is using an adaptation of the JUSTICE parison of the number of disciplinary re- misestimated. The administration must not system from IBM but the modifications to ports according to the poiulation density only consider the technical compatibility of the system have been extensive. of each cell block in each institution. The the agency, but also the staff expertise re- The Ohio Department of Corrections has results indicated that the number of disci- quired for transfer. For example, the hard- the unusual experience of rebuilding an au- plinary reports was related to the age of the ware and data base file structure of the host tomated system after their original auto- inmates and not to the density of the popu- agency must be congruous with the corre- mated system (an extensive one) was can- lation. sponding specifications of the transferring celled due tc many problems. Oregon has Other issues addressed by the agency's agency. experience in renovating an information counsel with the assistance of the data pro- The degree of modification necessary to system and restoring the confidence of, cessing section Include. achieve compatibility must be calculated in users after the original system had failed to Records maintained by the Texas Depart- terms of cost, staff time and staff ability.produce. Administrators can benefit from ment of Corrections showed that the parole Obviously, personnel transferring the prod- the lessons learned in Ohio end Oregon board was not discriminating according to uct must be knowledgeable, but personnel,particularly with respect to establishing race in granting parole to inmates. who will work daily with the transferredpriorities among the data elements to be The computerized information system au- items must also be well trained. Unexpect- included in the system. tomatically reports when the racial balance ed complications such as additional modi- of inmates assigned to jobs exceeds certain fications, inadequate documentation, mis- specified limits. This insures compliance communications, and turnover can wreck with a consent decree. the most carefully planned timetable. Personnel records are used to reply to In addition to the requirements of com- lawsuits involving equal employment op- patibility, the agency transferring the prod- portunity issues. uct must also be psychologically prepared !Other states' correctional agencies frequent- for the new product, concept, etc. It is not ly request information from the Texas De- unusual forstaff members to expect transfer partment to aid in their own defense efforts. results ,to be either a miraculous cure or
64 f Chapter 8 have the greatest impact on the future ad- ministration of the correctional system. The recent revolution in correctional jirispru- dence is having a critical effect on both the design and operation of correctional infor- Summary and recommendations I mation systems. It is obvious that agencies need to include judicial information require-, ments in the design of information systems if they are to protect themselves from litiga- tion, defend themselyes in suits, or show compliance to courtorders. It isnot uncom- mon-to-find correctional agencies under court order wasting one or several man-years in developing compliance reports which The purpose of the CDAS Project was could be quickly and efficiently. .prepared sistent with other information released by through the use of automation if proper twofold: to describe the nature of the de-the agency. This-has at times created em- compliance planning had taicen place im- mand information problem and to identifybarrassing situations for the administrator, mediately after the suit was concluded. transferable technologies which can assistand sometithes creates an aura of doubt in alleviating this difficulty. The Correctional Case Law Demand In- about the competence of the agency andformation' Model presented in this report The materials printed in the foregoingthe trustworthiness of the information which chapters deal with a wide variety of obser-it releases. should provide substantial insight into de- vations, problems, issues, procedures, and termining the kinds of information that technologies. This chapter summarizes much Source, content and analytic ought to be retained in an agency's infor- of this information and offers recommen- mation system so-that they on adequately structure of demand Information and expediently respond to the demand in- dations for correctional administrators, data requests processing managers, and researchers which formation requests from the courts. should enhance their capability to deal with demand information phenomenon. An analysis of 543 examples of demand A model system information requests suggests that the Nature of the problem, source, content, and analytic structure of After surveying.all 52 correctional sys- / these inquiries is fLirly predictable. Almosttems in the United States and studying sev- Demand i formation refers to those un-twenty percent of requests are receivedenteen in detail, no modelsystem for hanitr anticipated a hoc requests that correctional from sister agencies desiring information ling demand information requests was iden- agencies recd e either from within the agen- about policies, procedures,,' programs, fi-tified. Some systems deal with the problem cy or from the outside. The feature that sets nances, and related administrative infor-better than others, but none has developed these requests apart from other kinds ofmation. Almost one in three are receiveda complete system which is a good candi- demands is their unanticipated nature. from other governmental agencies, typical- date for transfer to sister institutions. Although any unanticipated request isa ly requiring frequency information about The failure of a plurality of correctional problem in designing information systems, the number of inmates with specified char- systems to deal effectively with the problem those' that emanate from outside the cor-acteristics. Although some requests deal probably originates from the fa^t that de- zrictional institution are the most perplex-with topical issues of passing interest ormand information phenomena is rather ing for correctional managers. Normally,topics of recurring interest, the content ofrecent and we are only beginning to under- ./ requests that emanate from within the in-most requests seems to follow predictablestand its scope and impact on the correc- stitution are sensitive to existing informa- patterns including cross - tabulation of in- tional community. Some states that have tional capabilities; those from without fre- mates possessing certain characteristicsexperienced a greater demand are rapidly quently are not, and therein lies the prob-and examples of the agency's pOlicies, pro-'developing technologies at d procedure to , lem. . cedures, and prograMs. resolve the problem vyhich should, in the The fundamental questions addressed in Surprisingly, the analytic structures ofn :ar future, provide exemplars for other this study concerned whether the source ofmost requests are simple. Many simply re-sates interested in resolving the difficulty. \ such external requests can be identified, thequest a copy of the agency's policy in some content anticipated, and the analytic capa-area of administration or a description of a OBSCIS as a solution to the bilities for resolving the requests designed program, in which case no analytic tech-demand information problem in advance. The answer to all three of these nology is necessary. The vast majority which questions appears to be yes, and consider-require some analytic capability can 6e sat- Certainly the most common approach to ing the magnitude of the problem, it be-isfied by the use of descriptive statisticsthe design of correctional information sys- hooves correctional information architectssuch as frequency distributions, cross-tab-tems is OBSCIS. As a solution to the,de- to give careful consiueration to these issues ulations, pie charts, and other simple pro-mand information problem, it has both in designing future systems. cedures. It is rare to receivean inquiry whichassets and liabilities. The' good news is requires higher order statistical techniques,that the data elements recommended in Extent of the problem and when such inquiries are received, theythe OBSCIS data base meet or exceed most are usually not from a source responsiblerequests for descriptions of inmate popula- Most correctional administrators, datafor making critical decisions about the op- tions. processing managers. and researchers indi- eration and future development of the cor- Where OBSCIS falls short is in provid- cated that\ the demand information prob- rections system. ing the analytic software needed for com- lem is real, `frustrating, and not likely to go piling the information contained in a typical away in th e \ near future. Many agenciesThe courts and OBSCIS data base. The analytic reports lacking a streamlined procedure for deal-demand Information produced by the basic OBSCIS software ing with these requests find that their re- are useful in providing managers routine sponses to such inquiries are frequently Although inquiries fkom the judiciary are information useful for general administra- incomplete, untimely, and at timesincon- not the most frequent in number, they can tion, planning, and monitoring. Unfortu-
58 Summary and recommendations59 natcly, the OBSCIS package does not pro- Centralizing the agency's policies in report generation packages at the state da- vide flexible analytic software so that an written form and indexing them in thcta center. These packages could gicatly operator can search out Inmates with certain computer has the added advantage of pro- benefit cerreci.,vs but the vendor-prov ided characteristics and present them in a cross- viding an efficient way of modifying exist- training usu.* goes to the state data cen- tabulation involving two, three, or more ing policies and introducing ntw ones, dis-ter and, It was found in a number of,In- variables. In short, OBSCIS does not pro- seminating policy information rapidly stances, that the correctional agency was vide much analytic capability and virtual- without ambiguity, and provides a cost- ignorant that these software packages even ly no report generation capability. effective response to policy demand infor- existed. malion requests. As the cost of computer hardware de- 2 Demand information clines and the transferability of correction- administrative policy Automating program al software increases, a future possible solu- descriptions tion may be the purchase of minicomputers \Considering the impact that the demand by correctional agencies formerly involved information problem has on correctional Many of the inquiries from other cor- in shared systems. This Possibility will not institutions, itis surprising to find that rectional agencies involve questions about only enable correctional administrators to agencies have not developed more stream- agency programs. Typicaliy, they want to more effectively safeguard the security and lined procedures for handling external re- know whether the agency has a certain kind privacy of their systems, but will probably quests. A few agenciekhave highly central- of program, how many inmates are involved, increase the use of automated information ized procedures wherein all demands for its cost, administrative characteristics, and in correctional deciSion making information are first received, classified, criteria used to evaluate its effectiveness. If and prioritized, and where some degree ofan agency only has a few programs, bro- quality control can be exercised. At the chures describing these characteristics may Software needs other extreme are highly decentralized pro- suffice. If the number of programs is large cedures w here requests may be received at and subject to frequent mod'fication, au- Fortunately, most correctional agencies any level of the system and quality control tomating brief descriptive information about retain the offender data needed to respond is virtually absent. each program may be a wise choice. Not to most inmate-specific demand informa- Without centralized processing of demand only will it provide uniform and efficient tion, requests. What they lack is analytic information requests with appropriate log- responses to program requests, but it will software. ging and routing, the agency loses its ca- also be useful to the agency itself in moni- There are a number of excellent commer- pability to learn from past experience, the toring program actkvity, fiscal planning, and cial report generation packages available, agency tannot analyze prior requests nor evaluation. but these generally require access to flat forecast future ones. Administrators are files'. Other limitations of some of these strongly encouraged to review the demand Computers: problems packages are that they are difficult to use, information problem within their own agen-and solutions reqt.ire extensive training, and possess more cy, identify procedures for centralizing the analytic capability than is necessary in most receipt, logging and routing of requests, In theory, computris. should be helpful correctional environments. Instead, what and Introduce quality control procedures in resolving the management information is needed is utility software which will al- to assure that requests are responded to in a and analytic needs of correctional agencies. low thc .compression of hierarchical files timely and accurate manner Administrators In fact, they sometimes produce as many into a flat file which can be fed Into a report must also insure that the information re- problems as they solve. Where the compu- generation package with basic descriptive leased is not inconsistent with agency policy ter is located, access to software, personnel capabilities. , or prior releases, and that the analytic turnover, training, administrative support, Most correctionaldnformation systems capabilities of the agency are dispersed in quality of data base, and a number of other use hierarchical files in which information the most cost beneficial and efficient man- factors determine whether the computer v ill about inmate characteristics, prior crimi- ner. Without such sound policy and admin- be a solution or an albatross. nal record, sentenci ig information, and so istrative supervision, agencies are likely to Th'e results of the CDAS study indicate forth is retained. W. hen a request requires waste v alu able resources, provide untimely that correctional systems that have their searching multiple files to identify different and haphazard responses, and dinunilidthown computer seem to do a more effective kinds of inmates with different characteris- their credibility and effectiveness with ex- job in providing both routine management tics, most correctional software comes to a ternal constituencies whose favor and sup- reports and responses to demand informa- halt. To respond to such requests, many port are critical in the future development tion requests. Systeffis whose computer ac- correctional institutions have to write cus- of the agency. cess is through a state data processingcenter tom programs to extract the information seem to be less successful. This is not to needed for a particular request. As the Automating agency policy imply that shared access is not good, but number and complexity of requests increases, that it complicates the process and frequent- the amount of custom programming must A sVbstantial number of demand requests ly reduces capability. increase as well. Staff shortagcs being a inv olvc information about agency policy. Shared computer access through another perennial problem in corrections, the prac- The wise administrator will find great fu- state agency creates a number of problems. tice of custom programwing to answer in- ture benefit in automating agency policy Frequently, the correctional agency is de- dividual demand requests will be a shOrt- for several reasons. Developing an auto- pendent on the staff of another agency for lived and expensive solution in the future. mated policy index will require that all programming and analytic services. The What is needed today in most correctional agency policies be identified, docutaented, correctional agency has little control over information env ironmenu is utility software centralized, and indexed. This is a smart the assignment of personnel or in settingthat would allow the compression of 'n- thing to do in its own right since a plethora priorities for systems to be developed. Yet, mate files into a usable flat file and the of undocumented policies leads to incon- it is sometimes difficult for the correctional development of a highly transferable re- sistency in administration, arbitrariness in agency to justify programmers and analysts port generation package which would pro- decision making, and may leave the admin- on its own staff since, in theory, it is sup- duce frequency distributions, cross-tAula- istrator vulnerable to civil suits involving posed to receive these sers ices from thetions, pie charts, and other fundamental accusations of arbitrary and capricious state's data processing center. Correctional descriptive statistics. management. staffs lack training in the statistical and ;
I 60Correctional data analysis systems Communications problems. and errors. While many software systems iden- ceive some training in rules of evidence to r tify inappropriate codes, not many systemsbetter understand how to convert statisti- A common problem in many correction- have editing logic that will identify inconsis-cal information into evidentiary exhibits al environments is the lack of good cont- tencies among various data elements. for u§e in the courtroom. Similarly, lawyers munications between management and data Another problem is that those chargedinvolVed in correctional litigation would processing. Moss correctional administra- with collection of the data are frequently inderive great benefit from a more thorough tors are not trained analysts and have little a different administrative division than thoseunderstanding of the nature of the data- or no background in datajirOcessing. They responsible for its storage and analysis.bases retained by correctional institutions know that they need and want information, Personnel in the intake section who gatherand the limits of these data bases when used but they frequently expiess.these needs in much of the inmate information'rarely uti-for statistical or analytic purposes. broad generalities. Analysts and data pro-lize computerized reports from the data cessing managers l',find it difficult to inter- processing section. Not being euser of au-Technology transfer as pret the information needs of their own tomated data, the incentives necessary toa future solution managers. Formitance, an administrator assure timely and accurate information are may request information on the impact of a frequently absent. When the data proceising The development of a correctional infor- change in the state's parole law, but not manager receives inaccurate or idtompletemation system is an arduous, expensive, indicate the areas of impact with which he information, it is usually bureaucraticallyand time-consuming process. Since many is concerned. Lacking analytic software, complicated to change intake procedures of the problems faced by correctional man- the data processing manager may need to to assure the recording of reliable informa-agers are comparable, transfer of existing develop custom programming to produce tion. Many data processing managers simplytechnologies seems to be a viable substitu- the information. This takes time and raises have to work with whatever data they get,tion for developing many redundant sys- doubts in the administrator's mind as to and have little control over its timeliness,tems from scratch. While technology trans- the capability of the agency's data process- accuracy, or completeness. However, whenfer may be more of an art than a; science, ing facilities. Having not specified his re- they produce reports using this informa-limited experience within the correctional quest in great detail, the information finally tion, it is they who are usually held respon-community suggests that there is great po- produced may not meet his needs, creating sible for the inadequacy of the data base. tential and cost benefit to transferring sys- further dissatisfaction. Data processing per- It is imperative that correctional manag-tems. sonnel become frustrated because they can- ers closely coordinate the activities of thoic Several states have gained valuable expe- not get a more definitive statement of man- who gather the data and those responsiblerience transferring correctional information agement needs and suffer what they think for its storage and analysis. It is incumbent systems such as the basic OBSCIS package. to be undue criticism. upon the correctional administrator to as- Where failures have occurred, they seem to Technologies need to be developed to sure that appropriate audit procedures areemanate from an ignorance of the array of enhance the quality of communication be- installed. Erroneous, incomplete, or untime-issues that must be considered in the transfer tween managers and data processing per- ly information must be identified and somedecision. While analysts may give intense sonnel. One suggestion would be the de- estimates of the relative accuracy of theconsideration to certain technological as- velopment of a dictionary of management data be derived so:^Rt the limits of itspects of the transfer, not enough has been reports that could be produced from of- reliability can be taken Into considerationgiven to the managerial, procedural, and fender based data. If s'ich a dictionary con- when it is used for management purposes,user aspects of the transfer problem. A tained the formats of various output reports planning, monitoring, or evaluation. number of the issues identified in the chap- that could be produced, and if these were The development of highly transferableter on transfer technology shOuld prove key-wo0 Indexed by data element, a man- edit and auditing procedures would be very useful to correctional managers who, while ager could select the output format that useful to the correctional community sincetechnologically unsophisticated, must make most closely meets his needs and thereby it is not likely that the use of correctionalthe final decision on whether the transfer of give explicit direction to the data process- data bases can exceed the limits of theiran information system will take place. As ing manager. The ovation of such a dic- reliability. correctional budgets diminish a nd.the''ca- tion aryl would have great benefit for cor- pacity to recruit and hold technically quali- rections because it could be easily transferred Use of computers fied people declines, correctional managers from one institution to another and wouldin litigation may well find that the most efficient and provide developmental objectives for en hance- cost -beneficial way to advance informat:on ments of OBSCIS and other transferable Automated information systems are ansystemst will be to take advantage of the co:rectional information systems. extremely useful. resource ,n correctionalsucces es of ether institutions through tech litigation. Consir:ering the number of suit3 nolottransfer. Dirty data currently pending against correctional in- stitutions, it is surprising that more correc- Personnel turnover Unreliable data is like contaminated wa- tional administrators have not made greater ter, It's there, but it isn't potable. Inmate use of data processing in defending the Undoubtedly, one of the major constraints data bases in many correctional Institutions agency cm in showing compliance to court onhe development of good information contain incomplete, untirdely, and incorrect oiers. Probably one of the reasons thatsystems is the problem of recruiting and information. Knowing that the data base is correctional lawyers have not used muchret ining qualified p.og- ammers and'sys- t "dirty," data processing managers are fre- automation is that correctional systems lack tents analysts Many states find that their quently reluctant to produce reports basca flexible anal. tic software which 1, respon-salary structure is simply not competitiv e upon such unreliale data. The result is thesit e to the demand Information requests SOme recruit and train relate' ely inexperi- costly acquisition and storage of informa-associated with litigation. Development ofenced personnel only to find that they re- tion whose inaccuracy restricts its use. programs to derive compressed datasign to take positions in the private sector A number of factors contribute to thehases and the use of statistical and reportonce they have gained a little experience poor quality of correctional data bases. Few generation packages should greatly enhance Correctional information systems and their correctional agencies have taken the tune the utility of correctional systems. ;oenefit to the institution will not proceed to develop good editing logic to scan in- It would also be helpful if research per- unless a qualified technical staff can be re- coming data and identify inconsistencies sonnel and data processing specialists re- tained. There are no technical solutions to
6 '; 0
Summary and recommendations61 this perennial problem in corrections, for the issue is,primarily financial. Fleiottedon'ofdemand Information requests
Many of the inquiries received by correc- tional agenciei are vague and subject to negotiation. A number of data processing managers and researchers indicated that they frequently contact the inquirer to de- terniine if they would be satisfied with in- formation configured in a somewhat difl ferent way. These negotiations frequently result in tailoring the request to fit existing capabilities or data that has alrldy been ,produied for another purpose. In fact, it is 0 frequently found that tie inquirer would be satisfied receiving the annual statistical re- port of the agency as opposed to an answer to his original request. This phenomena suggests that a correc- tional agency would be wise to study the pattern of demand information requests it receives and prepare a comprehensive an- nual statistical report which would satisfy most inquiries: A number of states have developed such reports 'and indicate that they %ready reduced the special program- ming that used to be required to handle many demand requests. The productioh of such a statistical report, along with an ef- fit to negotiate with inquirers as to exactly what informationyould satisfy their requests, - can radically reduce the scope and perplexity of the demand information problem. Summary The results of the CDAS Project suggest that. the demand information problem is real, predictable, and solvable. The keys to resOlVing the problem are the development of formalized procedures for handling re- quests, the development of automated ana- lytic procedures to expedite the production of intormatidn, and the use of prior requests as a' requirement to forecast the nature of future.f.sts: These steps will not only insure an enhanced capability for dealingwith demand information requests ',originating from the outside, but will have the indirect result of improving informa-
tion for internal consumption as well. 4 , t1
de
_68
4.. Appendix A
Topics covered in the on-site visits
.
Field studies were conducted in 17 of the 9. Analysis of the agency's current data nation's correctional systems. The purpose processing facilities including hardware, of these field studies was to analyze the software, and data base. impact of demand information requests on 10. Estimates of the extent to which au- agency resources, determine how agencies tomated procedures are used in the pro- process 'demand information requests, and cessing of demand information requests. identify technologies that could be trans- 12. If the agency's data processing re- ferred within the correctional( community sources are in another state agency, identi- which Would resolve these difficulties. fication of problems in access and use of Listed below are the points of inquiry these facilities. and analyses performed in each of the 17- 13. A description of those technologies site locittions: that managers, researchers, and data pro- 1. Analysis of the administrative organ- cessing personnel feel would most facilitate ization of the correctional agency. the handling of demand information requists. 2. Flow diagrath and critique of the 14. The impact of current litigation on current process used in receiving, routing, the processing of demand information re- processing, and responding to demand in- quests. formation requests. 15. Whether or not the agency uses its 3. Analysis of quality control procedures data processing resources to defend the used to determine the accuracy, timeliness, agency in litigation or to demonstrate and completeness of correctional data bases compliance with existing court orders. and the quality of the reports produced. 16. Examples of the standard and spe-, 4. A description of how the agency logs cial reports produCed 13:. the agency which demand information requests including con- could be used in responding to demand sideration of date received, source of re- information requests. quest, content of request, analytic proce- 17. Statistical information on the agency dures involved iniesponding to the request, and its inmate population. unit assigned to develop the response, etc. 18. Description of the agency's current 5. Criteria used to set priorities on de- security and privacy standards and whether mand information requests. any of these standards. can strain the dis- 6. Policy statements governing the re- semination of information and response to ceipt and-processing of demand informa- demand information requests. tion requests. 19. Examples o demand information 7. Estimates of direct and indirect costs requesti recently received by the agency as involved in responding to demand infor- well as identification on the common sources mation requests. of demand information-within their state. 8. The location, size, and working rela- 201 Communications problems between tionships among the various departments administrators requesting information and within the agency responsible for handling data processing people responsible for pre- demand information requests including data paring management reports. processing, research and evaluation, fiscal planning, and so forth.
62 69 Appendix B chief,social worker at the jail confiscated his legal papers thereby interfering with the prisoner's access to the courts. Welch v. Evans, 402 F. Supp. 468 (E.D. Va. 1975) Failure of prison officials Case law compendium ./to send petition to court violates right to access of court. Lingo v. Boone, 402 F. Supp. 768 (N.D. Calif. 1975),Unintentional failure to copy pleadings did not deny access to court. Threats to take action against inmate un- less litigation against institution is termi- nated does state claim for violation of civil rights. Owen v. Shuler, 466 F. Supp. 5 (D.C. Ind. 1977) It is acceptable to delay the de- I. Court access gregation Units" was found to infringe an livering of a prisoner's mail as long as the A. Regulating communications Inmate's access to the courts, thereforedelay is not unreasonable. with courts: mall-regulations could not be enforced, in that context. Where a tenriporary prison policy of 1.Inspection of mail from Procunier v. Martinez, 94 S.Ct. 1.800checking legal mail for contraband was inmates to Court (1974) Outgoing gener41 correspondenceadopted, it did not deny prisoners access to may not be censored unless it threatensthe courts where the facts showed that the Ex Parte Hu11,316 U.S. 546 (1941) A insti'utional security, order, or rehabilita-mail was opened in the presence of the state and its officers may not abridge ortion. inmates and was not read, censored, or impair an inmate's right to apply to a fed- I copied. eral court for a writ of habeas corpus. AC- `. 2. Providing materials and postage cess to the courts is a basic constitutional for communication with court right. Morgan v. LaValle, 526 F.2d 221 (2nd Hudspeth v. Figgins. 584 F.2d 1345,Cir. 1975) Prohibition against receipt ofB. Regulation of legal materials (4th Cir. 1978) The state may not threatenpostage stamps, if true, would be suspect. 1. Regulating posse of or punish a prisoner for seeking court re- Nickens v. White, 536 F.2d 802 (8th legal materials lief. Prisoners have a right.to access to theCir 1976) Exclusion of stationery supplies Younger v.Gilmore, 404 U.S. 15 courts. catalogue did not deny access to the courts. (1971) Connects right of access to courts Jones v. Diamond, 594 F.2d 997 (5th Tyler v. Woodson, 597 F.2d 643 (8th with the right of access to legal materials Cir. 1979) Outgoing mail to licensed attor- Cir. 1979) A prisoner successfully stated a and law libraries. neys, court, or court officials must be sentcause of action where he alleged that the Taylor v. Sterrett, 532 F.2d 462 (5th nopened.Incoming mail from such sources chief social workr at-the-jail confiscatedCir. 1976) Upheld narrowly drawn regula- may be opened only in the presence of the his legal papers thereby interfering with the tions controlling the amount of law books inmate. prisoner's access to the courts. and other legal materials in a resident's cell. Guajardo v. Estelle, 580 0.2' d 748 Twyman v. Crisp, 584 F.2d 352 (10th Hatfield v. Bailleaux, 290 F. 2nd 632 (5th Cir. 1978) Prison officials may notCir. 1978) Prisoners do not have an unlim- (1961) cert. denied 368 U.S. 862 (1961) In- open or read letters addressed to the courts, ited right to free pOstage in order to have an mates were not denied access .to courts attorneys, or parole or probation officers. access to the court. Reasonable regulationsthrough regulations which controlled and Taylor v. Sterrett, 532 F.2d 462 (5thmay be imposed. \ -limited the times and places inmates could Cir. 1976) An inmate has a First A mead- A prisoner does noi have the protected rightengage in legal research and preparation of ment right to petition the government for to a typewriter. legal papers. Test is Whether void regula- redress of grievancei without interference Lock v. Jenkins, 464 F. Supp. 541 tions are implemented for purposes of in- from prison officials. (D.C. Ind. 1978) N,pretrial_detainee hadstitutional control and discipline. Marsh v. Moore, 325 F. Supp. 392 no constitutional right to a typewriter as Battle v: Anderson, 457 F. Supp. 719 (D. Mass. 1971) Institution does not have connected with his right of access to count, (D.C. Okla. 1978) Where prison officials the right to open general outgoing mail and Bijoel v. Benson, 404 F. Supp. 59v5arbitrarily limited the amount of legal ma- inspect it i2 the presence of the inmate for (S.D. Ind. 1975) Inmate does not have aterials an inmate could keep in his cell, it contraband. right to a typewriter. was a denial of meaningful- access to the Taylor v. Perini, 413 F. Supp. 189 Taylor v. Perini, 413 F. Supp. 189courts. (N.D. Ohio 1976) Outgoing pnvilegedmail (N.D. Ohio 1976) Postage, to court must be Boston v. Stanton, 450 F. Supp. 1049 cannot be read by administration and must paid. (W.D. Mo-1978) The petitioner did not be sent sealed. Incoming privileged mail prove by the evidence that the refusal of 3.'Delay of mail _ may be opened and inspected for contra- prison officials to sell him certain periodi- band in presence of inmate. Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483 (1969) cals handicapped him in his ability to pre- Coleman v. Crisp, 444 F. Supp. 31 It is fundamental that access of prisoners tosent a pro se legal action. (W. D. Okla. 1977) A prisoner's right tothe courts for the purpose of presenting Bransted v. Wolke,45:," F. Supp. 489 access to courts was not violated by delay their complaints not be denied or obstruct-(D.C. Wis. 1978) Prisoners in jail were not in the mailing of correspondence to a fed- ed. entitled to their demands for paper, type- eral judge which did not include any legal Martin v. Wainwright, 526 F.2d 938writer, court decisions, statute books and documents or filings. (5th Cir. 1Q76) Allegations of interference other items because the county would have Rudolph v Locke, 594 F 2d 1076 (5th with outgoing legal mail states a claim. provided attorneys for them if requested. Cir. 1979) A prison regulation providing Tyler v. Woodson, 597 F.2d 643 (8th Wilson v. Wittke, 459 F. Supp. 1345 that "absolutely nothing will be allowed to Cir. 1979) A prisoner successfully, stated a (D.C. Wis. 1978) Where a pretrial detainee go from one inmate to another in the Se- cause of action where he alleged that the in county jail was represented by counsel,
63
70 64Correctional data analysis systems
he had adequate access to the courts. There- rection officials establish a law library if vate consultation rooms for counsel inter- fore, he wastpt depriveclof his rights by a adequate alternate means are made avail- views ordered. jailer who refUScd to alio:. !'.m access to able. In addition to Titles 18, 28, arid 42 of Payne v. Superior Court, 553 P.2d legal mdterials. \ the U.S.C.A. and a manual on prisoners' 565, 132 Cal. Rptr. 405 (1976) Indigents Williams v. Martimucct, 276 N.W. civil rights, the court believed the following have a limited right to the appointment of 2d 876 (Mich. App, 1979) The failure of to be necessary for use by inmates. Federal counsel and to appear in civil matters at prison administrators to deliver copies of Rules of Criminal Procedure, Federal Rules least where such is necessary to defend certain documents contained in a prison- of Evidence, Federal Rules of Appellate against an action. er's file to a prisoner did not violate tie Procedures, Crimes and Criminal Procedure People v. Baker, 151 Cal. Rptr. 362 prisoner's right to them because the rris- published by West Publishing Company, (Cal. App. 1978) A prisoner does not have oner did not pay the $3.00 processing fee Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judiciary the right of privacy guaranteed to a non- and was not on the institution's current list and Judicial Procedure published by West incarcerated citizen, except when consult- of indigents. Publishing Company; Brickey's Kentucky ing with his attorney in a room designated Criminal Law, Black's Law Dictionary or for that purpose. An inmate may not com- 2. Access to prison law libraries Its equivalent; Kentucky Penal Code, plain of being tape recorded, even if the Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 A K.R.S. Chapters 500-534; Kentucky Rules recording was unknown to him at the time. plan establishing, a circulating central law of Criminal Procedure. The case also in- In re Brindle, 154 Cal. Rptr. 563 (Cal. library is sufficient. "Paid" counsel need cludes a copy of the Metropolitan Corm- App. 1979) By refusing_to allow a public not he supplied in addition to law library nodal Services Department Law Library defender to see inmates, the Department of access. (This is already a Supreme Court Loan Program policies and procedures. Corrections exceeded its authority. The decision). Burrascano v. Levi, 452 F. Supp. Department may not oversee the indepen- Williams v. Leeke, 584 F.2d 1336 1066 (D.C. Md. 1978) (2.) An isolated inci-dent statutory function of the public de- (4th Cir. 1978) Prisoners should have direct dent in refusing to allow an inmate to go to fender's office. access to a law library. Severe restrictions the law library does not violate an inmate's on library time can only be justified if constitutional safeguards. 3. Regulating communication with trained research assistants are available to counsel's staff assist the prisoner's research efforts. Re- Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 strictions on library use may be justified II. Counsel access (1974) Officials must allow visits by law where the inmate is a security risk. Howev- students or by Other para-professionals er, a jail plan to restrict misdemeanants (such as investigators) who are working for access to legal material for 45 minutes at a A. Regulating communications attorneys. time, three days a week, is unconstitution- 1. Mail regulatiOns Phillips v. Bureau'ofPrisons, 591 F.2d al. Not every "small jail" is required to Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539966 (D.C. Cir. 1979) The refusal of admit- have a law library, provided that the in- (1974) Prison officials have tight to open tance to federal prisons to paralegals who mates have other meaningful access to legal mail from attorneys and inspect it for con- constitute a threat to prison security while assistance. traband in presence of inmate. granting it to those who do not, does n6 t Ttsyman v. Crisp, 584 F.2d 352 10 Taylor v. Steriett, 532 F.2dtt2(5th violate the rights of those excluded. The Cir. 1978) The restricted access to a prison Cir. 1976) Although still an unsettled issue, unsuccessful applicant must be notified of law library is not per se denial of access to this court held that mail from attorneysthe factual basis for denial with an oppor- worts. A prison library is only one factor. cannot be read. Reasonable regulations on tunity to rebut the decision based on the Gilmore v. Lynch, 319 F. Supp. 105 correspondence with attorneys are permis- facts. (N.D. Cal 1970) Affirmed 404 U.S. 15 sible. Such regulations may require that Reed v. Evans, 455 F. Supp. 1139 (197i) Prisoners have a right of access to an the attorney first identify himself in a signed (D.C. Ga. 1978) A paralegal was not en- ash:gumc law library to assist them in gain- letter or that the inmate supply prison offi- titled to enter a state prison unless he/she ing access to the courts. cials with the name and business address of was employed by an attorney. This action Mingo v. Patrerson,455 F. Supp. 1358 his attorney. was not held to deny the inmate's right of (D.0 Colo. 1978) A prisoner is entitled to access to the courts. use the prison law library in order to pre- 2. Visitation with counsel Johnson v. Ward, 401 N. Y.S. 2d 445 pare his civil rights action. Rhem v. McGrath, 326 F. Supp. 681 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.71978) A prisoner's medical Burrascano v Levi, 4521 . Supp. 1066 (1971), modified 507 F.2d 333 (2nd Cir. records need not be furnished to law stu- (1 Md. 1978) Deny mg an inmate access to 1974) Prisoners entitled to private commun- dents representing an inmate and the re- the prison law library on one isolated occur- ication with attorney, whether by mail or,quest thereof should be signed by an attor- ence does not constitute an actionable face to face. ney of the prisoner's legal services admitted constitutional infringement. United States v. White. 295 F. Supp. to practice. llohman v. Hogan..458 F. Supp. 669 893 (1968) No deprivation of right to coun- (D.C. Vt. 1978) Access of prisoners to the sel established by showing that crowded 4. Attorneys' fees and responsibility courts must he adequate, effective, andconditions e isted during visits and that Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1978) meaningful A state Is required to provide privacy as between counsel and prisoner The Civil Rights Attorney Fees ,Awards prisoners either with adequate law librar- was at a minimum. Act of 1976 h-is removed the state's 1I th ies, ur legal assistance, not both. Cruz v. Belo. 391 F. 2d 235. 19 Cr.L. Amendment immunity to retroactive mon- 2093 (S.D. Tex. 1976) Damages awarded etary relief of the form of attorney's fees. 3. Content of prison law library against Director of Department of Correc- Minns v. Paul. 542 F 2d 899 (4th Cir. Bounds t Smith. 430 U.S. 817 (1976) tions for denying attorneys access to clients 1976) Attorney appointed by Court to Lnume rates books required fur library. and clients access to attorneys. undertake provision of legal services to in- Stover v Carlson, 408 f. Supp. 696 Giampetruzzi v. Malcolm, 406 F. Supp. mates in general is acting under color of (U. Conn. 1976) Adequate law library need 836 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) Must permit more than state laW, but is immune from suit for fail- nut have d complete collection of federal one attorney to v isit an inmate at any given ure to provide seri, ices to particular inmate cases and statutes. time. Fluhr v. Roberts. 460 F. Supp. 536 Mitchell v. Untretner. 421 F. Supp. (DC Ky 1978) It is not required that cor- 886 (N.D. Fla. 1976) Construction of pri- f Appendix B. Case law compendium65 B. Access to alternative legal III. Media access Guajardo v. Estelle, 580 F.2d 748 assistance (5th Cir. 1978) Limitation of sexually ob- 1. Regulation of inmate legal counsel scene material is not limited by the judicial (jail house lawyer) A. Access to media by inmate definition of Obscenity; Non-obscene ma- Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483 (1969) Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974) terial that encourages deviate, criminal sex- Unless residents have access to adequate Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417ual behavior may also be censored. professional legal assistance, the correction- U.S. 843 (1974)There is no right to any face Prison officials may control bulk mailing, al agency may not prohibit residents from to face contact between the press and abut otherwise may not place a numerical consulting "jailhouse lawyers" for advicespecific inmate as long as alternative linesrestriction on mail received by inmates. and assistance. of communia tion are open. This applies toBefore a publication can be denied to a Stevenson v. Reed, 530 F.2d 1207 state as well as federal prisons. prisoner, prison administrators must re- (5th Cir. 1976) Where access to adequate Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396view the particular issue and make a specif- law library and jailhouse lawyer is provided, (1974) Inmates are free to correspond by ic determination that the publication is no constitutional obligation to provide coun- mail with media representatives. harmful to the prisoner's rehabilitation. sel at state expense. Nolan v. Fitzpatrick, k 451 F.2d 545 Prisoners are allowed to appeal the deci- Buise v. Hudkins, 584 F.2d 223 (7th (1st Cir. 1971) Inmate's right to send letters sion. Cir. 1978) Thetransfer of the only jailhouseto the press can be limited only with respect Pittman v. Hutto, 594 F.2d 407 (4th lawyer to another facility violated the in-to letters which would contain contraband Cir. 1979) An inmate's rights were not vio- mates' rights to access to the courts. or a plan of escape or which were used as alated by the censoring of one publication of Matter of Green, 586 F.2d 1247 (8th device for evading prison regulations. an inmate's magazine. Officials may refuse Cir. 1978) A prisoner who was found to be Guajardo v. Estelle, 580 F.2d 748 to approve if they sincerely believe that the engaged in numerous frivolous petitions to (5th Cir. 1978) 24 Cr. L. 2034 Letters toissue could be disruptive of prison order the court was prohibited from writing anyattorneys and media must be sent unin- and had a reasonable belief for those views. more writs for other inmates. spected. Incoming mail may be opened in Cofone v. Manson, 409 F. Supp. 1033 Corpus v. Estelle, 409 F. Supp. 1090the presence of the inmate, inspected, but(D. Conn. 1976) While the specific criteria (S.D. Tex. 1975) Affirmed 551 F2d 68 (5th not read. for publication censorship may fall within Cir. 1977) Regulation prohibiting jailhouse one of the : a. security, b. order, c. rehabili- lawyer's assistance in civil rights case isB. Access to inmate by media tation categories, these general institutional invalid. The burden is on the state to prove Saxbe v. Washington 'ost Co., 417 interests are either too vague and/or over- adequacy of alternatives to jailhouse law-U.S. 843 (1974) As long as alternative ave- broad. Regulations must be drawn more yer assistance. nues of communication with the media specifically if they are to be uphcld. Green v. Wyrick, 414 F. Supp. 343,which allows media access to any sources Boston v. Stanton, 450 F. Supp. 1049 20 Cr.L. 2272 (W.D. Mo. 1976) Jailhouseof information available to the public are(W. D. Mo. 1978) The petitioner did not lawyer enjoined from assisting others foropen, restrictions on media access to speci- prove by the evidence that the refusal of failure to follow court rules. fic prisoners may be denied. prison officials to sell him certain periodi- Mitchell v. Carlson, 404 F. Supp. Houchins v. KQED, 22 Cr.L. 4108cals handicapped him in his ability to pre- 1220 (D. Kan. 1975) Prohibition against(1977) The media possesses no greater right sent a pro se legal action. jailhouse lawyer in one institution fromof access to prisons than does the general Jackson v. Ward, 458 F. Supp. 546 communication with "client" housed in public. (D.C.N.Y. 1978) State correction officials another institution does not deny access to Guajardo v. Estelle, 580 F.2d 748must make a substantial showing that a courts. (5th Cir. 1978) A privilege exists for mail publication poses a real threat to order, Craig v. Hocker, 405 F. Supp. 656between inmates and identifiable members security, or rehabilitation programs of the (D.C. Nev. 1975) Prison Officials must al-of the media. Such mail must be treated in prison before they may prohibit any publi- low jailhouse lawyers to assist other pris-the same manner as atkaney mail. cation from the facility. oners and must also provide adequate law Main Road v. Aytch, 565 F.2d. 54 Evans v. Fogg, 466 F Supp. 949 library. (3rd Cir. 1977) Prison regulations that per- (D.C.N.Y. 1979) It was no denial of a pris- Baker v. Crisp, 446 F. Supp. 870mit prisoners individual interviews with the oner's rights when he was not given a par- (W.D. Okla. 1978) The fact that a prisonerpress but deny group press conferences are ticular law book since he did receive it fired his court appointed attorney in favorvalid. Allowing the Superintendent of the within a matter of days. of the services of a fellow prisoner "writPhiladelphia prisons to determine whether Bell v. Wolfish, 99 S.Ct. 1861 (1979) writer" prevents him from asserting in aa press interview would constitute a clear A "publisher only" rule is valid. habeas corpus petition that he was deniedand present danger to an institution or its Rhem v. McGrath, 326 F. Supp. 681 the effective assistance of counsel. Inhabitants is consitutionally permissible. (1971) Modified 507 F.2d 748 (2nd Cir. 1974) Censorship of publications,and other 2. Access to assistance such as Civil C. Access to particular books, types of incoming mail is permitted as long Liberties Union periodicals, etc., by inmate as performed in a reasonable manner and Nolan v. Scaled. 430 F. 2nd 548 United States v O'Brien, 391 U.S. ,with a legitimate purpose in mind. (1970) In absence of some countervailing367 (1968) In order to justify restrictions, Sostre v.Otis, 330 F. Supp 941 interest, a state t. innot prevent an inmatea sufficiently important purpose must be (S DA Y 1971) Prison officials must pro- from seeking legal assistance from any bonashown. vide due process hearing prior to refusal to fide attorneys working in or outside of Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 admit publications to prison. organizations. (1974) Applies to censorship of publications material. For state to censor, it must show that censorship furthers one or more insti- tutional concern of security, order, rehabil- itation. Bell v. Wolfish, 99 S.Ct. 1861 (1979) "Publishers only" rule, and tliC prohibition against the receipt of packages do not vio- late any constitutional guarantees. 66Correctional data analysis systems
IV. Correspondence Worley v. Bounds, 355 F. Supp. 115 Marcera v. Chinland, 595 F.2d 1231 (W.D.N.C. 1973) Held unconstitutional for (2nd Cir. 1979) Pretrial detainees were en- A. From inmate a prison official to intercept, fail to delivertitled to relief in their action challenging a Procumer v. Martinez, 417 U.S. 817 or to photocopy without good cause any policy of denying them contact visits in a (1974) Censorship of inmate mail is justi- inmate mail to legislators, executive offi- county jail. The considerations of cost, ar- fied when based on legitimate .nstitutional cers, administrative bodies or other public chitecture, or administrative convenience interests of security, order, and rehabilita- officials. were not sufficient to justify regulations tion. Davis v. Balson, 24 Cr. L. 2117 (ND denying contact visits for pretrial detainees. Feeley v. Sampson, 22 Cr.L. 2453 Ohio 1978) 24 Cr. L. 2117 Mail censorship White v. Keller, 588 F.2d 913 (4th (1st Cir. 1978) The district court improperly standards as set forth in Procumer v. Mar- Cir. 1978) A-prisoner and members of his ordered the Rockingham County Jail to tinez, are applicable to patients Involun- family and friends did not have their rights stop opening detainee's outgoing mail ab- tarily committed to a state hospital for theviolated when visitation was restricted af- sent a search warrant. criminally insane. Due process standards ter the prisoner was found in possession of Watts v. Brewer, 588 F.2d 646 (8th arc applicable to institutional punishment. contraband immediately following visits. Cir. 1978) Prison authorities have a special Hopkins v. Collins, 411 F. Supp. 831 The visitors did not have the right to a and compelling interest in the regulation of (D. Md. 1976) A Wolff type hearing required hearing before visitations were restricted. communications between inmates of differ- by court on exclusion of mail. Jones,v. Diamond, 594 F. 2d 997(5th ent prison institutions. Cir. 1979) Suspension of visitation privi- Burrascano v. Levi, 452 F. Supp. 1066 V. Receipt of publications leges as a form of punishment is not a con- (D.C. Md. 1978) 'As a matter of law, a stitutional violation. communication is not libelous merely by Bell v. Wolfish, 99 S.Ct. 1861 (1979) U.S. v. Hearst, 563 F.2d 1331 (9th reason of accusing one of being a criminal A "publisher only" rule for mail does not Cir. 1977) Upheld use in criminal trial of informant. violate any constitutional rights but is a statements made by inmate to visitor which Farmer v. Loving, 392 F. Supp. 27 rational response by officials to the obvious were picked up as part of jailhouse practice (W.D. Va. 1975) For inmates to be allowed security problem of preventing the smug- of monitoring and retarding all prisoner - to send to whomever they wish including glink of contraband in books sent from the visitor conversations. other inmates may be outside present state outside. Lock v. Jenkins, 464 F. Supp. 541 of the law. A regulation against the receipt of(D.C. Ind. 1978) Contact visitation is not Valentine v. Gray, 410 F.,Supp. 1394 packages from the outside does not deprive constitutionally required at prison. (S.D. Ohio 1976) Inmate has no right to pretrial detainees of their rights consider- Tate v. Kassulhe, 409 F. Supp. 651 conduct business by mail ing the fact that packages are easily used (W.D. Ky. 1976) Limitations on number of Guarjardo v. Estelle. 580 F.2d 748 for the smuggling of contraband. visitors or prohibitions on children as vis- (5th Cir. 1978) Rules requiring prior ap- Jones v. Diamond, 594 F.2d 997 (5th itors held to be invalid. proval before an inmate can begin corre- Cir. 1979) The sending of packages to pris- Ambrose v. Malcolm, 440 F. Supp. spondence with a free society individual, on inmates may be prohibited. 51 (S.D. N.Y. 1977) The visiting time al- and imposing restrictions on the number of Guajardo v.Estelle, 580 ,F.2d lowed to inmates at a detention facility may letters an inmate can write are unconstitu- 748 (5th Cir. 1978) Limitation of sexually not be reduced solely because of the change tional. obscene material is not limited by the judi- to the contact system. cial definition of obscenity. Non-obscene Giampetruzzi v. Malcolm, 406 F. B. To Inmate material that encourages deviate, criminal Supp. 836 (S.D. N.Y. 1975) Cannot stop Procumer v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 sexual behavior may also be censored. segregation prisoners from receiving visi- (1974)Ra:wires that lirnitations on 1st Amend- Prison officials may control bulk mailing, tors. ment rights be "no greater than is necessary but otherwise may not place a numerical Fennell v. Carlson, 466 F. Supp. 56 or essential for the protection of the partic- restriction on mail received by inmates. (D.C. Okla. 1978) An inmate at a federal ular government interest involved." Outgoing letters may be read. Letters con- correctional institution had no protected If mail is read, (1) A written notice cerning plans for violating prison rules or right to be visited by another inmate. of the reason the letter was read or cen- containing graphic presentation of sexual Visiting procedures al:. solely within the sored must be given to the sender and the behavior that is in violation of state law scope of prison discipline and security, inmate, (2) The sender has a right to appeal may be prohibited. therefore areubject t..) the broad discre- the decision. Publications may not be censored because tion of prison officials. Guajardo v. Estelle, 580 F.2d 748 they contain criticism of prison authorities Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, th Cir. 1978) Prison rules which permit or advocate use of a prison grievance pro- 451 F. Supp. 893 (E.D. Pa. 1978) The denial censorship of mail containing escape plans, ctlure, but may be censored if they show of conjugal visits does not constitute cruel plans for disruption of the prison, or plans how to make explosives, weapons, or drugs, and unusual punishment. for the entering of contraband, are permit- or are designed to achieve the breakdown Owens-El v. Robinson, 457 F. Supp. ted. of prisons through riots or strikes. 984 (D.C. Pa. 1978) Jail inmates have no Ford v. Schmidt, 577 F.2d 408 (10th constitutional right to contact visits. Cir. 1978) cert. den. 99 S.Ct. 199 A prison VI. Visitation Palmigiano v.,Travisono, 317 F. Supp. mail policy was not unconstitutional because 776 (D.R.I. 1970)Total isolation of offender of prison regulations pertaining to stamp Feeley v. Sampson, 570 F.2d 364 (1st from outside world cannot be justified. coupons and prohibiting the transfer of Cir. 1978) There is no constitutional guar- Limiting the time and number of personal property betWeen inmates. antee to contact visits. visits has been upheld as long as rules are Barnes v. Virgin Islands, 415 F. Supp. Prison officials will be given further oppor- uniformly applied. 1218 (D. V.I. 1976) Court forbids the impo- tunity to initiate a visitation rule. Jordan v. Wolke, 450 F. Supp. 1080 sition of any length limitation on incoming (D.C. Wis. 1978) Pretrial detainees in a letters. county jail filed suit seeking relief for over- crowding and lack of visitation. It was held that the prohibition of contact visitation was unjustified for either financial or secur- ity reasons. Appendix B. Case law compendium67
Jordan v. Wolke, 450 F. Supp. 213 Parker v. Cook, 464 F. Supp. 350 Atkinson v. Hanberry, 589 F.2d 917 (E D Wis. 1978) Non-contact prison vis- (D.C. Fla. 1979) If a prisoner is denied his(5th Cir. 1979) Absent a right or justifiable itors may only be subjected to "pat-down" right to use the telephone during the period expectation treated by state law, the transfer examinat'ons and metal detector searches of administrative segregation, he has not of a state prisoner to a less desirable institu- of their persons. been denied his right to communicate with tion within a state prison system does not Non-contact visitors of pretrial detainees counsel because mail pro, lieges satisfy that amount to a violation of constitutional need not present identification nor be on right. rights. the pretrial detainee's visitor list before see- People v. Myles, 379 N.E.2d 897 (111. Garland v. Polley, 594 F.2d 1220 (8th ing the prisoner. App. 1978) Monitoring of jail phones whereCir. 1979) A prisoner stated a cause of ac- The prison rule which forbade individuals a sign is present is legal. A phone main- tion when he alleged that his rights had who themselves had been pretrial detainees tained for prisoners' use does not includebeen v iolated by a prison transfer because within the past six months from visiting the same right of privacy as the public at of his filing of a suit against prison offitials. other pretrial detainees was improper. large. Mingo v. Patters,m,455 F. Supp. 1358 Wesson v. Johnson, 23 Cr. L. 2366 State v. Fischer, 24 Cr. L. 2087 (N.D.(D.C. Colo. 1978) The transferring of a (Colo Sup. 1978) The state must provide Su... Ct. 1978) A jailor may eavesdrop on prisoner between county jails does not vio- contact visitation facilities and opportuni- an inmate's telephone conversation with late any of his rights. ties to pre-trial detainees where security his wife. Fletcher v. Warden, 467 F. Supp. 777 considerations permit. (D.C. Kansas 1979) In the absence of a Wesson V. Johnson, 579 P.2d 1165 VIII. Transfers state or federal statute or practice condi- (Colo. 1978) Since some areas in the county tioning prisoners' transfers to another in- jail were suitable for contact visitation and A. Intrastate transfers stitution upon misconduct, a prisoner has because the number of additional person- Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976) no federal due process right to a hearing nel that was necessary would not create too Absent a state law or practice which condi-prior to transfer. harsh a financial burden upon the county, tions the transfer of inmates between insti- United States ex rel. Stu der v. Peo- the pretrial detainees in the county jail tutions upon proof of serious misconductple, State of Ilhnots, 442 F. Supp. 75 (N.D. were entitled some form of contact visita- or the process clause in and of itself does III. 1977) Where a state prisoner was con- tion program. not entitle an inmate to a fact finding hear- fined within the territorial limits of the fed- Holdman v. Olim, 581 P.2d 1164 ing prior to his transfer from one penaleral district at the initiation of his habeas (Hawaii 1978) A prison rule requiring fe- institution to another, even if the condi-corpus action. the fact that he was subse- male v isitors to wear a brassiere while with- tions of the recipient institution are sub-quently transferred to another facility out- in the confines of the prison does not v iolate stantially less favorable to him than thoseside the distritt did not deprive the court of the Constitution. existing in the institution from which hejurisdiction. Cooper v. Lombard, 409 N.Y.S.2d 30 was transferred. Vice v. Harvey, 458 F. Supp. 1031 (N Y A.D. 1978) Jails must provide a pro- Vitek v. Miller, 23 Cr. L. 3046 (U.S. (D.C.S.C. 1978) A prisoner may be trans- gram of contact visitation for pre-trial de- 1978)The district court's grant of relief to a ferred to another institution for adminis- tainees prison inmate concerning his transfer to a trative or disciplinary reasons if there is no Leivellyn v State, 592 P.2d 538 (Ok- mental hospital is vacated and remandedstate law giving the prisoners a reasonable la App 1919) Where an incarceration orderto the district court for a determination ofexpectation that they will remain where included that a prisoner be afforded reason- moistness in light of the inmate's acceptance they are confined. When loss of good time able visitation privileges for witnesses in of parole. on segregated confinement accompany a his behalf, the requirement that the witness- Mon tayne v. Hoymes, 427 U.S. 236 transfer. the prisoner has a right to a visitor leave at 9:00 P.M. was not prejudi- (1976) No due process is necessary for an hearing. cial to his defense and was within the dis- inter-institutional transfer where the trans- Lamb v. Hutto, 467 F. Supp. 562 cretion of the prison officials. fer statute gives the Commissioner of Cor-(E.D. Wis. 1978) A prisoner does not have Robertson v Oregon State Peniten- rections complete discretion. Note that the a right to counsel at a prison transfer hear- tiary, Corrections Division, 582 P.2d 32 (Ore. court only considered statutes, not the ef- ing. App. 1978) Where only extensive discus- fect of regulations. Perrote v. Percy, 444 F. Supp. 1288 sion followed an inmate's suggestion that Daigle v. Hall, 564 1.2d 884 (1st CI r. (E. D. Wis. 1978) Because a prisoner's eligi- the inmates should strike by refusing to 1977) To trigger due process guaranteesbility for a work/study release program lea% e a v isiting room, no conspiracy existed a prisoner complaining of an intraprison depended upon his hav ing minimum sec.ur- in violation of the prison regulations transfer must show some right or justifiable ity classification, he should have been af- expectation rooted in stated law that he will forded a hearing before he was transferred VII. Telephone access not be transferred except for misbehavior to a maximum security institution. or on the occurrence of other specified Gomes v. Moran, 468 F. Supp. 542 Feeley v. Sampson, 570 F.2d 364 (1st events. (D.C.R.1. 1979) It is a violation of an in- Cir 1978) The particular formula for regu- Cofone v. Manson, 594 F.2d 934 (2nd mate's constitutional rights to transfer him lating telephone use should be left to jail Cir. 1979) A prisoner's transfer to another for engaging in constitutionally protected officials. institution may violate his rights provided speech. Hill v Estelle, 537 F.2d 214 (5th Cir. state law has created some reasonable ex- Rust v. State, 582 P.2d 134 (Alaska 1976) The denial of telephone call privi- pectation that he will not be transferred 1978) A sentencing court lacks authority to leges to inmate violated no constitutional except for misbehavior or other spetifiedorder the Division of Corrections to plate right. events. an offender in a particular institution. Martinez v. Evans, 22 Cr. L. 2531 United States ex rel. Schuster v. Her- People v. Johnson, 594 P.2d 601 (Co- (D Colo1978) Petitioner's complaint old, 410 F.2d 1071 (2nd Cir. 1969) cert. den. lo. 1979) Under the statute the sentencing which alleges that he contracted an infec- 396 U S. 847 (1969) Where adult resident is court had a right to transfer a prisoner tious boil in his ear after using telephones transferred to a mental facility he must be from a community orrettional facility to a to communicate with visitors while in pris- accorded the same procedural rights reformatory, but did not have the authority on does not state a claim upon which relief as a free citizen who is involuntarily com- to increase the length of the original sen- can be granted under 42 U.S.C.A. - 1983. mitted to such a hospital. tence.
74 68 Correctional data analysis systems Pierson v. Phend, 379 N.E.2d 442 B. interstate transfers Johnson v. Anderson, 420 F. Supp. (Ind. 1978) Inmate transfers from a dor- 845 (D. Del. 1976) Failure to hold disciplin- mitory outside the prison walls to a dor- Rebideau v. Stoneman, 575 F.2d 31 ary hearing after an emergency transfer to mitory inside, do not violate any prisoner (2nd Cir. 1978) Since suitable treatment solitary because of believed double jeopardy rights. Prison officials may effect this change programs were unavailable in Vermont, the problems renders him liable. The failure to for any reason. prisoner was legitimately transferred to hold a hearing cannot be justified on basis State v. Grimme, 274 N.W.2d 331 an out-of-state institution. that hearing would have resulted in guilty (Iowa 1979) A prisoner was denied his rights Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 finding. when he was removed from a drug treat-(1974) Appears to enforce the view that Jordan v. Arnold, 408 F. Supp. 869 ment facility and sentenced to prison with- certain minimal procedures are required (M.D. Pa. 1976) Prison administrator en- out an evidentiary hearing. for this type of transfer. titled to move an inmate to segregation Ladetto v. Commissioner of Correc- Wakinekona v. Doi, 20 Cr. L. 2090 without affording a prior hearing (but af- tion, 385 N.E,2d 273 (Mass. App. 1979) No(D. Hawaii, 1976) The transfer of an inmate fording a subsequent hearing) if he is pres- prisoner has a right to be transferred from a from Hawaii to the mainland is a disciplin-ently dangerous or violent as demonstrated penal institution to a facility offering a pro- ary punishment requiring a disciplinary by objective standards, otherwise give prior gram of drug rehabilitation. hearing in conformity with Wolff hearing. Johnson v. Ward, 409 N.Y.S.2d 670 Capitan v. Cupp, 356 F. Supp._ 302 Matter of Lindner, 408 N.Y.S.2d 920 (N.Y.A.D. 1978) A prisoner may nothave (D.C. Ore.-1972) aff'd 485 F.2d 679 (3rd(N.Y. Sup. 1978) Before an inmate can be a choice in the facility where he is to be Cir. 1973) The transfer of a convicted per- transferred from a prison facility to a men- confined. An inmate member of an inmate son to another state cannot be accomplished tal health facility, court-appointed doctors, grievance committee may not be trans- without granting a due process hearing. mug examine the inmate and the court ferred to another facility unless the transfer Cook v. Hanberry, 596 F.2d 658 (5th must review those findings. is necessary to protect the facility or its Cir. 1979) A prisoner was not entitled to a personnel. In this instance, a prior hearingtransfer to another federal prison. He failed IX. Religion must be held absent an emergency. to allege that practices of allegedly cruel People ex ref. Sufian v. Bertholf, 416 and unusual punishment were continued orA. Establishment of religion N.Y.S. 2d 173 (N.Y. Sup. 1979) Juveniles, that there was any threat of such continued Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972) as well as adults confined, have no right to treatment. Upheld right of a Buddhist inmate to prac- not be transferred from one facility to an- tice his religion comparable to opportunity other within the state. Juveniles, by statute C. itate-Federal transfers afforded other prisoners adhering to more however, must be given the reasons for a Sisbarro v. Warden, Massachusettsorthodox religions. transfer to a more secure facility. State Penitentiary, 592 F.2d I (1st Cir. 1979) Theriault v. Silber, 453 F. Supp. 254 Richards v. Czarnetzky, 414 N.Y.S.2d Even though a prisoner had been transferred (W.D. Tex. 1978) The "Church of the New 796 (N.Y.A.D. 1979) The transfer of in-numerous times during his prison term,Song," founded by an inmate, does not mates fron- one institution to another issuch transfers between state and federal qualify as a religion entitled to First Amend- ordinarily an .4dministrative matter and a prisons did not violate his constitutional ment protections, and even.if it did, prison Prisoner has no right to select the facility to rights. officials could legitimately deny the found- which he is to be confined. Lono v. Fenton, 581 F.2d 645 (7th . r the privileges of a prison chaplain. A free- Matter of Lindner, 408 N.Y.S.2d 920 Cir. 1978) A state prison inmate may tie form, non-structured religion created by (N.Y. Sup. 1978) Before an inmate can be transferred tg a Federal prison to receive the prisoner was not a religion protected by transferred from a prison facility to a men- specialized care not available in state insti-the First Amendment. tal health facility, court-appointed doctors tutions. must examine the inmate and the collet United States v. Eisenberg, 469 F.2d B. Free exercise of religion must review those findings. 156 (8th Cir. .1972) cert. den. 410 U.S. 992 1. Right to do that which is in accord Ramirez v. Ward, 408 N.Y.S.2d 833 (1973) No due process hearing required. with one's religious beliefs. (N.Y.A.D. 1978) The Department of Cor- Capitan v. Cupp, 354 F. Supp, 302 McDonald v. Hal4-579 F2d-120 ( -1st rections has the power to determine the (D. Ore. 1972) aff'd.485 F 2d 6,9 (3rd Cir Cir 1978) The decision of the corrections proper correctional facility for the inmate. 1973) Due process hearing must be held officials not to provide Catholic group reli- It can also transfer inmates to other faetili- before transfer. gious services in the departmental segrega- ties. tion unit can be validly justified on safety The classification of an inmate as a Central D. Emergency transfers reasons. Monitoring Case does not bar the inmate (An "emergency condition" justifying a Kahane v. Carlson, 527 F.2d 492 (2nd from being eligible for temporary release transfer without a hearing has been definedCir. 1975) Orthodox Jew entitled to diet programs or transfer to a medium or low as a condition which indicates a present orcomplying with religious laws. security institution. The prisoner does have impending disturbance which might over- Teterud v. Burns, 522 I.2d 357 (8th a right to respond and object to the classifi- tax the control capacity of the prison.) Cir. 1975) Hairstyle part of Native Ameri- cation, and appeal the decision. Id.; King v. Higgins, 370 F Supp. 1023 (D. can religion and prison officials cannot force Rutherford v. Oregon State Peniten- Mass. 1974) As soon as possible after thea practitioner thereof to cut his hair. tiary Corrections Division, 592 P.2d 1028 transfer, the inmate is entitled to a due Cooper v. Pate, 382 F.2d 518 (7th (Ore. App. 1979) There is no constitutional process hearing. Cir. 1969) Right to assemble in a group for right to a judicially reviewable hearing be- Patterson v.,. Walters, 363 F. Supp. religious services upheld. fore a prisoner is transferred from one in- 486 ( W.D. Pa 1973) Whenever an inmate is Chapman v. Pickett, 586 P.2d 22 (7th stitution to another. However, if a state law transferred under a court order for medical Cir. 1978) A prison official was immune speaks to the matter. those provisions con- or psychological reasons, there is no viola- from liability for punishing a prisoner for trol. tion of his rights. refusing to handle pork on religious grounds Watson v. Whyte, 23 Cr. L. 2411 (W. during a kitchen clean up. The right of the Va 1978) An inmate's transfer to a prison prisoner to refuse was not clear at the time that more severely limits his freedom of of the incident. movement requires a due process hearing.
tl Appendix B. Case law compendium69 Jones v. Bradley, 590 F.2d 294 (9th Montayne v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236 Murphy v. Fenton, 464 F. Supp. 53 Cir. 1979) An inmate, a self-proclaimed (1976) Due process is required if the inmate (D.C. Pa. 1978) Even though a prisoner pastor, was not denied his rights when pris- has a "right or justifiable expectation" of was denied .his due process rights by not on officials denied him the use of the pris- not going to segregation "except for mis- having a proper hearing for being placed in on chapel to conduct study sessions. Efforts behavior or upon the occurrence of otheran administrative segregation unit, the of- to provide reasonable opportunity for an specific events." This "expectation" has ficials were entitled to a good faith defense. inmate to pursue his religious faith must be been found in state statutes, unwritten Negron v. Ward, 458 F. Supp. 748 evaluated in light of the state's legitimatepractices. (D.C.N.Y. 1978) The superintendent of a interest in prison security. Sweet v. South Carolina Department state prison hospital was held liable when SaMarion v. McGinnis, 284 N.Y.S. of Corrections, 529 F.2d 854, (4th Cir. 1975) he decided to keep patients in a Jail ward 2d. 504 (Sup. Ct. 1967) Right to attend a Placement of inmate in solitary confinement for punitive reasons instead of for treat- religious meeting even though the particu- for safety does not require due process. ment reasons. lar prisoner is not a formal member of the United States v. Chatman, 584 F.2d Parker v. Cook, 464 F. Supp. 350 sect. , 1358 (4th Cir. 1978) It was not unreason- (D.C. Fla. 1979) A prisoner's right to avoid able to put an inmate in confinement, after a segregation from the general prison popu- 2. Right not to do that which is hearing, for sending a threatening letter CO lation during the period of an administra- against one's religious beliefs a judge. tive investigation entitles him to at least Jihad v. Carlson,410 F. Supp. 1132 Cunningham v Jones, 22 Cr. L. 2315 notice in writing and an opportunity to be (E,D. Mich. 1976) Prison may not force (6th Cir. 1977) A remand is ordered to heard. Muslim prisoners to handle pork. Regula- ascertain whether the one meal served to a If a prisoner is denied his righl to use the tion of beards must meet compelling state prisoner in segregation each day was nutri- telephone during the period of administra- interest test when based on religious grounds. tionally sufficieht. tive segregation, hehas not been denied his ^ Miller v. Carson, 401 F. Supp. 835 Walker v. Little, 22 Cr. L. 4229 (7th right to communicate with counsel because (M.D. Fla. 1975) aff'd 563 F.2d 741 (5th Cir. 1977) cert. den. U.S. (1978) Conditions mail privileges satisfy that right. Cir. 1977) Diet served violated 1st Amend- imposed upon inmates who were transferred Spain v. Procunier, 408 r. Supp. 534 ment on religious grounds. to segregation it their request were so un- (N.D. Calif. 1976) Classification to segre- Theriault v. Silber, 453 F. Supp 254 reasonable as to constitute cruel and unus- gation must comply with procedural due (W.D. Tex. 1978) The "Church of the New ual punishment, and prison officials asserted process. Song," founded by an inmate, does not qu al- ignorance of the conditions in the segrega- Brown v. State, 573 P.2d 876 (Ariz. ify asa religion entitled to First Amendment tion facility will not serve as a defense. L978) One may not legitimately waive his protections, and even if it did, pr:son offi- Bono v. Saxbe, 450 F. Supp. 934 two-for-one credits under statutory provi- tials could legitimately deny the founder (E D III 1978) Prisoners placed within the sions by seeking protective custody when the privileges of a prison chaplain. "control unit" are entitled to receive a writ- he is in fear for his life. Wright v. Raines, 457 F. Supp. 1082 ten notice of the disciplinary hearing, im- Dunn v. Jenkins, 377 N.E.2d 868 (D.C. Kan. 1978) A regulation that requires partial decision making, and immediate(Ind. 1978) The classification of inmates all inmates to be clean shaven except for and subsequent periodic review of the finalinto groups according to behavior which sideburns and mustaches is unconstitutional disposition. occurred prior to the passage of .a new to the extent that it prevents a religious Hooker v. Arnold, 454 F. Supp. 527 good-time credit law was not violative of group from practicing its sincere beliefs. (D C Pa. 1978) Persons confined in prison the constitutional prescriptions against ex administrative segregation must have peri- post facto laws. C. Religious correspondence odic review of their confinement. The prison State v. Kyle, 271.N.W.2d 689 (Iowa Neal v. °Georgia, 469 F.2d 446 (5th must have a valid reason for the segregation. 1978) A prisoner's rights are not violated Cir. 1972) Prisoner has right to correspond It is not a valid reason to segregate a pris-when he is assigned to a Len= cell house with his religious leader. oner merely because inmate was on hold-in prison upon his return following an es- over status. cape. X. Administrative segregation floss v. Cuyler, 454 F. Supp. 51 (D.C. Griffin v. Raines, 585 P.2d 620 (Kan. Pa.-1978)-This case contains a list of App. 1978) A state penitentiary inmate-who Wright v. Enomoto, 462 F. Supp. 397 criteria which allow for continuedhas requested protective custody may re- (N.D. Calif. 1978) State prison officials were administrative confinement move Inmself from protective custody at enjoined from transferring prisoners from Jordan v. Robinson, 464 F. Supp. 223 any time. the general prison populations to maximum (D.0 Pa1979) Even though a prisoner When a prisoner requests protective cus- security housing for ''.administrative" rea- was locked up mistakenly when a prisontody, it is an administrative decision to re- sons, without first providing. ( I) a written disturbance broke out, the action taken was move prisoner to a proteLtive custody wait; notice of reasons, in 'detail, not more than not a violation of his rights because prison with fewer privileges. 48 hours after the transfer, (2) a fair ;tearing authorities had taken reasonable action inThegiteria for administrative segregation within 72 hours, unless the inmate requests response _to the disturbance. should be dearly explained to the inmate additional time: (3) representation by coun- Kelly v. Brewar, 525 F.2d 394 (1975) affected. sel substitute when the prisoner is illiterate Records must show "criterion and stan-Consideration should be give'for an in- or the issues complex, (4) an opportunity to dards" used in segregation decision. mate's "good behavior" while in adminis- present witnesses and evidence unless it pre- Records must show, (I) what was wrong, trative segregation. sents an undue hazard to institutional (2) how to get out. Falkenstein v. Ca) of Bismark, 268 safety or correctional goals, and (5) a writ- Imprisoned Citizens.Linion v. Snapp,N W.2d 787 (N Dak. 1978)1 he prisoner's ten decision, including references to evi- 461 F Supp 522 (D C. Pa. 1978) The deci-suiudc was reasonably foreseeable so as to dence relied upon and reasons for con- sion to use Observation cells is strictly up to incur liability upon the Lity of his wrongful finement. prison department officials and not thedeath stemming from the city's failure to courts. Confinement in these cells, howev-adequately observe and supervise the dece- er, would be cruel and unusual punishment dent while confined in isolation. if for a lengthy period or if conditions in the Fite city of Bismark is not only liable for cells are allowed to deteriorate. compensatory damages stemming From the
0 70 Correctional data analysis systems wrongful death of an inmate who commit- Giampetruzzi v. Malcolm, 406 F. XII. Search and seizure ted suicide, but also liable for punitive Supp. 836 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) (N.Y. City Jail) damages. Classification to segregation is a grievous Bell v. Wolfish, 99 S.Ct. 1861 (1979) Duncan v. Oregon .State Correction- loss requiring procedural due process ( I) Pre-trial detainees have no right to be pres- al Institution, 580 P.2d 1047 (Orc. App. written notice of hearing and reasons, (2) ent or watch room searches. Room searches 1978)A preliminary placement tit a prison -' right to present witnesses, (31 unbiased are a reasonable security measure and do er in a segregation and isolation unit pend- hearing body, (4) limited right of confron- not infringe the detainee's right to privacy ing subsequent disuplinary hearings is not tation and counsel, (5) written decision, (6) Body cavity searches are not unreasonable reviewable by the court. 30 day review of classification. and do not violate the constitution. They The prisoner was not prejudiced by a disci- Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, can be conducted on less than probable plinary order placing him in segregation 451 F. Supp. 893 (E.D. Pa. 1978) The con- cause as long as they are not conducted in and isolation for one year since this time ditions within the "glas§ cage" cells at the an abusive manner Requiring inmates to was credited against his sentence. State Correctional Institution at Hunting- expose their body cavities for visual inspec- Penrod v. Cupp, 581 P.2d 934 (Sup. ton constitute a serious threat to the physi- tion as a part of a strip search conducted Ct. Ore. 1978) Habeas corpus is available cal and mental well-being of the prisoners after every contact visit with a person from to an inmate to test the lawfulness of condi- confined there. outside the institution is constitutional ev- tions of imprisonment such as segregation Conditions in the maximum security cell en in the absence of probable...cause or isolation in situations where other pro- blocks at Graterford Prison and Dallas Bell v. Manson, 590 F.2d 1224 (2nd cedural remedies are not swift enough. Any State Correctional Institution do not consti- Cir. 1978) When strip searches of pretrial restraint in addition to that of sentencing is tute cruel and unusual punishment. detainees after court appearances are used, subject to relief through the writ. The conditions in the administrative and the state has the burden of proving a com- punitive segregation units at the Muncy pelling necessity of such searches for prison Punitive isolation (solitary State Correctional Institution do not consti- security. confinement) tute cruel and unusual punishment. Hurley v. Ward, 584 F.2d 609 (2nd U.S. ex rel. loss v. Cuyler, 452 F. Cir. 1978) Anal and genital searches of pris- .Mawhinney v. Henderson, 542 F.2d Supp. 256 (D.C. Pa. 1978) Solna ry evnfine- oners are prohibited unless there is proba- (2nd Cir. 1976) Transfer to isolation cell ment does not fall into the category of un- ble cause-to justify the necessity of such is disciplinary rot which Wolff due process acceptable punishment per se. searches. must be accorded. Segregation of a prisoner must be imposed U.S. v. Lilly, 576 F.2d 1240 (5th Cir. United States v. Chatman, 584 F.2d as a preventioh of violence and prison se- 1978) Body cavity searches are not unrea- 1358 (4th Cm 1978) It was not unreason- curity rather than merely for punishment sonable, per se, but once undertaken there is able to put an inmate in confinement, after a for misconduct. a burden on the government to show that hearing, for sending a threatening letter to Wide discretion is vested in the judgment of the search is furtherance of a legitimate a judge. prison officials to use segregation as a prop- penological need which could not have been Finney v. Arkansas, 505 F.2d 194. er administrative tool for a lengthy or even satisfied by less intrusive means. 208 (8th Cir. 1974) Required prisoners in an indefinite period of time. This case suggests: reasonableness for a "isolation- not be "deprived of basic ne- An inmate in segregated confinement sta- s. arch can be established cessities including light. heat. ventilation, tus should be provided with guidelines and I. Through information suggesting speci- sanitation, clothing, and proper diet." factors to be considered in his release de- fic cause to search a given inmate. Pinney v. Mabry. 458 F. Supp. 720 termination. Medical and psychological 2. Through creating the general expecta- (D.C. Ark. 1978) 1 he court issued a decree opinion should also be considered in as- tion among the inmates that searches may that no inmate would be confined in puni- sess;ng an inmate's behavioral adjustment. take place in given circumstances. tive segregation for any one disciplinary The ,nmate is entitled when reviewed United States v. Henderson, 565 F.2d action for mom than 30 consecutive days. know what good and bad conduct ring 900 (5th Cir. 1978) A prisoner has the right 11, right v. Lnomoto .462 F. Supp. 397 segregation is taken into consideration on to remain silent during a search of his per- (D.C. Cal. 1976) When a prisoner. is trans- the decision for or against release. son by prison guards. terred-trom-t he -generaFprison_population. Falkenstein v. City of Bismark. 268 Carroll v. Sielaff, 514 F.2d 415 (7th to maximum security. this impairment of N.W. 2d 787 (N.D. 1978) Damages wereCif: 1975) Taking of personal property by liberty requires the opportunity to appear awarded in an action for the suicide of a jai! prison staff may state a claim under 1983 before a decision- making body. He also has inmate. It was held the suicide was the re-suit. the right to receive a written statement of sult of being in "the hole" for an extended Holder v. Claar, 459 F. Supp 850 reasons fur the decision to punish him, ad- period of time. I t was further found that(D.C. Colo. 1978) Inmates have legal pro- vance notice of (he charges against him, an punitive damages sere recoverable because tection against the unjustified taking of opportunity to present witnesses and evi- of the reckless disregard of the prisoner'spersonal property by prison officials pro- dence, and if the inmate is illiterate or the rights. vided that the property belongs to the in- issues are complex. counsel substitute to Gordon v. Oregon State Penitentiary, mate. help him prepare his defense. Corrections Division. 582 P.2d 19 (Ore. App. Palmigiano v.Travisono, 317 F. PoindeAter v. Woodson. 357 F. Supp. 1978) The court affirmed the holding of aSupp 776 (D.R.I. 1971) Right to be free 443 (D. Kan. 1973) cert den. 433 U.S. 846 prisoner in isolation for nine days. although from unreasonable searches and seizures is (1975) Linphasis was placed on physical the disciplinary committee violated its ownone of the rights retained by prisoners deprivations, lack of loud, hygiene, clothing rules by confining him over seven days Christian v. Owens, 461 F. Supp. 72 and bedding without finding that the inmate constituted(D.C. Va. 1978) The administratrix of a Beni: v.Stahl, 373 F. Supp. 412 a threat to the security of the institution. deceased jail inmate brought a civil rights ( W N.0 1974) Court concerned not on- action against jail authorities for failing to ly with lack-of privacy and sensory depriva- properly search the inmate. As dresult the tn,S. prisoner shot himself with a gun. It was held that strip searches were not in accord- ance with existing practices for persons arrested for driving under the influence of Appendix B. Case lain compendium 71
alcohol and therefore no rights of the in- O'Brien v. Mortart y, 489 F.2d 941 imposed upon inmates ho were trans- mate were violated by not strip searching (1st Cir. 1974), Pugli 6. Locke 406 F. Supp. ferred to segregation at their request were him. 318 (M.D. Ala. 1976) Prisoners may not be so unreasonable as to constitute crud and People v.i'alenzuela, 589 P.2d 71 subjected to punitive conditions which bear unusual punishment, and prison officials (Colo. App. 1978) Searches of inmates are no reasonable relationship and arc not nec- asserted ignorance of the conditions in the permissible even if made without probable essary to achieve legitimate correctional segregation facilityfill nut sere as a cause, provided such searches are not done goals. defense. cruelly or are not accompanied by any in- Hite v. Leeke, 564 F.2d 670 (4th Cir. Cotton v. Hutto, 577 F 2d 453 (8th tent to harass, humiliate, or intimidate the 1977) Even though cells were originally Cir. 1978) By not providing a prisoner % ith inmate. planned and designed for single occupan- the proper tub facilities for his colostomy Body cavity searches are permissible unless cy, the assignment of inmates to doublecondition, the resulting pain amounted to it can be demonstrated that such searches occupancy did not constitute cruel and un- cruel and unusual punishment by prison bear no reasonable relationship to the re- usual punishment where each cell contained authorities. quirement of maintaining security. 65 square feet in area. Battle v. Anderson, 564 F.2d 388 ( 1 Ot h State v. Martinez, 580 P.2d 1282 Cook v. Hanberry,596 F.2d 658 (5th Cir. 1977) The Eighth Amendment protects (Hawaii 1978) Where the defendant was Cir. 1979) A prisoner was no entitled to a prisoners from "an en% torment %% here de- aware of the prison's policy of conducting transfer to another federal prison. He failed generation is probable and self improvement strip searches on those who wish to v isit the to allege that practices of allegedly cruel unlikely because of tl,e conditions existing prison, her consent to the strip search will and unusual punishinent were continued or which inflict needless suffering. whether be implied and the search itself is not un- that there was any threat of such continued physical or mental," 564 F 2d at 393 reasonable. treatment. Bono v. Saxbe, 450 F. Supp 9.34 (E. D. People v. Elkins, 377 N. E.2d 569(111. Freedom from cruel and unusual punIth- III. 1978) The use of closed-front cells in the App. 1978) We warrantless search of the ment is not freedom from otherwise lawful prison's "control unit" violated the consti- defendant's cellblock for drugs and %ca- incarceration. The prisoner only has the tuticnal prohibition against cruel and un- pons was not unreasonable. right to be free from that mistreatment oc- usual punishment. Although the defendant was in custody curring within the confines of his incarcera- The placement of a prisoner within the when a jail officer asked him to identify his tion. "control unit" cannot be justified solely -bank, Miranda warnings were not required Gates v. Collier, 349 F. Supp. 881 upon the type of offense he was con% icted since such was merely a routine and preInn- (1972) aff'd 501 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1974) of nor the possibility of escape since all inary inquiry. Prohibition of Eighth Amendmen't against prisoners represent that possibility. Woodfox v. Phelps. 23 Cr. L. 2376 cruel and unusual,punishment is not limit- U.S. ex ref Hood v. Cuyler. 452 F. (La. D. 1978) Anal searches of prisoners ed to specific acts directed at selected in- Supp. 256 (D.C. Pa. 1978) Deference is tra- may only be conducted when an inmate mates,sbut is equally applicable to generalditionally granted to prison officials deci- returns from a contact visit with outsiders conditions of confinement that may prevailsions by the federal courts when assessing .or is transferred from the general popula- at a prison. whether the actions of prison officials con- tion to the segregation unit. Newman v. Alabama, 559 F.2d 283 stitute cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Bishop, 392 A.2d 20 (Me. (5th Cir. '1977) cert. den. 438 U.S. 915 Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Shapp, 1978) Marijuana is included as "contraband" (1978), modified 438 U.S. 781 (1978) "If the 451 F. Supp. 893 (E D Pa 1978) The con- when possessed by a person in custody. State furnishes its prisoners with reason-ditions within the "glass Late" Lett, at the State v. Kerns, 371 N. W.2d 48 (Neb. ably adequate loud, clothing, shelter. sanita- State Correctional Institution at Hunting- 1978) Prisoners arc subject to reasonable tion, medical care, and personal safety, so ton constitute a serious threat to the physi- search and seizure without notice as long as as to avoid the imposition of cruel and cal and mental well-being of the prisoners it relates to a legitimate institutional need. unusual punishment, that ends its obliga-confined there. tions under Amendment Eight. Laaman v. Helgemoe, 437 F. Supp. XIII. Conditions of confinement The Constitution does not iequire that269 (D.N H. 1937) "Es en though no sin- prisoners, as individuals or as a group, gle condition of incarceration rises to the A. Application of the be provided with any and every amenity level of a c9nstitutional v iolatign, exposure Eighth Amendment which some person may think is neededto the cumulative effect of prison condi- Gregg v. Georgia. 428 U.S. 153 (1976) to avoid mental, physical and emotional tions may subject inmates to cruel and un- The Eighth Amendment proscribes the"un- deterioration," 559 F.2d at 291. usual punishment," 427 F Supp at 322-32 necessary and wanton infliction of pain is Williams v. Edx ards. 547 F.2d 1206 "The touchstone is the effect upon the im- not limited to specific acts directed at se- (5th Cir. 1977) Although a constitutionalprisoned Where the cumulative unpact of lected individuals. but is equally pertinent question does not necessarily arise merelythe conditions of incarceration threatens to general conditions of confinement that ecause of failure to comply with state law. thif physical, mental, and emotional health may prey ail at a prison," 501 F.2d at 1300- lack of compliance with state norms can be and well being of the inmates 1nd/or 01. significant in making a finding of constitu-creates a probability of recidivism and fu- Trop v.' Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958). tionality. State fire and sanitation codesture incarceration imprisonment Holt v. Sarver, 309 E. Supp. 362 (E.D. reveal the minimum standards of habitabil-under such conditions contra% cites the Ark. 1970), all d 442 F.2d 304 (8th Cir. ity by which the state purposes to govern Eighth Amendment's proscription against 1971) f he Eighth Amendment prohibits itself and provide a valuable index of what cruel and unusual punishment practices andconfinement in conditions that is minimal for human habitation in the Cooper I' Lombard, 409 N Y S 2d 30 are shocking to the conscience of reason- public view. The district judge did not err in (N.Y A D 1978) Jail conditions do not hay e ably civilized people. requiring the prison to comply with stateto be of equal quaht to state correctional Weems v. United States. 217 U.S. fire and sanitation codes; )47 F.2d at 1214. facilities. 349 (1910). O'Brien v. Moriarty 489 F.2d Walker v. Little, 22 Cr. L. 4229 (7th ,.S'unev Werner. 242 S E 2d 907 (W 941 (1st Cir. 1974) A prisoner may not be Cir. 1977) cert. den. ( U.S. 1978) Conditions Va. 1978) Punitive practices such as floor subjected to a punishment. taking into con- time. bench time, and solitary confinement sideration the conditions of confinement, in juvenile facihnes are cruel and unusual which is disproportionate to the offense for punishment. which it was imposed.
tJ _/ 72 Correctional data analysis systems 4 ,
B. Court's remedial power to punish those inmates who had commit- Chapman_v. Rhodes, 434 F. Supp. ted serious offenses while confined. 1007 (S.D. Ohio 1977) Double ceiling in Swann v. Charlotte-Meckknburg Board Chapman v. Rhodes, 434 F. Supp. cells designed for one person and contain- ofEducation.402U .S.. I, 15 (1971) "Once a 1007 (S.D. Ohio 1977) (Lucasville) In a new ing 63_square feet of space is unconstitu- right and a Violation have been shown, the institution where the-63-foot-squarecells - tional. But, Court noted that inmates are scope of the district court's equitable pow- were designed for one, double cellrn,t was not entitled to private living quarters. ers to remedy past Wrong is broad. for improper. Gates v. Collier, 423 F. Supp. 732 breadth and flexibility are inherent in equit- Palmigiano v. Garrahy.443F.Supp. (N.D. Miss. 1976) aff'd 548 F.2d 1241 (Miss- able remedies." 956 (D.R.I. 1977) Rhode Island State Pris- issippi State Prison) " ... 50 square feet Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, on System. No more than one prisoner in of living space per inmate is the minimal 405 (1974) See' also, Campbell v. Beto, 460 any cell with less than 60 square feet, and, acceptable requirement to conform with F.2d While state prison officials enjoy wide in dorms, at least 75 square feet per prison- the Constitution." discreiion in the operation of state penal, er. Johnson v. Lark, 365 F.. Supp. 289 institutions, ... a policy of judicial re-11 Rodriguez v. Jimenez, 409 F. Supp.(E.G. Mo. 1973) (St. Louis City Jail) No straint cannot encompass any failure to take 582 (E.D.P.R. 1976) afrd 551 F.2d 877 (5th more -than two prisoners per 5X8 foot cell. cognizance of valid Constitutional claim." , Cir. 1977) (San Juan Jail) Every inmate Johnson v. Levine, 450 F. Supp. 648 Newman v. Alabama, 503 r.2d 1320, entitled to 70-square feet of living space(D. Md. 1978), afrd in part and rev'd in 1332 (5th Cir. 1974) cert. den. 421 U.S. 948 (housing area only) as court limited entirepart, 588 F.2d 1378 (4th Cir. 1978) Double (1975) In reordering a state prison system population to 231 inmates, population at ceiling in 40-square-foot cells is unconstitu- to bring its system into compliance with the time of order was 580. tional. Dormitories which provide approx- Constitution, die Court has the power to Jordan v. Wolke, 460 F. Supp. 1080 imately 55 square feet of living space per fashion relief "coterminous with the scope (D.C. Wis. 1978) Prison officials were per-inmate and 80 square feet of living space of the constitutional violations." manently stopped from holding more thanper inmate (including recreation area) are , Holt v Sarver. 309 F. Supp. 362, two pretrial detainees in a 90- square -foot not unconstitutional. Standards adopted by 385; affd 442 F 2d 304 (8th Cir. 1971); Sec cell. The minimum area for one detainee is groups of penologists do not constitute also Wyatt v. Aderholt, 503 F.2d 1305 (5th 45 square feet. constitutional minima. The court declined Cir. 1974) " ... the obligation of the Re- Battle v. Anderson. 564 F.2d 388,to find that confinement of a single inmate spondents to eliminate existing unconstitu- 395(10th Cir. 1977) After noting that "mm- in a 40 square foot cell is unconstitutional, tionalities does not depend upon what the imum space to call one's own is a primary even though the ACA recommends 60 square -Legisl, lure may do. or upon what theov- psychological necessity" and referring to feet: ernor may do. or, indeed, upon what Re- the American Public Health Association Jones v.Wittenberg, 330 F. Supp. spondents may actually be able to accom- gtandards, court upheld district court's707 (N.D. Ohio 1971); afrd 456 F.2d 854 plish, if Arkansas is going to operate a order of 60 square feet for cells and 75 (Lucas County, Ohio Jail) No more than Penitentiary system that is countenanced square feet for dormitories. - two inmates per cell except in extreme by the Constitution of the United States." Detainees of Brooklyn 11r.::Je of De-emergencies when this may be exceeded for., Payne v Doy.440 F. Supp. 785 (W.D. tention v. Malcolm, 520 F.2d 392 (2nd Cir. no more than 24 hours. (Cell size unknown) Okla. 1977) Federal prisoners are required 1975) Double ceiling (two inmates in 5X8' Laaman v. Helgemoe, 437 F. Supp. to exhaust their administrative remedies cell) found to be unconstitutional even ab- 269 (D.N.H. 1977) (New Hampshire State within the Bureau of Prisons before bringing sent other conditions which might, impose Prison) The Nev Hampshire prison is not a suit challenging the Conditions of theirsubstantial or addilional hardships on in- overcrowded and, although the cells do not _ confinement. mates. meet minimum space requirements, each Ahrens v. Thomas. 434 F. Supp. 873 man has one to himself. 437 F. Supp. at 306. C. Overcrowding (W.D. Mo. 1977) mndified 570 F.2d 286Cell size is a factor to be weighed in deter- I.Double ceiling and square (8th Cir. 1978) (Platte County, Mo. Jail) A mining recreation and exercise requirements. footage requirements density 10-12 square feet of space per in- M.C.I. Concord Advisory Board v. Bell v. Wolfish, 99 S. Ct. 1861 (May mate was unconstitutional. Court orderedHall, 447 F. Supp. 398 (D. Mass. 1978) 1979) Double bunking does not deprive at least 70 square feet of cell space. (Massachusetts Correctional Institution at pretrial detainees of their liberty without Ambrose v. Malcolm, 414 F. Supp. Concord) Double ceiling in one unit where due process partieular restrietion is cal-485 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) The correct standardthe inmate's stay is `temporary and where id as lung as it is reasonably related to afor determining onstitutionally acceptablethe prisoners may remain outside their cells legitimate nonpunitice governmental ob-levels for prison population is the rated six hours a day does not violate the Eighth jective. capacity of the institution and not the num- Amendment. Confinement in other units Hoe i. Leeke. 564 F.2d 670 (4th Cir. ber of infractions (presumably indicative ofwas found unconstitutional on the basis of 1977) Leen though cells were originally tension or aggression) per man at varyingthe totality of the living conditions there. planned and designed for single occupan-population levels. double ceiling in rooms designed for single ey, the assignment of inmates to double Court required 75 square feet of space. occupancy, lack of adequate fresh air. plumb- occupancy did not constitute cruel and un- Anderson v. Redman, 429 F. Supp. ing, lighting, ventilation, and the dearth of usual punishment where each cell 4. untamed 1105 (D. Del. 1977) Minimum to which vocational and recreational facilities, 447. 65 square feet in area inmate 'was entitled was 60 square feet of Nelson v. Collins. 455 F. Supp. 727 Johnson v. Levine. 588 F.2d 1378 (4th floor space and 500 cubic feet of space, but (D. Md. 1978), aff d in part and rev'd in Cir. 1978) Do, ening and other results because of the construction and arrange-part, 588 F.2d 1378 (4th Cir. 1078) (Mary- ol ,tibstani erow ding amounted to a ment of the dormitories, inmates must haveland Penitentiary and the Marl lane, Recep- eonstitur . tulatwn. I he court orderedat least 75 square feet of floor space. (Court tion, Diagnostic and Classification Center) that the I_ieruw ding be eliminated. halted the use of dining rooms. library and Double ceiling under the circumstances (44 Burk's It ash. 461 F. Supp. 454television rooms for the housing of in- square feet cells designed for single occu- (D.C. Mo. 1978) Double ceiling of prison mates). pancy) held to violate the Constitution. The inmates in a 65-foot cell in administrative cells are much smaller, the facility is much segregation was held to be tolerable in light older, and prisoner movement is much more of the fact that the common areas of the restricted than in Hite v. Leeke. unit were clean and the unit was used only Appendik B. Case law compendium 73
Pugh v. Locke,406 F. Supp. 318 termining how many square feet of living factors include: (a) additional area provided (M D Ala. 1976); aff d 559 F.2d 283 No space are allocated to individual inmates. (day rooms, corridors, etc.), (b) amount of more than one prisoner to a cell and each Regard must be had to the quality of the time spent away from cell, (c) multiple ceil- 'shall-have a minimum of 40 square feet of _.... , _._ living_quarters.and_to .thelength of time ing (deprivation of privacy). space. In six months inmates placed in iso- i which inmates must spend in their living Burks v. Walsh,No. 75-CV-149 C lation shall be afforded at least 60 square quarters each day ... 410 F. Supp. at (W.D. Mo., November 3, 1978) (Missouri feet. 254. The question of overcrowding involves State Penitentiary). The penitentiary is not Trigg v Blanton,No. A-6047 (Da- a determination of not only the total popu- unconstitutionally overcrowded as a whole vidson Co, Tenn , Chancery Ct., August lation but also of its distribution. The court in view of the large amount of acreage, the 23! 1978) (Tennessee State Prison System) imposed maximum population limits on inmates' relative freedom of movement and The court ordered single ceiling in cells the two prisons in question here and also the many activities available to them, but it with less than 60 square feet of floor space. required that individual unit capacities set Must also be considered how inmates are forth in a report filed with the.coUrt not be distributed. D sign capacity is not a consti- 2. Standards to bg used in determining exceeded except in emergency situations. tutional limytion on the number of pris- overcrowding Stewart v. Gates,450 F. Supp. 583 soners whoay be housed, nor do various ,Valvano v. Malcolm,'520 F.2d 392 (C.D Ca. 1978) There is no specific square professionassociations' minimum square (2nd Cir. 1975)- Confinement in pre-trial footage requirement to meet constitutional footage standards constitute constitutional detention facilities above rated capacities standards. Some of the courts which have minima. Each housing unit must be evalu- creates a restrictive and deplorable living held otherwise were concerned with anti- ated not only in :erras of cell size but also ens ironment constituting an intolerable quated structures that were unsatisfactory with reference to the inmates' ability to siolation of the detainees' constitutional in many respects, or inmates were confined move outside their cells and to participate rights. \ virtually day and night. Here jail is of mod- in programs. Crowe v. Leeke,540 F.2d 740 (4th ern construction and inmates have several Cir.1976) \(South Carolina Correctional daily breaks out of their cells. (Finding 21.5 D. Medical care Institution) Confinement of three protec- square feet to be adequate.) 1. General tive custodymates in a 63-square-foot cell West v. Edwards,439 F. Supp. 722 Estelle v. Gamble,429 U.S. 97(1976) with two bed for all but a few hours a week (D.S.C. 1977) (Kirkland Correctional In- reh. den. 429 U.S. 1066 (1976) Deliberate does not viol the Eighth Amendment. stitute, South Carolina) Placement of threeindifference to the medical needs of prison- The number of inmates who may be safely inmates in a 66 square foot cell, where the ers violates the 8th Amendment. Mere neg- assigned to a 411 is within the sound discre- prisoners have access to day rooms and ligence is insufficient for liability. Indiffer- tion of prison administrators. other areas; does not violate the Eighth ence may be manifested by prison doctors Hite i,. L eke,564 F.2d 670 (4th Cir. Amendment. in their response to the prisoner's needs or. 1977) After non g that they were dealing In reference to allegations of prison over- by prison guards in intentionally denying with a new 12 million dollar facility,wherecrowding, the court will include as "living or delaying access to medical care or inten- prisoners had a wide range of movement space" areas outside individual cells that tionally interfering with the treatment once and where there were no other aggravating are within the prisoner's access. prescribed, 429 U.S. at 164-105. conditions, court approved two prisoners Carson v. Miller,370 Sb.2d 10 (Fla. Todaro v. Ward,565 F.2d 48 (2nd in 65-square-foot roms. 1979) The Department of Offender Reha- Cir. 1977) The medical records produced Nett man v. ,illabama,559 F.2d 283 bilitation did not comply with the statutory by prisoners incarcerated at the Bedford (5th Cir. 1977) cert. den. 438 U.S. 915 (1978), duty to prescribe "standards and require- Hills Correctional Facility showed that ex- modified 438 U.S. 7811(1978) Court's order ments" governing the prison housing ca- isting medical treatment afforded at the in- of 60 square feet perman, the court could pacities. stitution was insufficient. not agree that "design" standards, without Burks v. Walsh,No. 77-4008 CV-C West v. Keve,571 F.2d 158 (3rd Cir. more, amount to a per se constitutional(W D Mo Nov. 1978)(Missouri State Pen- 1978) A prisoner's complaint alleging that limitation on the number of prisoners whoitentiary) Double ceiling in 47.18 square various prison officials were deliberately may be hoilsed in particular facility.s'Thosefoot cells and triple ceiling in 59.2 square indifferent to his medical needs or that the who design prisons are iipt tested with either foot cells is cruel and unusual punishment. officials deliberately delayed needed medi- the duty or die posscr to\prescribe constitu- Double ceiling in general population units cal attention is not barred by the doctrine tional standards as to prison space." While with 65 and 109 square fobt cells was up- of official immunity nor the lith Amend- design standards of existing facilities may held, but was found unconstitutional in ment. be used as a tool for determining constitu- three units with 47 square foot cells. Dou- Deliberate indifference includes post-oper- tional capacity, trial judge is not bound by ble ceiling in the 59 square foot diagnostic ative treatment and although prisoner has this in determining capacity. unit cells was approved, despite the amount been provided with a pain reliever such as Williams v. Edttards,547 F.2d 1206of time spent in the cells, since inmates are aspirin, this may not constitute adequate (5tCir. 1977) The functions and charac- housed there for only short periods of time medical care. ter stics of each building should be taken (I to 5 weeks). Triple ceiling there and in Gates v.Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1302 into account in ajrising at the capacity of the 76 square foot cells of the administra- (5th Cir. 1974)" ... the adequacy of con- 4h. A simple ma thematiciii calculation oftive and punitive segregation units, howev- ditions of confinement of prisonssuch as top square feet of space divided by a stan- er, was held to be cruel and unusual pun- medical treatment, hygienic materials, and l c turd of square feet per man may not neces- ishment under the circumstances Double physical facilitiesis clearly subject to 8th s ply be appropriate or practical. ceiling in the latter two units was upheld by Amendment scrutiny." :r Finney v. Hutto.410 1'. Supp. 251 the court, which said that their use as a Hurst v. Phelps,579 F.2d 940 (5th, 1.D.Ark. 1976), air d 548 F.2d (8th Cir. means of chicipline makes the administra- Cir. 1978) A claim for denial of medical 976). dird 43' U.S 678 (1978). (Arkansastion's practices with regard to them "par- treatment may exist where prison officials state prison system)I he question of w hether tiCularly deserving of judicial deference " prevent an inmate to be taken to a doctor's a prison is overcrowded to the point of Jordan v Wolke,450 F Supp. 1080 appointment, based on the fact that he is a unconstitutionality ins olves more than de- (E.D. Wisc. 19,78) (Mtlwaukee County, safety risk. Wisc. Jail) "Design Capacity" is only one factor which must be weighed. Additional 74Correctional data analysis systems
Hancock v. Unknown (,m led States Sweet v. South Carolina DOC, 529 tional hospitals must meet the minimum Marshall. 587 1 .2d 377 (8th Cir. 1978) A F.2d 854 (4th Cir. 1975) Where two medi- standards of the Joint Commission on Ac- prisoner's claim of ...mei and unusua: pun- cal technicians visited protective custodycreditation of Hospitals. All inmates t hall ishinent was dismissed because he tailed to three limes a day to receive complaints andhave access upon demand to timely treat- give specific facts that would have shown provide medication, prison met constitution-ment by a licensed physician. An effective any deliberate indifference to his serious al standards for medical care. system for the review of health personnel medical needs. Newman v. Slate of Alabama, 503 competence and of the quality and quantity Cole v. Multnomah Count) , 592 P.2d F.2d 1320 (5th Cir. 1974) cert. ,den. 421 of the care provided inmates shall be estab- 221 (Ore. App. 1979) Correction officials U.S. 948 (1975) The paramount concern lished. were not held liable to an inmate due to a regarding the quality of medical care in the suicide attempt in failing to furnish medical Alabama prison system is insufficient staff- b. Around-the-Clock Staffing attention when the officials were not rea- ing. Mitchell v. Untriener, 421 F. Sup'p. sonably aware of the inmate's propensity. Gales v. Collier, 349 F. Supp. 881886 (N.D. Fla. 1976) (Escambia County, Aripa v. Department of Social and (1972), affd 501 1.2d 1291 (1974) Medical Fla. Jail) Twenty-four-hour medical, care Health Services, 588 P.2d 185 (Wash. 978) staff for a 1,700-m.n pri.on in Mississippi for inmates of Escambia County Jal/Fla.) W here the Department provided a basic must consist of at lead three full-time doc- is required. alcohol treatment program at a state prison tors, two full-time dentists, two full-time 11aule v. Anderson, 376 F S pp. 402 which consisted of a variety of treatment trained physician's assistants. six registered(E.D. Okla. 1974) Nursing care 24, ours-a- components, inmates' claims for more com- nurses or licensed practical nurses, oneday, seven days a week is required for a prehensive and individualized treatment,medical records librarian, and two medical 900-man jail. were deemed inappropriate. clerical personnel. Barnes v. Virgin Islands, 415 F. Supp. Costello v. Wainwright, 397 F. Supp. Johnson v. Levine, 450 F. Supp. b48 1218 (1976) Twenty- four -hbur emergency 20 (M.D. Fla. 1973)alfd 525 F.2d 1239 (5th (D. Md. 1978), aff d rn part and rev'd in care and regular visits by physicians are Cir. 1974) The institution has an affirma- part, 588 F.2d 1378 (4th Cir. 1978) The newrequired. tive duty testablish a medical Laic system prison hospital and its staffing are adeqUate Goldsby v. Carnes, 365 F. Supp. 395 that will meet the medical care needs ol the to meet constitutional standards (two doc-(1973) (Jackson County, Missouri) modi- inmates. Failure to establish such a system tors on the premises 20 hours per week per fied 429 F. Supp. 370 (W.D. Mo. 1977) is a violation of the Eighth Amendment. doctor and eleven registered nurses). Officials entered into a consent order re- Sconiers v. Jarvis, 458 F. Supp. 37 Williams v. McKenhen, Docket No. quiring one registered nurse to be on duty (D.C. Kan. 1978) (Jiving medical treatment 71-98 (M.D. La. 1975) (Unrepprtea), affd from 8.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. Monday through to an inmate v. ho objects may be necessary 547 1.2d 1206 (5th Cir. 1977) State officials Friday and sufficient physician assistants to protec, him and/or other inmates from in Louisiana must provide the following to provide 24-hour medical coverage. the possibility of harm. medical staff for a prison of approximately Miller v. Cation, 401 F. Supp. 835 McCormick v. C try of WIldwood. 439 1,600 inmates. four full-time doctors, one(1975) In a 400-man jail, a physician or F Stipp. 769 (D. N.J. 1977) A jatlei's duty psychiatrist, two dentists, one psychologist, licensed physician's assistant must be on to prank reasonable medical care is non- 11 physician assistants, one dental assis- call 24 hours a day. delegable and the duty attaches as soon as tant, three registered nurses, one x-ray tech- But see: theindividual is placed in his custody. nician, one pharmacist, one laboratory tech- Coxson v. Goths in, 405 F. 5 upp. 1099 A pristine, IS Under no duty, ,to obtain his nician, and two medical records technicians. (1975) Medical care is adequate without a release by paying a fine so that he may seek he use of inmates and other non-profes- full-time nurse or infirmary, but attendance medical treatment. sional personnel to perfoi m medical pro- at the institution must be sufficient to meet Coleman v. Crisp. 444 F. Supp. 31 ceblires must be disccntinued. all problems of the inmates, not just those ( W.D. Okla. 1977) A prisoner's all,gations Williams v. F 'clwards, 547 F.2d 1206 who can be fitted into a particular period of concerning inadequate media care did not (5th Cir. 1977) Condiiions were held un- time. evidence a deliberate indifference by state constitutional. The major medical unit serv- prison officials. therefore, no recov ery may ing the prison was not accredited, and it c. Medical Procedures Performed he had. was opiirated for extended periods without by Professional Medical Staff In re Coca. i4° Ca. Rptr. 465 (Cal. a resident physicialk Only two of the medi- Brown v. McGowan. 445 F. Supp. App. 1978) The Department of Corrections cal staff were licensed to practice medicine, 468 (D C. Colo. 1978) The plaintiff prison- was found io have itulated civilized stan- and there were no registered nurses. Many er was not denied his constitutional right to dards of decency because of their indiffer- positions involving delivery of medical ca.e medical treatment merely because the pris- ences to at prisoner's serious mcdical con- were filled by untrained inmates, two-th rds on physician disagreed with his contention dition. of these inmates had no more than an eighth that he needed an ankle operation. grade education. Todaro v. Ward, 431 F. Supp. 1129 2. Elements of a constitutional Hines v. Anderson, 439 F. Supp.-12 (S.D.N.Y. 1977), affd 565 F.2d 48 (2nd medical care delivery system (D. Minn. 1977) In regard to the Minnesota Cir. 197.7) The prison health care delivery a. Sufficient Medical Personnel State Prison, the medical staff shall consist system was held unconstitutional becau..: Campbell v Belo, 460 F.2d 765 (5th of a full-time physician on daily, weekend, access to primary care physicians was de- Cir. 1972) The use of unlicensed persons to and "on-call" duty. nied or substantially delayed by initial screen- cliagnoit ailments and prescribe medicine Bartle v. Anderson, 3,76.F.sSupp. 402 ing procedures and by inadequate record - is unconstitutional. (E.D. Okla. 1974) One full-time 'dRnist is keeping. The system's delivery of follow-up McCray v. Sullivan. 509 F.2d 1332 not adequate for a 900-man facility. laboratory services and medical appointments (5th Cir 1975) Fuson policy of sending a Trigg v. Blanton, No. A-6047 (Dav- was also unconstitutionally carried out. medical assistant to visit punitive isolation idson Co., Tenn.. Chancery Ct., August 23, unnecessarily prolonged pain and created to determine which inmates would be able 1978). The court ordered that health care risk of dire consequences. Delays in admin- to see the doctor is constitutional. be provided in facilities in compliance with Istration of admission physical examination, state and local statutes and regulations per- where they did not result in introduction of taining to environmental sanitation and infections into the population or placement safety in civilian medical facilities. Institu- Appendix B. Case law compendium 75
of inmates in medically harmful Jobs, did Williams v. ALKetthen. Docket No. maladroitly operated 'emergency' referral riot violate the Eighth Amendment. 7,1-98 (M.D. La. 1975) (Unreported), all'd system also present grave constitutional "Boyce v. A Ikaduh, 591 F.2d 948(4th 547 F.2d 1206 (5th Cir. 1977) Purchase ofproblems." Cir 11979) An error of judgment or inad- three fully-equipped ambulances was Rodriguez v. Jimenez. 409 F. Supp. vertent failure to provide adequate medical ordered. 582, 597 (1976) afFd 551 F.2d 877 (5th Cir. care to a prisoner will not support a consti- Neu man v. State ofAlabama. 349 F. 1977) "Medical records shall be established tutional violation. Only where there is de- Supt... 278, (M.D. Ala. 1972) modified 522 and maintained for every inmate showing liberate IndilTerence to serious medical needs F.2d 171 (5th Cir. 1975) cert. den. 421 C.S. at least the date oNach examination or of an inmate will the conduct of a physician 948 (1975) The unavailability of eyeglasses treatment, the medical findings and the be held to be a constitutional violation. and prosthetic dig ices is cited. medication or treatment administered." Laaman v. lielgemoe, 437' F. Supp. Finney v. .1-kusas Board of Correc- Williams v. Edwards, 547 F.2d 1206 269 (D.N.H 19'77) The systematic absence tions, 505 F.2d 1 (1974) The lack of basic (5th Cir. 1977) Conditionsvi ere held un- ulcomplete routine physical examinations. x-ray and emergency service., is cited constitutional. The climate laboratory had blood tests, syphilis tests, and othe: pre- Gates v. Collier, 349 F. Supp. 8'31 no written policy concerning testing pro- ventive medical measures endangers the en- (1972) 501 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1974) cedures, safety procedures or equipment tire prison community The order required. Hospital . pment was ordered brought quality control. The pharmacy's control of among others prompt medical examination up to st., state licensing of hospi- medication and needles and syringes was and medical history by a physician upon tal. inadequate; no records of the dispensing of commitment, annual reexamination, mm- )m3 v. Frame, 585 F.,2d 1183 (3rd drugs or of adlierse drug reactions were imum staff and dispensation of mcdicattons Cu ./ '8) There is no constitutional right kept. No rcports, records or statistical in- only by appropriately trained staff. CMCI- to i.1-,hodone. No pretrial detainee or citi- formation was maintained, and the lab's gent.) medical c.re available .at all times zen can compel the state to provide him equipment was not adeqUately calibrated. With at least one member of the medical with the drug. staff always present in the infirmary, a sick Cotton v. Ilutto 577 F.2d 453 (8th g. Preventive Medical Procedures call procedure under which the need for Cir. 1978) By not providing a prisoner with Alberti v. Sheriff of Harris County, care is determined by a membi.:r of the med- the proper tub facilities for his colostomy 406 F. Supp. 649 (1975, Incoming inmates ical staff, an intercom system in the .nfirm.cundition, the resulting pa.n amounted to must be screened for communicable diseases. mi, and regular inspeciion of the medical cruel and unusual punishment by prison Rogriguez v. Jimenez, 409 F. Supp. . facility by thF Statc Department of Public authorities. 582, 597(1976) Afl'd 551 F.2d 877 (5th Cir. Health: 1977) Every individual confined to jail should Miller v. Carson. 401 F. Supp. 835 e Sanitary Facilities. Segregation be given a physical examination within 24 (1975) aff'd 563 F.2d 741 (5th Cir. 1977) of Contagious Diseases hours of admission. Leaving the ultimate decision of who is to Gates v. Collier, 349 F. Supp. 881(1972) Newman v. Alabama, 503 F.2d 1320 receive medical attentionln the hands of a all'd 501 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1974) Unsani- (5th Cir. 1974) cert. den. 421 U.S. 948 (1q75) nun-medical 1. orreLtiondl officer is totally tav conditions. particularly in the TB Physical exams arc required once every two inadequate. Ward allowing some inmates with serious years. Jones v.Wittenberg, 330 F. Supp contagious diseases to mingle with the gen- Collins v. Schoonfield, 344 F. Supp. 707 (N.D. Ohio 19;1) afi'd 456 1 .2ci 851 eral population v. ere cited as reasons for a 257 (1972) Although expert medical witness- (6th Cir. 19,72) Prescription of medic,' an finding of unconstitutional facilities. es indicated that intake physicals are ad by jail nurse is prohibitiid. Nevi man v. State of Alabama, 349 F. visa blc, court could not say that the lack of But see. 278 (M.D. Ala. 1972) modified 522 F.2d same amounted to cruel and unusual pun- Palmigiano v. Garrahy. 443 F. Supp. (5th Cir.'1975) cert. den. 42I U.S. 948 (1975) ishment. 956 (D.R.1. 1977) Deficiencica cited by the Glaring unhygienic conditions, including Laaman v. Helgemoe, 437 F. Supp. ' court lack of laboratory testing capability the potential for contagon caused by min- 269 (D.N.H. 1977) The systematic absence (no 1.enttsfugc, elccturcardiugram, or equip- segregated sanitary faciliticsfor the genera' of complete routine physical examinations, mi. ni for e IL menta) blued, urine, Vb, and ward population and hepatitis and tuber- blood tests, syphilis tests, and other pre- other tests), lack of cineigcncy equipment culosis ward populations were condemned. ventive medical measures endangers the fot treatment of coronary problems. admin- Hamilton vSatire. 333 F Supp. entire pr:son community. The sick call pro- istration 91 potentially harmful medications 1016 (E D La 1970) Lack of isolation orcedure used is inadequate because it allows without a physician's circle', and lack of quarantine areas for those with contagious daimons concerning access to health care written procedures fur response to emer- disease was, together w ith other conditions. to be made by nonmedical personnel. The gencies and potential epidemics. The court unconstitutional. court ordered premedical :xammations and ordered defendants to bring the healthcare But 'sec: medical history by a physician upon"com- dein e?y, system into compliance with the Chapman v PlageYnan. 417 F Supp reitment, annual examination, a sick call minimum standards ul the American Pub- 906 (1976) Removal of TB patients from procedure under which the need for care is hi.1 !edit liAssociation. the U.S. Public general population as discovered and test- determined by a member of the medical Health Service. and the State Department ing all other inmates in the unit foi the staff, an intercom system in the infirmary. of Health. disease was sufficient to satisfy the courts and regular inspection of the medical facili- J. Adequacy of Quaht) and Quantity that prison conditions did not constitute ty by the State Department of Health. of Medical Equipment and Supplies cruel and unusual punishment. Newman v. State of Alabama, 349 F. 3. Mental health care Supp 278, (M.D. Ala. 1972) modified 522 f Recordkeeping and Organization Rows-mg v. Goths in, 551 F.2d 44 (4th F 2d 171 (5th Cir 1975) Len den. 421 1! S. Neuman v. Alabama, 503 F.2d 1320, Cir. 1977) The inmate "Is entitled to psy- 948 (1975) Serious shortages of medication 1331, (5th Cir. 19'4) cert. den. 42.1 U.S. 948 chological or psychiatric treatment if a and use of anachronistic and precanous (1975) Disorganized lines of therapeutic re- physician .1 other health care pi ov flier. medical techniques will nut be tolerated sponsibility resulting in treatment prescribed exercising ordinary skill and care at the %filler vCarson, 401 F. Supp 835 by doctors not being administered by med- time of observation, concludes with reason- (1975) affil 563 I 2d 741 (5th Cu.1977) ical subordinates, the ill-conceived system able medical certainty. (I) that the prison- Antiquated equipment is inadequate fur reT:rrals to the prison hospital. and the ers symptoms eNadent.e a serious disease or
82 -76 Correctional data analysis systems injury; (2) that such disease 0: injury is Nelson v. Collins,455 F. Supp. 727or who are mentally retarded. Confinement curable or may be substantially alleviated, (D. Md. 1978) Prisoners placed in isolatedof prisoners with psychological problems and (3) that the potential for harm to the confinement because of aberrant behavior in cell used for disciplinary segregation was nrisoner by reason of delay or the denial ofresulting from mental illness are entitled toprohibited. care would be substantial." prompt and adequate psychiatric assistance. E. Physical conditionsLiving areas Newthan v. Alabama,503 F.2d 1320, Medical review of the placement decision 13.(5th Cir. 1974) cert. den. 421 U.S. 948 must follow promptly, and to the extent 1.Clothing/Bedding/Laundry (1975) Mental Illness and mental retarda- that appropriate medical care cannot be Pugh v. Locke,406 F. Supp. 318 tion arc the Most prevalent medical prob- promptly rendered at the institution, the_(M.D. Ala. 1976) aff'd 559 F.2d 283 (5th lems (10% of the IntreatMent). There are no state has the obligation to' provide such Cir. 1977), cert. den. 98 S. Ct. 3144 (1978) psychiatrists, social workers or counselors care through other facilities. Inmates are entitled to clean linen and tow- on the staff. For 2400 inmates, one part- Laaman v. Helgemoe,437 F. Supp. els weekly, and a bed off the floor. time clinical psychologist is employed. The 269 (D. N.H. 1977) Prison inmates are en- Mitchell v. Untreiner,421 F. Supp. huge majority of mentally disturbed pris- titled to reasonable psychiatric and/or psy-886 (N.D.-Fla. 1976) Inmates must be given oners receive no treatment. Such care is chological treatment when medically nec- clean blankets, sheets, pillows, pillowcases, comfitutionally inadequate. essary. The inmates here are being deniedtowels, and washcloths, within 8 hours of Williams v. Edwards,547 F.2d 1206 their right to medically necessary mental incarceration. Inmates should have avail-, (5th Cir. 1977) The unconstitutionally in- health care because the number of persol-able a daily change of clothes. adequate medical care system lacked a psy- nel is insufficient to treat known mental Campbell v. McGruder,416 F. Supp chiatric unit although an estimated 40% of health care needs or to permit diagnosis of 100 (D. D.C. 1975) Jail officials are to pro- tilt inmate:, would benefit from treatment. the needs of incoming inTates. The court vide clean clothing (including clean under- Inmates needing-tre-atinent were separately ordered defendants to determine throughwear), clean linen and clean towels to all confined, but under the superv.sam of cor- testing and interviews the actual mental residents at least once a week. rectional officers who have no medical health care needs of the prison population, Hamilton v. Landrieu,351 F. Supp. training. to hire a psychiatrist or Ph.D. psychologist 549 (E.D. La. 1972) Uniforms will be laun- Pugh v. Locke,406 F. Supp. 318 to head the mental health care unit, and to dered twice weekly and linen weekly. (M.D. Ala. 1976) aff'd 559 F.2d 283 (5th establish ongoing procedures to identify Rutherford v. Pitchess,457 F. Supp. Cir.,1970), cert. den. 98 S. Ct. 3144 (1978) prisoners in need of treatment. 104 (D.C. Cal. 19784 Where "overflow" Nothing has been done to alleviate the sit- Battle v. Anderson,376 F. Supp. 402 prisoners were required to sleep on mat- uation found inNewman .,. Alabama,503 (E.D. Okla. 1974) Although approxtmately tresses inside cells or on walkways in front F.2d 1320 (5th Cir. 1974) Nor are mentally one half of the average in-patient popula- of cells, the court ordered that the inmates retarded inmates placed in an appropriate tion is hospitalized for psychiatric reasons, be provided with beds. environment. Defendants were ordered to there is no professional psychiatric staff identify inmates requiring mental health available tc provide treatment on a regular2. Sanitation care and to make arrangements for provi- basis, 376 F. Supp. at 415. Plans for provid- Williams v. Edwards,547 F.2d 1206 sion of such -care, including arrangement ing constitutionally adequate care must in- (5th Cir. 1977) Lack of proper sanitation is for the transfer of inmates whose psycho- clude designation of a staff member respon-a constitutional violation. logical disturbance of mental retardation sible for insuring that adequate in-patient Palmigiano v. Garrahy,443 FStipp requires care in faciknes specifically designed psychiatric care is provided. 956 (D. R.I. 1977) Prison must employ a for such persons. Palmigiano v. Garrah',443 F. Supp.qualified sanitation or environmental health Finney v. Hutto,410 F. Supp. 251 956 (D. R.I. 19T') Psychiatric and psycho-officer. The court ordered compliance with (L.D. Ark. 1976) afl'd 437 U.S. 678 (1978) logical evaluations and treatment are in-the minimum standards of the U.S. Public Until very recently there has been no sys- adequate to meet the need; of the inmate Health Service, the American Public Health tematic mental health program for inmates. population. No clinical psychologist orAssociation, and theRhode Island Depart- the court approved establishment of a psychiatrist is employed Mental health fa- ment of Health, including regular removal transactional analysis ty oe group therapy cilities do not meet standards promulgatedof trash from common areas, a regular pro- program but sawtthat it could not take the by the Federal Bureau of Prisons and thegram of insect and rodent control, access place of regular psychiatrists or psycholo- American Correctional Association. TheTor each prisoner to household cleaning gists engaged in diagnosing and treating court ordered that information on eachimplerlents and supplies, sanitary food individual inmates by conventional methods inmate concerning any special needs aris-storage and preparation and employment of individual psychotherapy. The court or- ing from psychological disturbance or men-of a qualified sanitation or environmental dered the hiring on a full-time basis of one tal retardation be obtained in the classifi-health officer. or more psychiatrists or psychologists for cation process and required that defendants Holt v. Sarver,442 F.2d 304 (1971) the purposes indicated. with provision of hire an adequate number of mental healthJail required to have a supc", ivd daily adequate facilities for their work. professionals to diagnose, treat and careprogram of cleaning of cells, including Jackson v. Peele,22 Cr. L. 2445 (D. far prisoners with meTl-halth problems.mopping and scrubbing. D.C. 1978) Prisoner- natiehts are entitled to Establishment of a program for treatment Hamilton v.Schiro,338 F Supp the benefits of confinement in the least re- of drug abuse under the direction of a phy- 1016 (ED. La. 1970) Mattresses must be strictive alternative, thus a mental hospital sician was ordered. replaced on an annual basis. may not root.nely impose more restrictive Trigg v. Blanton,No. A-6047 (Dav- Ahrens v. Thomas,434 F. Supp. 873 conditions of confinement on prisoner-pa- idson Co. Tenn., Chancery Court, August(W.D. Mo. 1977) modified 570 F.2d 286 tients than it does on those patients who 23, 1978) Adequate psychological, psychi-(8th Cir. 1978) Jail must be cleaned on a were civilly committed. atric and counseling services are not pro-daily basis and necessary cleaning supplies Johnson v. Levine.450 F. Supp. 648 vided to inmates in need of such care Themust be furnished the inmates. Permitting (D. Md. 1978) aff'd 588 F .2d 1378 (4th Cir. court ordered defendants to provide ade-infestation of insects is an Eighth Amend- 1978) The court ordered the closing of spe- quate care, treatment and counseling forment violation. An adequate insect control cial confinement unit for inmates with psy- inmates who have mental health problems program 45 ordered implemented. _ehological-problems- because-conditions in Pugh v. Locke,406 F. Supp. 318 the unit in their totality did not meet consti- (M.D. Ala. 1976) aff'd 559 F.2d 283 (5th tutional standards. Cu. 1977) cert. den. 98 S. Ct. 3144 (1978) 83 Appendix B. Case law compendium77
The living conditions constitute cruel and3. Personal hygiene Burbank v. Thompson, No. 76 C. 4471 unusual punishment. "Specifically, lack of Preston v. Thompson, 589 F.2d 300 (N.D., Ill. May, 1978) Defendants agreed sanitation throughout the institutionsin (7th Cir. 1978) The court held that the Dis- to provide each inmate w ith a bed off of the living areas, infirmaries, and food service trict Court did not err when it ordered a floor, clean mattresses, linens, and blankets, presents an imminent danger to the health state correctional institution to provide two cleaning materials, toothbrush, toothpaste, of each and every inmate." The court or-showers per weep and a daily hour of rec- soap, towel, toilct paper, and comb, two dered that each inmate shall have access to reation in a cell block that had been in complete uniforms,an :::oportunity to shave household cleaning supplies, that sanitary deadlock following a riot situation. eyery other day and to shower at least once conditions meet minimum public health Rodriguez v. Jimenez, 409 F. Supp. d, week. Each inmate's clothes, bed linens, ,standards, anthat defendants be respon- 582 (E.D. P.R. 1976) aff'd 551 F.2d 877( 5th and towel must be laundered at least once a sible for implenienting a regular and effec- Cir. 1977) Inmates must be furnished with week, and each inmate's blanket once every tive program of insect and rodent control. toothbrush, soap, towel and comb. three months, or more often if necessary. Window and doors were required to be Ahrens v. Thomas, 434 F. Supp. 873 Stellate v. Department of Corrections, properly screened and otherwise properly (W.D. Mo. 1977) modified 570 F.2d 286 438 F. Supp. 1206 (T.D. Va. 1977) Failure maintained. (8th Cir. 1978) Each inmate must receive to provide inmates with a toothbrush and a Laaman v. Helgemoe, 437 F. Supp. soap, toothpaste, shaving equipment, and razor did not violate the Eighth Amend- 269 (D. N.H. 1977) The court ordered de- a mirror. ment. fendants to comply with New Hampshire Mitchell v. Untremer, 421 F. Supp. Burks v. Walsh, No. 77-4008 CV-C Department of Public Health standards and 885 (N.D. Fla. 1976) Indigent inmates must (W.D. Mo. Nov. 1978) The daily show ers to arrange regular inspections by the De- be furnished soap, toothbrush, toothpaste, and weekly laundry services w hich are avail- partment, not less than one every 6 months. and comb and must begtverraccess to shav- able to all inmates are adequate. The court required training of kitchen em- ing gear. ployees and medical examination of such Pugh v. Locke, 406 F. Supp. 318 4. Plumbing employees prior to assignment. Inmates (M.D. Ala. 1976) aff'd 559 F.2d 283 (5th Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 443 F. Supp. must be provided with appropriate sup- Cir. 1977), cert. den. 98 S. Ct. 3144 (1978) 956 (D. R.I. 1977) Lack of hot water in cells plies to keep their cells. Maintaining personal hygiene is an "insur- is condemned. Nelson v. Collins, 455 F. Supp. 727 mountable problem" where shower floors Pugh v. Locke, 406 F. Supp. 318 (D Md 1978) Insect and rodent infestation are unclean, toilets frequently do not work, (M.D. Ala. 1976) aff'd 559 F.2d 283 (5th cannot be entirely eliminated but the insti- there is no hot running water for substan- Cir. 1977) cert. den. 98 S. Ct. 3144 (1978), tution has taken-adequate precautions (pe- tial periods of time, mattresses are filthy, see also Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 443 F. Supp, riodic treatment) which have satisfactorily household cleaning supplies are rarely avail- 956(D. R.I. 1977) Court ordered one toilet lessened the incidence of such infestation able, and the state does not supply razors, per every 15 inmates, one shower per every Burbank v Thompson, No. 76 C. 4471 shaving cream, combs, shampoo, toothpaste 20 inma* es, one urinal or foot of urinal (N D111 , May, 1978) (Stateville Correction- or toothbruies. The court ordered defen- trough per every 15 inmates, and one lava- al Center, Joliet, Illinois ) Defendants agreed dants to provide the above items (as well as tory per every 10 inmates. Isolation cells to provide inmates with materials necessary soap and razor blades which were already must be equipped with a toilet that flushes to clean cells and toilets therein, to collect furnished), clean bed linens and towels each from inside and a sink with hot and cold accumulated paper and other refuse in the week, adequate clean clothing and a clean running water. cells, to institute a regular program of ver- mattress and blankets as needed (with a Trig v. Blanton, No. A-6047 (David- min extermination conducted by a profes- bed off the floor). = son Co. Tenn. Chancery Court, Aug. 1978) sional extermination service, and to extei- . Laaman v. Helgemoe, 437 F. Supp. Plumbing at several facilities was found minate roaches and other sermin as often as 269 (D. N.H. 1977) The court ordered that substandard Compliance with public health neer sary. inmates in isolation be allowed to bat he standards was ordered. Trigg v Blanton. No A-6047 (Dav- daily and be provided with a toilet that can Anderson v. Redman, 429 F. Supp. idson c- Tenn Chancery Court. August be flushed from inside, hot and cold run- 1105 (D. Del. 1977) One effect of overcrowd- 23, 1978) The court found Asanitary con- ning water, clean linen and blanket, a bed ing is to threaten the inmates' physical ditions which fall far`below minimum pub- and mattresses off the floor, and the samehealth. for example, because of the over - lic health standards The coup ordered that toilet articles as the general population. burdening of toilet facilities and of the sew- tub building be brought into compliance Anderson v. Redman, 429 F. Supp. age treatment plant. with the minimum standards of the U S. 1105 (D. Del. 1977) Among the conditions Burbank v. Thompson, No. 76 C. 4471 Public Health Serb ice and the American in the receiving unit cells found to violate (N.D. 111., May 1978) Defendants agreed to Public Health Association, as well as'Iocal the inmates' rights were filthy mattressesplace inmates only in cells with properly health ordinances and regulations. which were never sterilised. function.ng sinks and toilets. and to repair Burrasiano v Levi. 452 F Stipp 1061 Battle v. Anderson, 376 F. Supp. 402 malfunctioning plumbing as quickly as pos- Md 1978) A prisoner's complaints (E.D. Okla. 1974) The court condemned sible. ''Necessary to the accomplishment of about the lack of cleanliness and leaking isolation conditions making personal hy- the foregoing is a capital improvement ceilings in the prison dining facilities pre- giene impossible because of lack of neces- program designed to 'place all plumbing sents no cognizable claim for damages sary materials and/or inability to properly fixtures currently installed in the cells ... Evans vFogg, ;466 F Supp. 949 dispose of body waste and enjoined use of Battle v.,Anderson, 447 F. Supp 516 (D.C. N.Y 1979) A State prisoner's con- these cells. (E.D. Okla. 107). afl'd 564 F.2d 388 (;0th finement in a refuse-strewn cell for 24 hours Palmiginao v. Garrahy, 443 F. Supp. Cir. 1977) Water and sewage facilities must and in a flooded cell for 2 days did not 956 (D. R.I. 1977) Only cold water is avail-meet the requirements of state and federal amount to a deprivation of his rights (This able in cells, although minimum health law. Every cell must have a vs ashbuivl with Condition was as a result of the prisoner's standards require hot water. Every cell musthot and cold running water and a toilet own act,). have a working toilet and hot and cold Burrasiano v. Levi, 452 F Supp 1066 running water. Every inmate shall be pro-(D. Md. 1978) A prisoner's complaints vided with a dean clean bed lin-about the lack orcleahliaess and leaking ens, towels, and soap. ceilings in the prison dining facilities pre- sents no cognizable claim for damages. 84 78Correctional data analysis systems
Frazier v. Wilson, 450 1. Supp. 1 Ahrens v. Thomas, 434 F. Supp. 871 J.ingerous conditions in industrial shops, (E.D. Tenn. 1978) The prison superintend- (N,1,, D. Mu. 1977) modified 570 F.2d 286 and the court found that no safety signs ent's decision to cut off the water supply to (8th Cir. 1978) Health officials are to in- were posted and no safety instructions were the petitioner's cell for 6 hours was justified spect Jail regularly. given inmates working in the shops. by his threats to plug up the commode and Laaman v. Helgemoe, 437 F. Supp. Battle v. Anderson, 447 F. Supp. 516 flood the Jail. 469 (D. N.H. 1977) (New Hampshire State (E.D. Okla. 1974) and 457 F. Supp. 719 Prison) Entire facility to be maintained in (E.D. Okla. 1978) Serious fire hazards were 5. Lighting /heating /ventilation accordance with the standards of the New found with no plan or possi" Ality of putting Hampshire Department of Public Health out a major fire: wooden buildings, no fire Palmigiano v. Garrahy.443 F Supp and officials should arrange for inspection hydrants, water lines too small no supply 956 (D. Rd. 1977) Lighting found to be of entire facility, not less than once every the amount of water needed in case of a inadequate for reading safety. Minimum six months. , fire. The court ordered the remaining wood- standard required 30 foot-candles. Court Williams v. .VcKeithen, Docket No. en dormitories closed, the electrical systems noted that inadequate lighting increases 71-98 (M.D. La. 1975) (Unreported), Wil- to be in compliance with applicable state tension and fatigue among prisoners and harvs v. Edwards, 547 F.2d 1206 (5th Cir. regulations, and the closure of certain cell- guards. 19/7) The state shall submit a plan for the houses in about three years or, at earlier Court found that the present !Seating sys- regular and periodic inspection of all facili- dates if replacement funds had not been tem did not provide minimally adequate ties at Louisiana State Penitentiary by the appropriated and the ground breaking for heating. Court stated that the minimum State Fire Marshal and the State Depart- construction had not occurred by those would be 65 degrees. ment of Health. dates. ahem v. Malcolm, 371 F. Supp: 594 Gates v. Collier, 349 F. Supp. 881, Trigg v. Blanton, No. A-6074 (Dav- (S.D. N.Y. 1974) affd 507 F.2d 333 (Man- (1972) afrd 501 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1974) idsonCo. Tenn. Chancery Court, Aug. hattan House of Detention) Court found Electrical wiring ,n most units is in a bad 1978) Among the most serious of the envi- that extremes of noise (at least that of NeW state of repair and adequate fire fighting ronmental hazards which violate the in- York subway system) and heat and inade- equipment is lacking. mates' rights are those involving fire safety: quacy of ventilation and inability to see thq absence of fire evacuation procedures in outside world unnecessarily burdened the 7. Fire safety some facilities; lack of staff awareness of health of prisoners. Williams v. Edwards, 547 F .2d 1206 such procedures throughout the system; Gates v. Collier, 349 F Stipp 881 (5th Cir 1975) Among the totality of cm- calls which must be unlocked individually (1972) afrd 501 F 2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1974) cuinstanees which violate the 8th Amend- in emergencies; us,: of polyurethane mat- Heating facilities are inadequate to heat the ment were fire and safety hazards, which tresses. Defendants ordered to comply with ii.`labited areas Broken windows are stuffed presentan "Immediate threat to the life and building and safety ordinances and regula- with rags to keep out the cold, wind and safety' of both inmates and staff. tions. rain. Pugh v. Locke, 406 ,F. Supp. 318 Nelson v. Collins, 455 F. Supp. 727 Pugh v. Locke 406 F. Supp. 318 (M.D. Ala. 19.76) afrd 559 F.2d 283 (5th (D. Md. 1978) Plans.. for fire and other (M D Ala. 1976) afrd 559 F.2d 283 (5th Cir. 1977) cert. den. 98 S. Ct. 3144 (1978) emergencies have been developed. Thef. os- Cir. 19771 cert. den. 98 S Ct. 3144 (1978) The electrical systems are totally inade- sible failure to fully inform low-level, er- nmate living quarters are 'nadequately quate, and exposed wiring poses a constant sonntl of these plans should be rectified: heated and ventilated. Insufficient lighting danger to the inmates. The danger posed by polyurethane mattresses results in eye strain and fatigue The court Laaman v. Helgemoe, 437 F. Supp. has been recognized and they are being required: all institutions to be adequately 269 (15.N.I.I. 1977) InvioIate conditions in- replaced. \ heated, lighted and ventilated. volved a partially combustible physical Bank v. Anderson, 447 F. Supp. 516 plant, inadequate Fire protections, lack ofF. Food services (E.D Okla. 1977)The Constitution requires an emergency evacuation plan, lack of a 1. Menu, food preparation and diet an environment With adequate ventilation master locking system, and possession by and lighting the court cited the American L.aaman v. Helgemoe, 437 F. Supp. inmates of lighter fluid. Other deficiencies269 (D. N.H. 1977) Prison must employ a Public Health Associati m standards. 60 cited were inadequate emergency exits, cubic feet of air per man per minute and 30 dietician to supervise the preparation of placement of extinguishers in locked areas, menu and meals. Also, food service per- foot-candles. mu- muin cell contents in- storage of flammable. materials in areas clude a surface for writing. sonnelMiust be medically examined prior without smoke detectors, and lack of staffto such Job assignment. Laaman v. Helgemog, 437 F. Stipp. training in emergency evacuation procedures. 269 (D. N.H. 1977) Inadequate heating, Mitchell v. Untremer, 421 F. Supp. .111e court ordered the defendants to devel-886 (N.D. Fla. 1976) A trained dietician lighting und ventilation found in various op a plan to correct this situation. housing units. Use of certain cells with no must regularly review food menus, prepa- Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 443 F. Supp. ration and service. lighting or ventilation and extreme temper- 956 (D.R.1. 1977) Leaking pipes in' areas ature ../7 nations prohibited. Pugh v.1 406 F. Supp. 318 (M. housirfg electrical wiring present a serious D. Ala. 1976) affd 559 F.2d 283 (5th 1977), rash of electrical fires. Other fire hazards cert. den. 98 S. Ct. 3144 (1978) Three whole- 6. Standards and inspections include polyurethane mattresses, inmates' some and nutritionally adequate and prop- Pabnigiano v. Garrahy, 443 F Supp use of pape'r insulation against cold drafts, erly prepared meats must be served pris- 956 (D. R.I. 1977) Prison officials rust overused and inadequmely ventilated wash- oners each day togeWer with proper eating comply with the min.nium standards of the ers and dryers and exposed electrical wir- and drinking utensils. This must be done U.S. Public Health Scr. Ice and the Rhode ing Inmates are housed in upper tiers with under the supervision of a food service Island Department of Health as they relate only a single means of egress. in violation manager at each institution with at least a to food service, sanitation, lighting, plumb- of all acceptable fire safety requirements B.A. in dietetics or the equivalent. Also, ing, and rodent control. The "ours ordered that each inmate be pro- required one registered dietician. Alberti v. Sheriff of Iltbris County, vit:-(1 with a mattress meeting federal fire Smith v. Sullivan, 553 F.2d 373, 379 Texas, 406 F. Supp. 649 (1975) Jail facilities safety standards, There was evidence of (5th Cir. 1977) (El Paso County Jail) Court must be inspected monthly by county he.siih ordered diet of "at least one fresh green inspector. :1$
Appendix B. Case law compendium 79
vegetable, one fresh yellow 1, cgetable and delays and a decline in the quality of the psychological examinations are rarely pro- one serving of meat or protein-provided reports relied on. The court based its deci- vided; no plan is developed for each inmate meat substitute" was too restrictive. -A sion on state law withola implying it found and no intelligent overall plan :s possible well-balanced meal containing sufficient no federal constitutional violation. Defen- inmates are overclassified because of lack nutritional value to preserve health, is all dants were ordered to implement the statu- of space, and victims and preddtors are not that is required.? tory classification system even though the separated, except by the crude method of Pugh v. Locke, 406 F. Supp. 318 result will be a reduction in population ca- volurtary protective custody. Defendants (M.D. Ala. 1976) afTd 559 F.2d 283 (5th pacity. were ordered to reclassify allinmates, using 1977) cert. den. 98 S. Ct. 3144 (1978) Each Campbell v. McG ruder , 416 F. Supp. personal interviews and other pertinent in- inmate who requires a special diet for rea- 100 (D. D.C. 1975) modified 580 F.2d 521 formation and to assign each inmate to sons of health or religion shall be provided(D.C. Cir. 1978) Officials must establish suitable housing and programs, with annu- a diet to meet his individual needs. classification system which will make it al review of his classification Classification Landman v. Royster. 333 F. Supp. possible to determine which inmates require of inmates is essential to the operation of 621.(E.D. Va. 1971) A bread and water diet maximum security confinement. an orderly and safe prison; it is a prerequi- is inconsistent with minimum standards of Gates v. Collier, 349 F. Supp, 881 site for the rational allocation of whatever respect for human dignity and violates the (1972) A racially nondiscriminatory classi- programs opportunities exist within the fa- 8th Amendment. , fication system conforming generally to/cility. ,Barnes v. Virgin Islands, 415 F. Supp. with classification standard- of the Ameri- Pugh v. Locke, 406 F. Supp. 318 1218 (D.V.I. 1976) The institution is or- can Correctional Association must be es-(M.D. Ala. 1976) aff,'d 559 F.2d 283 (5th dered to provide an adequate diet meeting tablished. . 1977) cert. den. 98 S. Ct. 3144 (1978) The all known medical and religious needs. Gates v. &Bier, 349 F. Supp, 881 classification system must be able to ascer- (N.D. Miss. 1972), aff' d, 501 F.2d 1291 (5th tain the physical and mental health require- 2. Standardand inspections Cir. 1974) The court ordered establishment ments of each inmate; aged. infirm and Holt v. Sarver, 442 F.2d 304 (1971) of a program for the classification and as- psychologically disturbed or mentally re- Kitchen equipment, food storage and sani- signment of all inmates, conforming gener- tarded inmates who require transfer to a tation should meet minimum standards forally to American Correctional Association more appropriate facility or require special restaurants. Personnel working in kitchen standards. The Court of Appeals affirmed, treatment; those for whom transfer to a should meet restaurant help requirements. noting the state's duty to provide protec- pre-release, work release or other commu- Laaman v. Helgemoe, 437 F. Supp. tion against assaults and its failure to clas- nity based program would be appropriate. 269(D.N.H. 1977) Kitchen staff must meet sify inmates according to the severity of The classification system falls to segregate applicable public health standards. their offense. the violent from their victims and to sepa- Mitchell v. Untreiner, 421 F Supp. Fitzgerald ocunierv. Pr, , 393 F. Supp. rate the physically or mentally ill from the 886 (N.D. Fla. 1976) No person can han-3s5 (N.D. Cal. 1975) Written 'record of general population. The court ordered im- dle food unless they have been medically classification decisions with full explanations plementation of a classification system which screened. of reasons therefore is required. gives due consideration to the inmate's age, Campbell v. McGruder, 416 F. Supp. Cardaropoh v. Norton, 523 F.2d 990 offense, prior record, health care require- 100 (D. D.C. 1975) modified 580 1.2d 521 (2d. Cir. '975) Classifying as "special of- ments and rehabilitation needs, provides (D.C. Cir. 1978) Medical exanunat.ons must fender" is grievous loss requiring due pro- methods of identifying the specially disabled, be provided for all food Lindle, inmate cess consisting of. (1),10 day notice including and includes an annual review of each in- and civilian, at least once :very 30 days and tactual basis for decision, (2) reasonable mate's classification. Only minimum cus- tody inmates may be assigned to dormi- ,/ more often if medically required. opportunity to respond, (3) written deci- Williams v, McKeithen, 547 F.2dsion and right to employ counsel i.1 com- tories. Classification of all prisoners must 1206 (5th Cir. 1977) Regular inspection of plex cases. be reviewed annually kitchen and food service by public health Jordan v. Keve, 387 F. Supp. 765 (D. Burbank v. Thompson, No. 76 C. 4471 authorities required. Del. 1974) Classification decisions to be (N.D. Ill., May 1978) Reclassification of Mitchell v. Untreiner, 421 F. Supp. made by an objective body. Some due. pro- all inmates was ordered, with consideration 886 (N.D. Fla. 1976) Monthly inspections cess required, of the factors specified in Pugh v. Locke, by county health department required. Laaman v. Helgemoe, 437 F. Supp. .supra, and annual reviews of each inmate's 469 (D.N.H.1974)) The classification sys-'-classification. G. Inmate safety tem is inadequate as writte% and its proce; Trigg v. Blanton, No. A-6047 (DaV- 1. General dures are not carried out in practice. Little idson County, Tenn. Aug. 1978) The classi- Gates v. Colter. 349 F Supp. 831 data is actually used (incomplete records, fication process does not comply with stat- (1972) alTd 501 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1914) cursory interviews). There are no procedures utdry requirements. It is understaffed, and Failing to provide adequate protection to to ensure the system's reliability. Neither the staff lacks sufficient training and com- inmates against physical, assaults, abuses, custody nor treatment status has any effect petency. The process fails to identify im- indignities and -ruelties of other inmates on housing, job or program assignments. portant individual needs for medical and constituted crael and unusual punishment. Adequate classification is needed for offi- psychclogicar treatment There are no re- ....2 cials to fulfill their duty to diagnose and view procedures. Housing assignments are ..... 2. Classification treat inmates' medical and psychological made on the basis of available space, and Jones v. Diamond, 594 F.2d 997 (5th needs and to protect them from assaults. predators' and victims are not separated. Cir. 1979) Although there is no constitu- The court ordered .stablishnient of a clas- The court ordered defendants to reclassify tional right to classification, when failure .sification system similar to that ordered in all prisoners in a process "designed to pro- to control or separate dangerous prisonersPugh v. Locke, supra, with, in addition, six vide meaningful choices pertaining to ap- causes injury to other inmates, the federal months reviews of classification status, ra- propriate facilities, treatment, programs, courts may order the ,development of ational objective criteria for program assign- security and treatment . . . classification system.. milts, hiring of an outside expert to assist Trigg v. Blanton, No. A-6047 (Dav- Anderson v. Redman, 429 F. Supp. in its planning and implementation. idson County, Tenn. Aug 1978) (Tennessee 1105 (D. Del. 1977) The classification pro- Polmigiano v. Garrahy, 443 F Supp. Prison System) The classification system gram has broken down and is in violation956 (D. R.I. )977) Classification is essen- must enable the Department of Correction of state law. Overcrowding has resulted intial. However, no written procedures exist, to separate the puteniially violent from the .86 80Correctional data analysis systems
weaker prisoners and to identify the medi 3. Staffing Turk v. Nevada State Prison, 575 cal, educational and treatment needs of th Forts v. Ward, 22 Cr. L. 2338 (2ndP.2d 599 (Nev. 1978) The failure of a cor- prisoners entering the system. Cir. 1977) An evidentiary hearing should.rectional officer to search work-release pris- Brooks v. Wainwright, 439 F. Supp. have proceeded district court's injunctiononers, upon their re-entrance to prison, 1335 (M.D. Fla. 1977) A prison inmate is prohibiting New York prison officials fromcoupled with additional deviations from not deprived of due process by virtue of assigning male correctional officere to cer-duty, was sufficient to justifiably compel changes in his custodial classification al- tain areas within a women's prison. his termination from employment. legedly made because he advocated the Williams v. Edwards, 547 F.2d 1206 Chapman v. Rhodes, 434 F. Supp. formation of a prisoners' union. (5th Cir. 1977) "The number of guards nec-1007 (S.D. Ohio.197.7)An inmate-to-guard Cypola v. United States Attorney essary to assure a constitutional level ofratio of seven-to-one is acceptable. General, 455 F. Supp. IND.C. Conn. 1977) inmate safety must bear some reasonable A prisoner successfully challenged his clas- relationship to the total number of inmates." 4. Shakedowns sification as a Central Monitoring Case be- The evidence for the proper staff-inmate Williams v. McKeithen, 547 F.2d cause he was not given proper notice or ratio may be provided by examining the1206 (5th Cir. 1977) Court required shake- allowed to know or contest the reasonskinds of facilities, their capabilities anddowns of all inmates and all living and behind his classification status at the time purposes, and the number of guards requiredworking areas at leas: daily. of the decision. for security in each, or by reference to ra- Hamilton v. Landrieu, 351 F. Supp. Dolph v. Crisp, 446 F. Supp. 1179 tios at other institutions where the level549 (E.D. La. 1972) The quality and quan- (E,D. Okla. 1978) Although the plaintiff's of prison violence is acceptable or by learnedtity of shakedowns/searches of inmates and freedom of movement was more restricted studies. The court upheld the order requir-their quarters and examinationof the phys- by his reclassifiction to "medium secunty" ing the presence of two guards in openical plant both interior and exterior must from "trusty" status, the reclassification dormitories at all times. be increased. did not constitute a "grievous,loss" suffi- Smith v. Sullivan, 553 F.2d 373 (5th Pugh v. Locke, 406 F. Stipp. 318 cient enough to invoke due process protec- Cir. 1977) Jail guard must visit each in-(M.D. Ala. 1976) aff'd 559 F.2d 281(5th tions. mate-occupied area once an hour and one1977), cert. den. 98 S. Ct. 3144 (1978) Fre- Mickens v. Winston, 462 F. Supp. guard must be present on each floor at allquent shakedowns and frisks of inmates 910 (D.C. Va. 1978) Racial segreg ?tion is times. and enforcement of prison rules designed unconstitutional within prisons, save for Williams v. McKeithen, 547 F.2d 1206to reduce violence required to end "jungle the necessities of prison security and disci- (5th Cir. 1977) Court ordered a minimumatmosphere." pline. of 950 correctional officers for prison of Minns v. Shapp, 457 F. Supp. 247 3,900. Two guards are required in dorms at5. Communications (D.C. Pa. 1978) State prison officials should all times as a means of controlling homo- Williams v. McKeithen, 547 F.2d 1206 assess the security risk of each inmate on sexuality and weapons possession by(5th Cir. 1977) Adequate communications objective (measurable) factors. inmates. equipment for each correctional officer so Polizzi v. Sigler, 564 F.2d 792 (8th Ahrens v. Thomas, 434 F. Supp. 872that they have an immediate way to com- Cir. 1977) The classification of prisoners as (W.D. Mo. 1977) modified 5I0 F.2d 286municate with and seek a, iistance from "special offenders" upon their entrance (8th 1978) There must be adequate staff toother correctional officers in tile event of an the federal prison system constitutes an protect against assaults of all types by in-eme-gency was ordered. infringement upon their liberty interests, mates. O'Bryan v. County of Saginaw, Mich,. thereby requiring some form of procedural Alberti v. Shefiff of Harris Co.. 406437 F. Supp. 582 (1977) An effective method protection. F. Supp. 649 (1975) One guard fAr every 30for inmates to summon guards was required Williams v. Stacy,468 F. Supp. 1206 inmates is inadequate. Court suggested that to be devised and implemented. (D.0 Va. 1979) A prisoner contested his one for every 20 inmates might be adequate. People v. Estrada, 155 Cal. Rptr. 731 hearing before the institution classification Holt v. Sarver, 442 F.2d 304 (1971)(Cal. App. 1979) Incarcerated persons have committee after he circulated a petition At least two guards must be on duty on no reasonable expectation of privacy with which referred to prison guards as "Nazis"each floorat least one of whom must atrespect to their conversations. Jailhouse and "maniacs" and warned that the situa- all times be on patrol of the cellblocks. monitoring is related to a prison objective tion could develop into "another "-Mica." Gates v. Collier, 349 F. Supp. 881of institutional security but is not limited to tThe court held that the potential to create (1972) aff'd 501F.2d 1291.(5th Cir. 1974)that. serious security problems justified the ac- Trustee system allowed inmates to tion of holding the hearing and it did notexercise tfAchecked authority over other6. Assaults by other inmates abridge the prisoner's rights. inmates was patently unconstitutional. Dunn v Jenkins, 377 N.E.2d 868 (Ind. Gates v. Collier, 349 F. Supp. 881 Hamilton v. Landrieu, 351 F. Supp.(N.D. Miss. 1972) affd, 501 F.2d 1291 (5th 1978) The classification of inmates into 549 (E.D. La. 1972) At least one gua'rd groups according to behavior which occurred Cir. 1974) Defendants have subjected in- must patrol each floor in the immediatemates to cruel and unusual punishment by prior to the passage of a new good-time area of every person detained on a 24-hour credit law was not violative of the constitu- not providing adequate protection against basis. assaults, through- failure to classify them tional prescriptions against ex post facto Hamilton v. Love, 328 F. Supp. 1182 laws. and segregate the violent from the nonvio- (E.D. Ark. 1971) (Little Rock Jail) Jail per-lent and by use without supervision of in- Ramirez v Ward, 408 N. Y.S.2d 833 sonnel must work no more than an eight- (N. Y.A.D. 1978) The Department of Cor- competent and untrained inmate "trusties" hour shift. to guard other inmates. Defendants were rections has the power to determine the Rhem v. Malcolm, 507 F.2d 333 (1974) proper correctional facility for the inmate. ordered to adopt procedur:s designed to Where deprivation of rights to be free ofcontrol and elinilnate pos:ession of wea- ' A classification of an inmate as a Central mistreatment by custodians flows from in- Monitoring Case does not bar the inmate pons by inmates, to isolate violeilt prison- adequacy of staffing the shortage must beers, to relieve trusties of custodial duties from being eligible for temporary release remedied; the alternative is the release of programs or transfer to a medium or low and assign civilian guards to replace them, those held in custody. and to establish a classification system con- security institution. The prisoner does have a right to respond and object to the classifi- forming generally to American Correctional cation, and appeal the dectgion. Association standards. E3)P.1 I" Appendix B. Case. law compendium-81
Williams v Edwards, 547 F.2d 1206 may be necessary to effectuate the right to aofficials took proper steps to protect his (5th Cir. 1977) The totality of conditions reasonably safe environment. The court safety. violated the Eighth Amendment. There ordered defendants to makc reasonable ef- State v. Reese, 272 N.W.2d 863 (Iowa were to few guards to protect Inmates from forts, including classification, housing and 1978) There is a defense of necessity for an one anotner through supervision or wea- monitoring, to segregate prisoners who en-escape from a prison. It is available if a pons confiscation. Easy inmate access to gage in violence. prisoner is faced with specific threat of unsupervised machinery contributed to wide- Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 443 F. Supp.death, forcible sexual attack, cis substantial spread possession of weapons. 956 (D. R.I. 1977) The unconstitutionalbodily injury in the immediate future. It is a "The number of guards necessary to assure level of violence results from lack of ade- necessity that there was no time for com- a constitutional level of inmate safety must quate classification, the facility's physical plaint to the authorities or the courts or bear some reasonable relationship to the layout (blind, unguardable corners), an in- there exists a history of futile complaints. total number of Inmates." The evidence for adequate number of guards, the idleness ofThere ,oust be no threat of force or violence the proper staff inmate ratio may be pro- the inmates, and untreated drug addiction toward prison personnel or other Innocent vided by examining the kinds of facilities, among the prisoners. Defendants were or- persons in the escape. The escapee must Im- their capacities and purposes, and the num- dered to reclassify all prisoners, to assign mediately report to proper authorities w hen ber of guards required for security in each, each prisoner to housing and programshe has attained safety from the immediate or by reference to ratios at other institu- suitable to his security and other classifica- threat. tions where the level of prison violence is tion, to provide protective custody prison- Prison officials must take reasonable pre- acceptable or by learned studies. The court . ers programs - equivalent to those ordered cautions in order to provide a safe con- upheld the order requiring the presence of to be provided other prisoners, and to es- finement environment for prisoners. A pris- two guards in open dormitories at all times. tablish programs for the treatment of drug oner should be safe from gang rapes and Finney v. Arkansas Board of Correc- abuse under the direction of a physician. beatings, and from intentional placement tions, 505 F.2d 194 (8th Cir. 1974) aft' d 437 Pugh v. Locke, 406 F. Supp. 318 in situations where an assault of one type or U.S. 678(1978) The entire trusty system (M.D. Ala. 1976) aff'd 559 F.2d 283 (5th another is likely to occur. must be dismantled. On remand the district 1977) cert. den. 98 S. Ct. 3144 (1978) Rob- Trigg v. Blanton, No. A,-6047 (Dav- court found that the prison is not unconsti- bery, rape, extortion, theft, and assault are idson Co., Tenn. Aug. 1978) The level of tutionally unsafe. The state is not an Insur- everyday occurrences among the general violence is excessive and results from an er of the inmate's safety, but must use inmate population so that some Inmates Inadequate classification system with fail- ordinary care to protect them, which It is prefer the inhuman conditions of prison ure to separate various types of prisoners, doing here, the court found. isolation cells. widespread idleness resulting from the ab- Doe v. Lally,467 F. Supp. 1339 (D.C. The court ordered defendants: to make sence of adequate jobs and progratns, over Md 1979) Since prison officials were un- reasonable efforts, Including classificationcrowded and poorly maintained buildings, doubtedly aware of homosexual activities and monitoring, tosegregate violent Inmates, an ineffective locking system, the layout of in prison and still allowed prisoners to move to assign only minimum custody inmates to the physical structure which makes adequate about within the institution freely, this dormitories; to establish regular procedures, surveillance and intervention impossible, bordered on gross neglect. Under these including frequent shakedowns and frisks inadequately trained guards, and use of conditions, if a prisoner is raped, officials of inmates returning from outside, to re- multi-occupancy housing. the prevalence may be denied immunity from a victim's duce inmate weapon possession, to enforce of violence is evidenced by the number of civil rights action. regulations designed to prevent violence; to inmates in voluntary protective custody and People v. Fellman, 4054N.Y.S.2d 210 station guards inside living areas at all times, the acknowledged failure of most inmate (N Y Sup 1978) The possibility that ho- with the exception of isolation cells, where victims to report Incidents of violence. mosexual defendants might be subjected to a guard must at all times have'visual and The court ordered that all dormitories, physical and sexual abuse in prison does voice contact with residents, to cease using multiple occupancy cells and shower facili- not prohibit their incareration prisoners to guard or exercise authority over ties used by more than one prisoner at a Holt v. Sarver, 300 F. Supp. 825 uther prisoners; and to keep accurate rec- time be under continuous surveillance and (E.D. Ark. 1969) and 309 F. Supp. 362 ords of incidents of violence. that within a year only minimum security (E D. Ark. 1970) affd 442 F.2d 304 (8th Nelson v. Collins, 455 F. Supp. 727 prisoners be housed in other than single Cir. 1971) If inmates are confined in open (D. Md. 1978) The incidence of assaults is occupancy cells. barracks, the state has a constitutional du- greater as a result of double ceiling. ty to provide guards The use of inmate Burbank v. Thompson, No. 76 C. 4471 7. Unreasonable force/Guard brutality "trusties" must be limited and under su- (N.D. Ill., May 1978) Reasonable security Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1;91 (5th pervision and eventually phased out. from physical attacks must be provided. Cir. 1974) Instances of physical brutality in Report, that prisoners are frequently as- Schaal v. Rowe, 460 F. Supp. 155the record include administering milk of saulted and raped and that no adequate (D.C. Ill. 1978) Prisoners are entitled tomagnesia_as_punishment, .turning the ran means exist to protect inmates from assaults protection from assaults from other prison- on inmates while naked and wet, handcuf- clearly confirm the district court's findings ers. Even if a prison official is negligent infing inmates to the fence for long periods of of Eighth Amendment violations. preventing an act of violence of one inmate time, and shooting at and around inmates. Johnson v. Levine, 450 F. Supp. 648 toward another, it is not necessarily a fail- Holt v. Hutto, 363 F. Supp. 194 (E.D. , (D Md. 1978) MN 588 F.2d 1378 (4th ure to protect inmate's rights. Instead, anArk. 1973), modified, 505 F.2d 194 (8th 1978) An ncrease in the number of violent Inmate must show a definite failure to pro- Cir. 1974) Force is properly used by prison incidents was attributed by the court to vide for security to that particular inmate.personnel in self defense, in breaking up overcrowding. Double ceiling increases the An isolated incident is not usually enough fights between inmates, in compelling obe- risk of sexual assaults, and its elimination proof to succeed in this claim. dience to lawful orders wliere milder mea- will improve security. State v. Sparks. 255 S.E.2d 373 (N.C. sures fail, in protecting state property, and Laaman v. Helgemoe, 437 F. Supp. 1979) A defendant in a first degree murderin preventing escapes and recapturing es- 269 (D. N.H. 1977) The percentage of in- prosecution moved for assurance of pro- capees. In general, the degree of force used mates in involuntary protective custody is tection from abuse and injury after he had has been in reasonable proportion to the three times greater than the average m oth- been assaulted and stabbed by other prisonviolence displayed b, the inmates involved, er institutions and is indicative of uncon- inmates Evidence showed that he was not although time have been instances of use trolled v lolence.,Classification procedures subject to any official harassment and that of unnecessary force on recaptured escap- 88 '82Correctional data analysts systems
ees who no longer preened any danger to Jones v. Wittenberg, see also, Barnes afforded an opportunity to work at a useful their captors Since all incidents imulving v. Government oft 4.-gin Islands, 415 F. Supp. job. No prisoner shall be idle or in a status use of force by guards du not result in 1218 (DNA. 1976) Psychological exams whereby lie has to wan longer than 14 days disciplinary proceedings against the inmate, designed to disclose gross defects which for a job assignment. the court recommended that all such inci- would interfere with proper functioning as Barnes v. Government of Virgin Is-. dents he investigated immediately after their jailor required. lands, 415 F. Supp. 1218 (D. V.11976) occurrence and that the investigation in- Taylor v. Perin:, 413 F. Supp. 189 "Each inmate shall be assigned a meaning- clude the inmate's version of the event. (N.D. Ohio) (Marion Correctional Institute) ful job based on his abilities and Intel ests, Battle v Anderson, 376 F Supp 402 All candidates for staff positions to receive and according to institutional needs". (E D Okla 1974) Use of chemical mace psychological exams designed to disclose Gray v. Levine, 455 F. Supp. 267 and tear gas as a punitive measure ratherany propensity for racism, sadism, or bru- (D.C. Md. 1978) Prison officials who or- than as aluntrt>1 del, ice violates the Eighth tality and to assist in selecting candidates dered a general lockup as a security mea- Amendment Such chemical agents may most likely to have a help' client-service sure during a work stoppage strike, did not only be used to prevent escapes and riots orientation. violate prisoners' rights because they did and where there is actual and imminent Holt v. Sarver, 442 F.2d 304 (1971; not confine inmates who expressed a will- threat of health or bodily harm: reasonable Completion of a programmed instruction ingness to work precautions to minimize injuries must be course prepared by the U.S. Bureau of Pris- Haworth v. State, 592 P.2d 820 (Ha- undertaken. ons for jail officers and administrators re- waii 1979) Due to the special relationship Fowler v. Vincent, 452 F. Supp. 449 quired for employment. between a state and a prisoner, the State is (D.C.N. Y. 1978) A suit by a prison inmate under a duty to take reasonable care in against a guard held that the guard's as- B. Training protecting the prisoner from physical harm sault on the prisoner was unprovoked and Miller v. Carson, 401 F. Supp. 835 which results from his own negligence in unnecessary to maintain order. (M.D. Fla. 197)) aff'd 563 F(.2d 741 (5th the course of his work duties. -Hernandez v. Lail:more, 454 F. Supp. Cir. 1977) Officials must devise a complete Trigg v. Blanton, N,o. A-6047 (Da-, 763 (D C. N.Y. 1978) An alleged assault training program. vidson County, Tenn. Aug. 1978)The forced upon a prisoner by a federal prison officer Pugh v. Locke, 406 F. Supp. 318 idleness by plaintiff's failure to provide an could be brought to trial under the Federal (M.D. Ala. 1976) afrd 559 F.2d 283 (5th adequate amount of constructive activity Tort. Claims Act. Cir. 1977) cert. den-98 S. Ct. 3144 (1978) unconstitutionally contributes to the cum- Lamb vHutto, 467 1. Supp. 562 Appropriate and effective .raining programs ulative impact of the totality of the condi- (D C.E.D. Va. 1979) Verbal assaults and shall be provided all staff members employed tions of confinement. threats made by prison officials to a prison- within the Alabama penal system. er do not give rise to a constitutional viola- Goldsby v. Carnes, 429 F. Supp. 370 B. Exercise tion. (W.D. Mo. 1977) All staff must receive an- Sinclair v. Henderson. 331 F. Supp. .11eCargo v. Mister, 462 F. Supp. 813 nually 40 hours of training including courses 1123 ,1131, (E.D. La. 1971) (Louisiana (D C Md. 1978)The use of chemical agents in psychology. State Penitentiary) "Confinement for long such as tear gas and mace should be strictly periods of time without opportunity for limited to circumstances preser the XV. Work, idleness and regular outdoor exercise dctes, as a matter utmost degree of danger and loss. con- exercise _of law, consittute cruel and unusual pun- trol. 0. ishment .." Spain v.'Procunter, 408 F. Supp. 5114 A" Work and idleness Ahrens v. Thomas, 434 F. Supp. 873 (N D Cal 1976) Use of tear gas and chemi- Newman v. Alabama, 559 F.2d 283 (W.B. Mo. 1977) modified 570 F.2d 286 cal agents against individual prisoner' (5th Cir. 1977) modified 438 U.S. 781 (1978) (8th Cir. 1978) Total lack of outdoor rec- their cells is dnjustified and unconstitutional There is no constt'utional requirement that reation and exercise facilities and programs absent a clear and present danger of riotous prisoners be assigned meaningful jobs based is unconstitutional. proportions. on skill and interest. Taylor v. Sterrett, 532 F.2d 462 (1972) Drake v A trhart. 245S E.2c1853 ( W. Byeol v. Nelson, 579 F.2d 423 (7th An outdoor areas for exercise and a "reha- Va 1978) Handcul,.ng the defendant to cell Cir. 1978) A jail may validly require a pre- bilitative program of recreation" required. bars was riot unwarranted since he had de- trial detainee to perform general housekeep- Rhein v. Malcolm, 507 F.2d 333 (1974) stroyed jail property and was generally ing duties up to two hours per day. The 50 minute per week opportunity for disruptive. Durso v. Rowe, 579 F.2d 1365 (7th exercise did not Facet constitutional stan- Cir. 1978) The removal from a work release dards; difficulty of providing space for exer- XIV. Hiring and training program without prior notice or hearing iscise in urban institution was unacceptable of staff a violation of a prisoner's rights. as justification for the deprivation imposed Garland v. Polley, 594 F.2d 1220 (8th on the inmates. A. Hiring Cir. 1979) It is permissible to refuse to al- Alberti v. Sheriff of Hams Co., 406 Pugh v. Locke. 406 F. Supp. 318 low inmates to join with others in a busi- Supp. 649 (1975) Inmates are entitled to (M.D. Ala. 1976) aff'd 559 F.2d 285 (5th ness while incarcerated. one hour outdoors, three times a week. Cir., 1977) Cert. den. 98 S. Ct. 3144 (1978) Pugh v. Locke. 406 F. Supp. 318 0' Bryan v. County of Saginaw Mich., Affirmative hiring program needed to re-,(M.D. Ala. 1976) aff'd 559 F.2d 285 (5th 437 F Su pp 582 (E.D. Mich 1977) Combi- duce the racial and cultural disparity be- 1977) cert. den. 98 S. Ct. 3144 (1978) Each nation of calisthenics one-half hour per day tween the staff and the inmate population. inmate shall be assigned to a meaningful with opportunity for more extensive outdoor Miller v. Carson, 401 F. Sum 835 job and have the opportunity to participate exercise when weather permits would be (M.D. Fla. 1975) (.Jacksonville. ..,..) a frd in basic educational prograths and voca- constitutional. 563 F.2d 741 (5th Cir 1977) Officials must tional training programs designed to teach Mitchell v Untreiher, 421 F. Supp. devise psychological tests to determine tnarketatile skills. 886 also see, Campbell v. McGruder, 416 F. whether employee is suitable for employ- Laaman v. Helgemoe, 437 F. Supp. Supp. 100 (D. 1) C. 1975) modified 580 ment in detention facility. 269 (D. N.H. 1977) Every prisoner shall be F.2d 521 (D C. Cir. 1978) Pretrial detainees have the same right to daily exercise as is
89 Appendix B. Case law compendium 83
afforded convicted inmates; At least one Adams v. Mathis, 458 E. Supp. 302 member of society. However, there is grow- hour of outdoor recreation daily. (D.C. Ala. 1978) Pretrial and posttrial de- ing recognition of the inmate's right not to Barnes v.. Government of Virgin Is- tainees must be provided with adequate be incarcerated in conditions which are . lands, 415 F. Supp.1'2,18 (D. V.I. 1976) One outdoor recreation. counter-productive to rehabilitation and in- hour per day of outdoor exercise required. Bono v. Saxbe, 462 F. Supp. 146crease the probablity of recidivism. This Stewart v. Gates, 450 F. Supp. 583 (D.C. III. 1978) Exercise in groups of four right not to be confined in conditions which (C.D. Ca. 1978) Allowance to general pop- was not necessary for persons confined in a cause degeneration is one of degree, and ulation of jail of two hours and twenty control unit at a federal penitentiary. Lim- the extent of the state's affirmative duty to minutes of outdoor exercise per week was iting group exercise to_groups_ _p_roinote_rehabilitation_depends on other sufficient. sufficient. conditions. The state has a duty to provide Battle v. Anderson, 376 F. Supp. 402 opportunities to overcome the degenerative (E.D. Okla. 1974) Confinement to cell forXVI. 6habilitation aspects of the particular prison. The court periods up to a year without any opportun- required that each prisoner be giver the ities for physical exercise, work or educa- Newman v. Alabama, 559 F.2d 283 opportunity to work at a useful job. No tion programs violates the Eighth Amend- (5th Cir. 1977) mod ,ified 438 U.S. 781(1978) prisoner shall tte, removed from a job to ment. A penal system cannot be operated in such nonworking status without due process Ail inmates must be afforded reasonable a way that it impedes an inmate's ability to procedures. Every prisoner shall have the time outside their cells daily for the pur- attempt rehabilitation or simply to avoid opportunity to participate in educational pose of exercise or :..tier form of recrea- physical, mental or social deterioration. and recreational programs and to learn a tion. When weather permits, the Inmates McCray v. Sullivan, 509 F.2d 1332, skill marketable in New Hampshire. shall be,allowed outdoors during at least 1335 (5th Cir. 1975) cert. den. 423 U.S. 951 Barnes v. Government of Virgin Is- parrof this exercise period. "Failure of prison authorities to provide a lands, 415 F. Supp. 1218 (D. V.I. 1976) Pugh v. Locke, 406 F. Supp. 318 rehabilitation program, by itself, does not "Though having inmates spend their days (M,D. Ala. 1976) aff'd 559 F.2d 283 (5th constitute cruel and unusual punishment." in a state of institutionally induced numb Cir. 1977) cert. den. 98 S. Ct. 3144 (1978) Newman v. Alabama, 559 F.2d 283 lethargy may make the task of corrections Adequate equipment and facilities shall be (5th Cir. 1977) modified 438 U.S. 781.(1978) officials much easier, this cannot pass con- provided to offer recreational opportuni- "If the State furnishes its prisoners with st.....ional muster if rehabilitation i, to have ties to every inmate. Each institution shall reasonably adequate food, clothing, shel- any meaning as a viable goal of a correc- employ a recreation director with a bache- ter, sanitation, medical care, and personal tions system." Court went on to ordet that lor's degree or equivalent training in physi- safety, so as to avoid the imposition of every inmate be given the opportunity to cal education. Inmates in isolation shall be cruel and unusual punishment, that ends its participate in basic education programs, allowed at least 30 minutes outdoor exer- obligations under Amendment Eight. The work release or vocational training cise per day. Constitution.does not require that prison- Alberti v. Sheriff of Harris Co., 406 Laaman v. Helgemoe, 437 F. Supp. ers, as individuals or as a group, be pro- F. Supp. 649 (19/5) Adequate vocational 469 (D. N.H. 1977) The court ordered that vided with _any and every amenity whichand educational programs are required. prisoners be given ".n a meaningful and some person may think is needed to avoid Mitchell v.. Untreiner, 421 F. Supp. effective mantis" opportunities to mmo- mental, physical, and emotional deteriora 885 (N.D. Fla. 1976) Basic and remedial pate in outdoor and indoor sports and rec- non." education courses, including remedial read- reation year round and that defendants, Holt v. Sarver, 442 F.2d 304 (8th ing are required. have a recreation director, id. at 330. I as- Cir. 1971) Confinement in otherwise unex- Palmigiano v. Garrahy,443 F. Supp. oilers in isolation shall be allowed 30 mm- ceptional penal institution is not unconsti-956 (D. R.! 1977) "Viewed as a part of the utes of physical exercr e daily, adequate tutional simply because it does not operate dehabilitating conditions that prevail ., exercise is to be afforded prisoners during school or provide vocational training or the near-total absence of meaningful reha- the initial classification and orientation pe- other rehabilitation programs, but absence bilitative programs or recreational activity riod. of affirmative program of training and re-constitutes a failure ... of constitutional Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 443 F . Supp. habilitation may have constitutional signifi-dimension." The near-total absence of mean- 956 (D. R.I. 1977) the court ordered de- cance where in. absence of such programs. ingful rehabilitative programs is a clear vio- fendants to establish recreational programs Battle v. Apdersgn, 564 F.2d 388 lation of defendants' statutory duty. The with sufficient resources and staff so that (10th Cir. 1977) While inmate does not court, therefore, did not reacb the question every inmate has an opportunity to partici- have a right to rehabilitation, he is entitledwhether convicted adult inmates have a pate on a regular basis. to be confined in an environment whichconstitutional right to rehabilitation in an Burbank v. Thompson, No. 76 C. 4471 does not result in his degeneration or which institution that otherwise comports with (N.D. Ill. May 1978) Each inmate from the threatens his mental and physical well minimum constitutional standards. How- -general- population must have-access for being. ever, defendants' failure-to provide adez one uninterrupted hour each day to an ex- Pugh v. Locke, 406 F. Supp 318 quate rehabilitation programs has a consti- ercise yard or other facility outside of his (M.D. Ala. 1976) aff'd 559 F.2d 283 (5th tutional dimension. the inmates' excessive cell, and a recreation director with a bache- Cir. 1977) cert. den. 98 S.Ct. 3144 (1978) Ifidleness was major cat' e of the violence lor's degree or equivalent training in rec- the State furnishes prisoners with reason-and terror pervading.the prison in v iolation reation or physical education shall be em- ably adequate food, clothing, shelter,sanita-of the Eighth Amendment. ployed. tion, medical care and personal safety, so Carter v. Rapone,194 A.2d 1092 (Pa. James v. Wallace, 406 F. Suop. 318 as to avoid the imposition of cruel and Cmwlth. 1978) The court would not con- (M.D. Ala. 1976) aff'd 559 F.2t 483 (5th unusual punishment, that ends its obliga-sider a complaint that a prisoner was ex- Cir. 1977) cert. den. 98 S. Ct. 3144(1978) tions under Amendment Eight. cluded from certain rehabilitation programs Order employment of a recreational offi- Laaman v. Helgemoe, 437 F. Supp. in a state prison because the conditions and cer. 269 CD. N.H. 1977) Thus far no court has privileges of his confinement are under the Spain v. Procunter, 408 F. Supp. 534 recognized federal constitutional right to control of the Bureau of Corrections. (N.D. Calif. 1976) Inmates in segregation rehabilitation in th'e sense that an individu- Aripa v. Department of Social and entitled to one hour of outdoor recreation al has a positive right to leave a peniten- Health Services, 588 P.2d 185 (Wash. 1978) five days each week. -11My equipped to function as a law abiding Where the bepartinent of Social and Health
9 00 4).
84Correctional data analysis systems
Services provided a basic alcohol treatment neednot credit the time spent,on probation ality of a statutory scheme where maximum program at a state prison which consisted against a probation violator's sentence, penalties for escliping from various correc- of L variety of treatment components, in- does not constitute a violation of equal tional institutiohs were unequal. mates' claims for more comprehensive and protection. Cooper v. Lombard, 409 N.Y.S.2d 30 individualized treatment were denied as In- McCray v. Bennett, 467 F. Supp. 187 (N.Y.A.D. 1978)Jail conditions do not have appropriate. (D.C. M.D. Ala. 1979) Where prisoners are.to be of equal quality to state Correctional segregated for purposes of inter-institution- facilities. XVII. Race and sex al discipline and some are released from Trivento v. Commissioner of Correc- -discriminaVon segregation before term and others are re- tic.ts, 380 A.20 69 (Vt. 1977) State statutes tained longer than term, prisoners are de- that allow good time reduction on sentences A. ,RaCial Discrimination nied equal protection. for those in 'custody of the Commissioner Jones v. Diamond, 594 F.2d 997 (5th Owens-EL v. Robinson, 442 F. Supp. of Corrections but not for pirsons in cus- Cir. 1979) Racial segregation in bull pens is 1368 (W.D. Pa. 1978) Wilere pretrial detain- tody of the Com.nissionei of Mental Health unconstitutional, even if inmates have the ees and convicted persons are comingled are constitutional. frcedom to choose which of two bull pens in their cell assignments, the constitutional they wish to occupy. common denominator must be the rights ofXVIII. Grievance procedures Edwards v. Garrison, 529 F.2d 1374, the pretrial detainees. (4th Cir. 1976) cert. den. 424 U.S. 950 (1976) California Correctional Officers As- Finney v. Hutto, 410 F. Supp. 251 The use of a racial designation in the insti- sociation and Correctional Series, Inc.v. (E.D. Ark. 1976) aff'd 457 U.S. 678 (1978) tutional numbering system requires strict Board of Administration of the Public Em- A requirement of the exhaustion of a state scrutiny. ployees' Retirement System, 143 Cal. Rptr. grievance procedure before commencing a Marro v. 526 F.2d 938 125 (Calif. App. 1978) The discretion of the civil rights suit hinted at. (5th CIL 1976 Refusal to permit individu- Board of Administration of the Public Em- Nickens v. White, 461 F. Stipp. 1158 als of a race different from the inmate on ployees' Retirement System in approving (D.C. Mo. 1978) Inmates in a minimum his visiting list states a claim under the 14th or rejecting separate medical health insur-security prison may be prohibited from cir- Amendment. ance plans is not limited by the California culating grievance petitions by prison rules. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Cor- statute granting certain correctional, paroleThe rule against petitions is necessary to rectional Complex v. Greenholtr, 557 F.2d and probation officers the same status as ensure prison pecurnagainst the dangers 136.8181h-Cii. 1977) cert. den. 99 S.Ct. 732 members of the California Highway Patrol posed by prisoners who organize a group (1978) Statistics showing that whites and and State Police Division. action to,petition against grievances. blacks were afforded parole more frequent- In re Davgl;, 154 Cal. Rptr. 330 (Cal. York v. Department of Corrections ly than native Americans and Mexican-Amer- App. 1979) State prison Inmates and in- Administrative Review Board, 390 N.E.2d icans were not sufficient to dcmonstrate a mates in local detention facilities do not 594 (Ill. App. 1979) The circuit court had prima facie case of racial ethnic discrim- need to.be treated uniformly for the pur- no jurisdiction to review a prisoner griev- pose of deciding behavior credits. ination. ance decision of the Administrative. Re- Finney v. Hutto, 410 F. Supp. 251 Holdman v. Ohm, 581 P.2d 1164 view Board. (E.D. Ark. 1976) (Cummins & Tucker) aff'd (Hawaii 1978) The requirement that wom- Beaver v.Chaffee, 579 P.2d 1217 437 U.S. 678 (1978) Court indicates that It an visitors to an all-male'prison must wear (Kan. App, 1978) The administrative pro- has acted to enjoin racial discrimination in a brassiere did not infringe any constitu- cedure for bringing about changes in the institutions. tional rights to priiacy or equal protection conditions of prison confinement were non- Douglas v. United States Attorney because such was substantially related to existent thereby allowing the inmates to General, 404 F. Supp. 1314 (W.D. Okla. achievement of a governmental objective of seck judicial review at the outset. 1975) Failure to have blacks on thsci linary prison security. Brooks v. Wainwright, 439 F. Supp. committee did not violate civilright. Iowa Department of Social Services 1335 (M.D. Fla. 1977) The prisoners at the Mrckens v.Winston, 462 F.upp. v. Iowa Merit Employment Department, 261 Florida State Prison had no right to organ- 910 (D.C. Va. 1978) Racial segregpon is N.W.2d 161 (Iowa 1977) The duties of a ize) and bargain collectively. unconstitutional within pris'ons, lave for Correctional Officer II are of such a nature the necessities of prison security and that they prohibit females from exercising XIX. Discipliner/ methods pline. them, therefore, no sex discrimination was demonstrated in rejecting the plaintiff's Bell-v. Wolfish, 99 S.Ct. 1861 (1979) B. Sexual, discrimination/ application. The test of whether regulations or practices Equal prolection Dodson v. State, 377 N.E.2d 1365 are punishment depends upon whether they _Chesimard v, Mulcahy. 570 F.2d 1184 (Ind. 1978) A male convict has no right to are rationally related to a legitimate, non- (3rd Cir.-1978) A woman prisoner was not be sentenced to a woman's penitentiary. punitivc governmental purpose and whether denied her constitutional rights while being Jennings v. State, 389 N.E.2d 283 they appear excessive m relation to that temporarily incarcerated in solitary confine- (Ind. 1979) Different treatment of good time purpose. Seprity and order are non-puni- ment in an all male facility. for "lifers" and "non-lifers" does not vio- tive objectives for pretrial detainees or con- Paprskar ,v. Estelle. 566 F.2d 1277 late the rights of either. Sentencing and victed inniakes. (5th Cir. 1978) A t'win whereby state pris- treatment classification is a benefit given Baxter v. Paimigiano. Enomoto v. oners are incaro.i ated in a jail does not in by the State and the State only needs to Cluchette, 425 U.S. 308 (1976) Inmate not itself represent a denial of Nue., protection show a reasonable basis for the classifica- entitled to 5th Amendment priv ilege against where good time is conceited. tion. self incrimination at disciplinary hearings. United States v. Shedd, 22 Cr...L. State v Freemen, 574 P.2d 950 (Kan. Need not permit private counsel. Need not 2372 (10th Cir. 19 1) the tact that the 1978) Statutes which deny the possibility of give reasons for denial of cross-exami- United States Parole CommissiOn must, probation or parole for a select class of nation. - with some exceptions, award.credit for the crimes are constitutional. Wolff v.' McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 time served on parole against a parole vio- Carter v. State, 381 A.2d 309 (Md. (1974) Due process hearing required where lator's sentence. While a sentencing judgeApp. 1978) Under the circumstances, the action may result in loss of good time c nd defendant lacked-standing to challenge on possibly in those that might result in soli- equal protection grounds the c-mstitution- tary confinement. Procedural requirements AppendixB.Case law compendium 85 include: (1) written notice of charges at Finney v. Mabry,455 F. Supp. 756 tion be imposed for punitive reasons only. least 24 hours prior to hearirig; (2) a hear- (D.C. Ark. 1978) Prison disciplinary offi- Any disciplinary proceeding which deifies _a ing must be held in which the inmate may cials hive a duty to collect written state- pretrial detainee the benefits of a jail policy present a defense; (3) must be a written ments from witnesses whose presence is must apply due process standards tinder statement by fact finders as to evidence requested by the charged inmate if they Wolff v. McDonnell. relied upon and reasons for disciplinary know or shoqld know that any of those Swarez v. Wainwright,363 So.2d 833 action. witnesses will not be able to attend the (Fla. App. 1978) It was not necessary for. Feeley v. Sampson,570 F.2d 364 (1st hearing. -the discipline committee to call "airtlie wit- Cir. 1978) Pretrial detainees do not have An inmate charged with a rule violation nesses requested by the prisoner in view of the right to counsel in disciplinary proceed- has no right to confront Informants against the possible risk of retaliation against In- ings. him or even to know of informant's identity. itiates and officers who were witnesses to a McKinnon v. Patterson,568 F.2d 930 High prison officials may not order verdicts prison disturbance. Informing the prisoner (2nd 'Cir. 1978) Due process required 24 of guilty or suggest certain punishmentsof information contained in the reports of hours advance written notice of charges to to members of the discipline committee. the incident was sufficient. inmates who face up to two weeks of disci- A written statement by the committee must State ex rel. Armistead v. Phelps, 365 plinary confinement, and must be pursuant be given to the inmate and must include the So.2d 468 (La. 1978) This case reviews the to a hearing. reasons and evidence relied u,,on in reach- proper process for ..dministrative review of McKinnon v. Patterson,22 Cr. L. ing their decision. discipline proceedings in Louisiana. 2060 (2nd Cir. 1977) cert. den., 22 Cr. L. Telephone calls to staff members are not State v.Walls,356 So.2d 75 (La. 4193 (U.S. 1978) Since there is no basic dif- enough. If testimony is neededfor the App. 1977) Unless it is shown to be arbi- ference between " keeplock" and "solitary," discipline hearing, those persons should be trarily or capriciously made, a prison offi- a prisoner facing a potential two-week stay present. cial cannot be found to be civilly liable in in kaplock for disciplinary reasons is en- Green v. Nelson,442 F. Supp. 1047 damages for sentencing a. prisoner to five titled to 24 hours advance written notice of (D. Conn. 1977) Disciplinary committees days solitary confinement and a loss of 12 the charges. The imposition of "keeplock" are under an obligation to summon all staff days of good time for violation of a disci- for a period of up to 2 weeks constitutes a members who are called as witnesses to a plinary rule. substantial deprivation .that necessitates fight by a prisoner. Hopkins v. Maryland Inmate Griev- minimal due process safeguards. Hutton v. Reggie,454 F. Supp. $70 ance Commission,391 A.2d 1213 (Md. . Lane v. Hanberry,593 F.2d 648 (5th (U.S.D.C., Colo. 1978) A prison discipline App. 1978) The ordinary backlog of cases Cir. 1979) It is not required that when a committee's hearing cannot substitute for a does not except the requirement of a hear- prisoner is advised of his right to an admin- parole rescission hearing. This is a require- ing within 72 hours. That time limit must istrative appeal on a discipline decision, ment of due process. be complied with unless it is prevented by that he also is advised that his waiver pre- Taylor v. Perini.413 F. Supp. 189 exceptionai circumstances. cludes his right to cha:lenge the ruling in a (N.D. Ohio 1976) The inmate rules must be Lawrence v. Michigan Department of, court of law. in written form. Corrections,276 N.W.2d 554 (Mich. App. Him:hi:any. Oregon State Penitentiary. Tawney v. McCoy,462 F. Supp. 752 1979) The Department of Corrections is an 547'P.2d 646 (Ct. App. Ore. 1976) Single (D.C. W.Va. 1978) The appointment of an "agency" for the purposes of the Adminis- act of misconduct cannot form the basis for inmate representative to represent an .n-. trative Procedure Act. A Prison Disciplin- two disciplinary violations. mate at a discipline hearing would offset ary hearing is a "contested case" and thus Steele v Gray,223NW.2d 614 (Wis. any p ejudicial effects arising from the de- falls under the protection of the procedural 1974) There mua be a neutral hearing of- nial of legal materials to the Inmate. At a safeguards of the Act. Therefore, the pris- ficer or tribunal which will be likely to ar- discipline hearing, a state prison inmate oner has a right to judicial review of the rive at a decision withotit the likelihood ofhad po constitutional right to fully cross- outcome of the hearing. arbitrary action. examine his accusers and no unlimited right State v. Kerns,271 N.W.2d 48 (Neb. Baxter v. Lewis.421 F. Supp. 504 to call witnesses. 1978) Prison disciplinaey 'hearings do not (W.D. Va. 1976) There is no r.sht to ap- Williams v. Stacy,468 F. Supp. 1206 require that the same rights be afforded the pointment of counsel at institutional disci- (D.C. Va. 1979) A prisoner contested his prisoner as in a criminal prosecution. plinary hearings and no right to have rea- hearing before the Institution classification Allen v. Oregon State Penitentiary, sons stated for nut ailing witnesses. committee after he circulated a petition Corrections Division,576 P.2d 831 (Ore. Bills v Henderson,446 F. Supp. 967 which referred to prison guards as "Nazis" App. 1978) The unsupported assertion of (E.D. Tenn. 1978) The failure to provide and "maniacs" and warned that the situa- an informant is sufficient to base the im- inmates a limited written record of a hear tion could de..elop Into "another Attica. position of a disciplinary sanction by the ing wherein orders were entered placingThe court held that the potential to create disciplinary committee. them in segregation and depriving them ofserious secur.ty problems justifiea the ac- Bishop v. Oregon State Penitentiary, good time depme i them of due proce:A. tion of holding the hearing and it did not Corrections Division,581 1,'.2d 122 (Ore. Bono v Saxbe,450F. Supp 934 (E. D. abridge the prisoner's rights. App. 1978) The prison disciplinary com- III. 1978) Prisoners paced within the "con- Wilson v. Superior Court of Los An- mittee did not abuse its discretion in deny- trol unit" are entitled toreceivea writtengeles County,148 Cal. Rptr. 3J, 582 P.2d ing the prisoner's request to undertake a notice of the disciplinary hearing, impartial 117 (Cal. 1978) Jail privileges cannot be he-detector examination. decision making, and immediate and sub- taken away without cause. Cause may be Duncan v. Oregon State Correction- sequent periodic review of the final disposi- either for security or for discipline but may al, Institution,580 P.2d 1047 (Ore. App. tion. not occur without notice and a hearing. 1978) A preliminary placement of a prison- Craig v Hockey.405 F. Supp. 656 the only exception is in an emergency, but er in a segregationid isolation unit pend- (D. Nev19'51 Minor infraction requires even then notice and hearing must be given ing subsequent disciplinary hearings is nut notice and an opportunity t,) respond be- to the inmate as soon as practical. It should reviewable by the court. fore imposition cif punishment. Major in- never exceed 72 hours. The prisoner was not prejudiced by a disci- fractions require P!'_ /ff due process. Notice and hearing of a restriction of anplinary order placing him in segregation inmate's privileges must be afforded within and isolation for one year since this time 72 hours and at no time may such a restric- was credited against his sentence. 9 2 86Correctional data analysis systems
Goodspeed v. Oregon State Peniten- in violation of the prison regulations. Even Phi llipsv. Gathright, 468 F. Supp. tiary. Correcttons Division, 580 P.2d 1060.though a prisoner advocated an inmate 1211 (D.C. Va. 1979) A prisoner was pun- (Ore. App. 1978) The defendant was not strike, no conspiracy was found becauseished for keeping a 21/2-foot-long stick in prejudiced by the failure of the disciplinary there was no agreement by other inmates. his cell. He alleged that his rights were committee to contact a witness who would Without agreement, there k. an be no.con- violated becatise others kept more danger- have offered testimony relevant to a charge spiracy. ous instalments, therefore his punishment which was subsequently-dismissed.- Slone v. Oregon State Penitentiary. was discriminatory. The court held That Gorion v. Oregon State Penitentiary, Corrections Division, 579 P.2d 874 (Ore. punishment is not arbitrary simply because Corrections Duusion, 582 P.2d 19 (Ore. App. App. 1978) A report of the defendant's vio- others escape it. Prison discipline measures 1978) The court' affirmed the holding of a lation of institutional rules was inaccurate are only arbitrary if they are based on illicit prisoner in isolation for 9 days although and subs,:quent disciplinary action should reasons or no reasons at all. the disciplinary committee violated its own be applied accordingly. Drake v. A irhart, 245 S.E.2d rules by confining him over 7 days without Storms. v. Oregon State Po/ten:jury, (W.Va. 1978) Unless there is a clear abuse finding that the inmate constituted a threat 581 P.2d 979 (Ore. App. 1978) inmate of discretion of treatment or discipline, to the security of the institution. should be afforded an opportunity to sup- courts will ordinarily not interfere. Each Hale v. Oregon State Penitentiary, plement the record of a disciplinary pro- case must be decided on its own facts. In Correctigns Division, 577 P.2d 531 (Ore. ceeding. this case handcuffing do inmate to the cell App. 1978) Fite failure of the Superinten- Bo; er v. Wilmot, 410 N.Y.S.2d 184 bars was not found to be an infringement of dent to enter his order modifying a disciplin- (N.Y.A 1978) The purpose of a require- his constitutional rights since his escape ary committee's order placing a prisoner in ment of tten statements of reasons re- attempts and disruptive behavior necessi- segregation requires the reversal of the dis- lied upon fordisciplinary action taken against tated restraint for his and other prisoners' ciplinary committee's order. prisoners is to provide a basis for court protections. Hartheb v. Oregon State Correctional review of actions of prison authorities. Watson v. Whyte, 245 S-.E.2d 916 Institution, 584 P.2d 314 (Ore. App. 1978) Where a prisoner failed to keep possession (W.Va. 1978) An evidentiary hearing is re- A prison may not require a prisoner found of linen issued to him by taking it to the quired before the strde may increase either guilty of assault to pay for his owneedical shower rooms, there was enough evidence a prisoner's sentence 6{ severity of his con- bills. The prisoner injury was not-"damage to support an order that he pay for the loss finement whenever such change is a result to institution property" within the prison if it. of misbehavior. regulations allowing for restitution. Crudo v Fogg, 415 N.Y.S.2d 897 State ex ref. Klinke v. Wisconsin De- v. Oregon State Penitenth (N.Y.A.D. 1979) Minimum requirements partment,of Health and Social Services, 273 Correetiuns Division. 576 P.2d 798 (Ore. of due process were not met in a discipline N.W.2d 379 (Wis. App. 1973) The mere App. 1978) The imposition of two weeks of hearing, therefore the matter was remitted fact of drinking is insufficient for a finding segregation by the disciplinary committee for further proceedings. of intoxication in a prison discipline hear- will be reversed since the committee failed Dunne v. Reid, 402 N.Y.S.2d 923 ing. to produce the results of a urine test which (N.Y. App. 1978) Because a prisoner was could have cleared or affirmed the charges subjected to an anal search in the presence XX. Civil rights actions brought against the prisoner: of others in violation of the internal prison and defenses Penrod v. Oregon State Penitentiary. regulations, he was entitled to expungemene Corrections Divisions, 581 P.2d 124 (Ore. of the disciplinary action upon his record. Bell v. Wolfish, 99 S.Ct. 1861 (1979) App. 1978) The court is not empowered to Hurley v. Ward, 402 N.Y.S.2d 870 The test of whether regulations or practices collaterally review p. tor disciplinary orders (N.Y. App. 1978) A prisoner was entitled to are punishment depends upon whether they to determine their validity and justification. expungement of the disciplinary. proceed- are rationally related to a legitimate, non- Preston v. Oregon State Penitentiary, ings brought against him since he was not punitive governmental purpose and whether 583 P.2d 9 (Ore. App. 1978) A discipline afforded the opportunity to choose_the em- they appear excessive in relation to that hearing boald may use ev idence of unnamed ployee that will assist him in the proceed- purpose. Security and order are non puni- informants tin an assault charge, if the in- ing, nu employee with direct' kr, owledge tive objectives for pre-trial detainees or formation from different sources justifies was interviewed by the hearhig officer, and convicted inmates. Federal Courts are lim- the inference of truthfulness of the infor- because no record of the evidence rel.ed ited in their intervention into institutions mants. upon by the fact finder was supplied :o the to the issue of whether there are constitu- Melton v. Oregon State Correctional inmate. tional violations. Institution. Corrections Division, 580 P.2d Rodriguez v. Ward, 407 N.Y.S.2d 731 DiMarzo v. Cahill, 575 F1.2d 15 (1st 572 (Ore. App. 1978) The prison disciplin- (N.Y.A.D. 1978) The court ordered a new Cir. 197,8) cert. den. 58 L.Ed2 320 (1978) ary committee order recommending that discipline hearing because of lack of evi- A Commissioner of Corrections was liable the defendant serve 30 days in isolation and dence and improper records. for any and all unconstitutional practices suffer forfeiture of 426 days of statutory Romano v. Ward. 409 N.Y.S.2d 938 that may exist in county facilities, which he good time was justified in that his miscon- (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1978) Prison discipline pro- does not operate, by virtue of statutes re- duct constituted a hazard to human life and ceedings in New. Yot k State afford prison- quiring him to promulgate and enforce health. er5 greater protections than those order&minimum standards. Nicklin v. Oregon State Correctional by the United State Supreme Court. Pris- Procunler v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 Institution, 593 P.2d 1268 (Ore. App. 1979) oners are entitled to assistance by prison (1978) State prison official. enjoy qualified The court held that a Prison Discipline officials and have the right to know about immunity from an inmate's 42 U.S.C.S. 1983 Committee impruperly denied a prisoner's all information given by witnesses. action alleging interference with his out- request for an investigation of the charges Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 389 A.2d going mail unless (1) the officials knew or against him before rendering a decision. 1 1 I (Pa. Sup. 1978) A hearing which lasted reasonably should have I.nown that their Robertson v. Oregon State Pehuen- five minutes and consisted 'solely of the actions would violate th.. inmate's consti- nary, Corrections Division, 582 P.2d 32 (Ore. testimony of one witness and at which the tutional rights or (2) the officials acted with App. 1978) Where only extensive discus- defendant's counsel said nothing in support.malicious intent to cause a constitutional sion followed an inmate's-suggestion that or defense of hit client was not sufficient to deprivation, the inmates should strike by refusing, to meet the prisoner's due process rights. The fact that in 1972 clearly established 1st leave a visiting room, no conspiracy existed. and 14th Amendment rights did not exist, Appendix B. Case law compendium87 in respect to the correspondence of inmate Maldonado v. Garza, 579 F.2d 338 Battle v. AnderSon, 594 F.2d 786 mail, precludes the contention that the(5th Cir. 1978) Wade latitude- must be af-(10th Cir. 1979) The conditions and treat- officials knew or should have known thatforded to a prisoner's p, o se pleadings scats aicia cf inmates are not dependent on the their actions would violate a constitutional to avoid a motion to dismiss. willingness or financial ability of a state to right. Negligence alone will not support a Mitchell v. Beaubouef, 581 F.2d 412 provide decent institutions. Courts, how- claim for damages in federal court under(5th Cir. 1978) U.S. App. Pndg. In civil ever, should allow the least drastic means Section 1973 the Civil Rights Acts. rights actions challenging the conditions of to be utilized in correcting constitutional Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F.2d 275prison confinement, a prtsoner does not deficiencies. (1st Cir. 1978) Where a Civil Rights suithave to first go through all the state's ad- Campbell v. McGruder, 580 F.2d 521 was a necessary and important factor in ministrative remedies. (D.C. Cir. 1978) Pretrial detainees general- achieving improvements in prison conditions, Willett v. Wells, 469 F. Supp. 748,ly retain more rights than convicted pris- attorney fees may be awarded, notwithstand-(D.C. Tenn. 1977) afl'd 595 F.2d 1227 (6th oners. This may justify more judicial con- ing the alleged good faith of prison offi-Cir.) A state prisoner brought a civil rights trol than with sentenced inmates. cials. action for money damages against I I per- Newman v. State of Alabama, 466 F. McKinnon v. Patterson, 568 F.2d 930sons, most of which were officials of Tent Supp. 628 (D.C. Ala. 1979) Where no effort (2nd Cir. 1978) cert. den. 434 UiS. 1087nessee. The court held that the prisonerwas made to come within compliance of a (1978) Where prison officials proved thatfailed to state any cause of action andcourt order to remedy the Alabama prison th.., acted reasonably and in good faith,therefore relief was denied. The Federal conditions, the court appointed the gover- they were entitled to official immunity from District court had no duty to appoint an nor as temporary receiver in order that he a prisoner's civil rights action. attorney to represent the indigent prisoner by duty-bound and authorized to execute McAllister v. Garrison, 569 F.2d 813 in the civil r:8nts action. Such appointment the standards set in the court order. The (4th Cir. 1978) cert. den. 436 U.S. 928 is discretionary with the court. case includes a description of the violations (1978) A prisoner need not be afforded a Chapman v. Pickett, 586 F.2d 22 (7th and sets forth the corrections to be made. hearing before he is removed from assign- Cir. 1978) A prison official was immune Hamilton v. Covington, 22 Cr. L. 2487 ment to the inmate advisor program, even from, liability for punishing a prisoner for(W.D. Ark. 1978) A prisoner's 1983 action though the reasons for the removal may refusing to handle pork on religious grounds based upon the absence of a jailor during a have some implication for a later grant ofduring a kitchen clean up. The right of thefire in the facility is not blocked by the parole. prisoner to refuse was not clear at the time quasi-legislative nature of the county's "Quorr Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147 (4thof the incident. um Court," which Is responsible for the Cir. 1978) ccrt. den. 99 S.Ct. 464 (1978) Secret v. Brierion, 584 F.2d 823, (7th administration of the jail. District court judges should exercise re-Cir. 1978) Prisoners must exhaust adminis- Holder v. Claar, 459 F. Supp. 850 straint in dismissing prison irmates' pro setrative remedies if reasonable prior to filing (D.C. Colo. 1978) Inmates have legal pro- 1983 complaints and, when necessary, ex-S'ection 1983 Civil Rights. Actions when tection against the unjustified taking of amine the facts alleged to see whether thethe claim for relief alleges_ deprivation ofpersonal_property by prison officials pro- plaintiff allege additional facts in property without due process, and the mon- vided that the property belongs to the in- order to maintain the cause of action. etary value of the tangible personal proper- mate. Loe v. Armistead, 582 F.2d 1291 (4th ty is of no great monetary value. Marioneaux v. Colorado State Peni- Cir. 1978) U.S. App. Pndg. A pretrial de- Cotton v. Hutto, 577 F.2d 453 (8thtentiary, 465 F. Supp. 1245 (D.C. Colo- tainee who alleges that Federal MarshalsCir. 1978) The Warden is not liable in cer- rado 1979) An inmate's minimum rights may and local officials displayed deliberate indif- tain cases for the wrongful acts of his em- be created by the State, in which case pris- ference to a broken arm he suffered w,alt. Inployees in suits under the civil rights statute. on officials are held to comply with those custody states a cause of action for dain- DeShields v. United States Parolehigher standards. ages against the marshals and officials._ Commission, 593 F.2d 354 (8th Cir. 1979) Mingo v. Patterson, 455 F. Supp. 1358 Strader v. Troy, 571 F.2d 1263 (4th Parole examiners were entitled to a good- (D.C. Colorado 1978) Federal Courts have Cir. 1973) Since the plaintiff did not allegefaith immunity in a denial of parole deci-a policy of deferring to officials ,bf penal that he would have been paroled had thesion. Liability will no hold unless they Institutions so long as conduct of officials is parole boa.d not considered prior uncoun-demonstrated ill will, malice, discrimina- not of such character that is shocking to seled criminal convictions in determiningtion, or other wrongful reasons in theirgeneral fairness. his eligibility for parole, his complain( must parole decision. Montoya v. Tanksley, 446 F. Stipp. be treated as an action under the civil ,ights Ronnei v. Butler, 597 F.2d cf.,-; (8th Cir. 226 (D. Colo. 1978) The prisoner's com- statute rather than one for habeas corpus. 1979) Prison officers are entitled to a good plaint which alleged that prison officials Cook v. Hanberry, 592 F.2d 248 (5th faith immunity in suits brought under therefused to allow the plaintiff to attend any Cir. 1979) Freedom from cruel and unusualCivil Rights Act. A prisoner who had to religious services, enjoy outdoor exercise, punishment is not freedom from otherwiseundergo rabies shots aft,:r he was bitten by or to provide sanitary conditions was suffi- lawful incarceration. The prisoner only has-g bat did not state a cal.se of action againstcient to state a viable cause of action. the right to be free from that mistreatmentthe shift captain who was negligent by Coppola v. United State: Attorney occurring within the confines of his incar-flushing the bat down a toilet before it was Genera1,455 F Supp. 15 (D.C. Conn. 1977) ceration. tested for rabies. A prisoner successfully challenged his clas- Fielder y. Bosshard, 590 F.2d 105 Tyler v. Woodson, 597 F.2d 643 (8th sification as a Central Monitoring Case be- (5th Cir. 1979) In a civil rights suit based on Cir. 1979) A prisoner successfully stated acause he was not giver proper notice or cruel and unusual punishment, a prisonercause of action where he alleged that theallowed to know or contest the reasons be- must show that prison officials acted with achief social worker at the jail confiscatedhind his class;fication status at the time of conscious or callous indifference to hi; his legal papers thereby interfering with the the decision. serious medical needs. Mere negligence, prisoner:4 access to the courts. Phillips v. Collins, 461 F. Supp. 317 neglect, or medical malpractice is Insuffi- Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740 (9th (D.C. III. 1978) A county jail inmate brought cient. Cir. 1978) A prison official cannot rely on aa civil rights action against a judge. The 1. _ Johnson v. Wells, 566 F.2d 1016 (5th defense of good faith in a civil rights action inmate's claim was that he had not received Cir. 1978) cert. den. 435 U.S. 9-, 0 (1975)if his actions show that a valid law was notproper treatment for, his mental problem Parole officials ale immune from suit forfollowed by him and resulted in the denial and had been confined to a jail rather than damages under the Civil Rights Act. of a prisoner's rights. a hospital. It was held that the inmate failed 88 Correctional data analysis systems
to-state a claim upon which relief could be Jordan v. Robinson, 464 F.S.upp. 223 pay the $3.00 processing fee and was not on granted. (D.C. Pa. 1979) Even though a prisoner the institution's current list of indigents. Lock v. Jenkins, 464 F. Supp. 541 was locked up mistakenly when a prison Papenhauser v. Schoen, 268 N.W.2d (D.C. Ind. 1970 Intervention by Federal disturbance broke out, the action taken was 565 (Minn. 19751) Members of the Minnesota courtsiRadministration of prisons must be not a violation of his rights because prison Parole Board are shielded by the doctrine limited to correction of conditions violat- authonties had taken reasonable action in of discretionary immunity as against an ac- ing clearly established constitutional sights response to the disturbance. tion brought by a plaintiff who was raped Blake v. Hall, 469 F. Supp. 1025 . Murphy v. Fenton, 464 F. Supp. 53 by a prisoner who was paroled to a state (D.C. Mass. 1979) Inmates alleged that they (D.C. Pa. 1978) Even though a prisoner hospital and subsequently escaped. denied their civil rights as a result of fire was denied his due process rights by not LaFrance v. Ward, 408 N.Y.S.2d 573 hazards, lack of cleanliness, infestation by having a proper hearing for being placed in (N.Y.A.D. 1978) A prisoner must exhaust Insects and rodents, poor plumbing facili- an administrative segregation unit, the of- all available administrative avenues before ties and inadequate recreational and/or ficials were entitled to a good faith defense. seeking-court relief. rehabilitative programs in prison. The court Smith v. Robinson, 456 F. Supp. 449 Falkenstein v. City of Bismark, 268 held these charges were sufficient to state a (D.C. Pa. 1978) Prison officials were quali-N.W.2d 787 (N. Dak. 1978) The prisoner's cause of action against the Massachusetts fiedly immune from a suit brought when suicide was reasonably foreseeable so as to Acting Commissioner of Public Health who they refused to allow an inmate to use an Incur liability upon the city for his wrong- was charged with overseeing the Depart- outside savings account. ful death stemming from the city's failure ' ment of Health. Jefferson v. Southivorth, 22 Cr. L. to adequately, observe and supervike the Fowler v. Vincent, 452 F. Supp. 449 2532 (D.R.I. 1978) Defendant prison offi-decedent while confined in isolation. (D.C.N.Y. 1978) A suit by a prison inmate cials must submit a plan within five daysThe city of Bismark is not only liable for against a guard held that the guard's as- that will allow for specific timetables in compensatory damages stemming from the sault on the prisoner was upprovoked and implementing var Improvements in the wrongful death of an inmate who commit- unnecessary to maintain order. service of mealgilecrea on time, consulta- ted suicide, but also liable for punitive Hernandez v. Lattimore, 454 FiSupP: tion facilities, vocationsraining, visiting damages. 763 (D.C.N.Y. 1978) An alleged assault frequenq, and shower op ortunities. Penrod v. Cupp, 581 P.2d 934 (Sup. upon a prisoner by a federal prisoi) officer Vest v. Lubbock County Commission-Ct. Ore. 1978) Habeas corpus is available could be brought to trial under the Federal ers, 444 F. Supp. 824 (N.D. Texas 1977) to an inmate to test the lawfulness of condi- Torts Claims Act. The plaintiff inmates, who proved uncon- tions of imprisonment such as :egregation Rosati v. Haran, 459 F. Supp. 1148 stitutional deprivations in theconditions ofor Isolation in situations where other pro- (D.0 N Y. 1977) The Bureau of Prisons' a county jail, failed to show bad faith on cedural remedies are not swift enough. Any consideration of the contents of an inmate's part of the prison officials in order to re- restraint in addition to that of sentencing is pre-sentence investigation report to decide cover monetary damages. subject to relief through the writ. on custody classification did not violate the Christian v. Owens, 461 F. Supp. 72 Bass v. Cuyler, 387 A.2d 964 (Pa inmate's righ's, even though the contents (D.C. Va. 1978) The administratrix or a Comwlth. 1978) The Commissioner of the were challenged by the inmate. deceased jail inmate brought a civil rights Bureau of Corrections is immune from suit Torres v Taylor. 456 F. Stipp. 951 action against jail authorities for failing to alleging negligence in the release of a pris- (S D N Y 1978) A federal prisoner must properly search the inmate. As a result theoner on a weekend furlough during which sue for an alleged assault and battery under prisoner shot himself with a gun. It wastime the prisoner murdered the plaintiff's the Federal Torts Claims Act, not k a -con- held that strip searches were not in accord- husband. sfitutional tort" under the Bivens doctrine. ance with existing practices for persons Jackson v. Hendrick, 22 Cr.L. 2356 Wright v. Ward, 462 F. Sipp. 344 arrested for driving under the Influence of (Pa. Comm. Pleas 1977) The mayor of Phil- (D C N Y 1978) Under New York state alcohol and therefore nb rights ,of the in-adelphia, the Commissioner of Public Wel- law, state prisoners have no right tp a prior mate were violated by not strip searchingfare, and other officials are held in con- hearing before being designated as a "cen- him. tempt for failure to implement changes in tral monitoring case." Rust v. State, 582-P.2d 134 (Alaska,Philadelphia detention facilities as agreed J. B. Taylor v. E. P. Perini, 455 F. 1978) A prisoner suffering from clklexia upon one year ago. Supp 1241 (D.C. Ohio 1978) Iia case has a right to treatment if a medical author- Ziegler v. Milken. 583 P.2d 1175 involvi4 complaints about priso i conch- ity determines that he has a serious disease(Utah, 1978) The courts exercise restraint tions.t-lie 4. ourt set out 4.01 ditions negotiat- or defect, that such disease or defect is cir- and wili not usually interfere in the man- ed between the parties. An agreld upon able or subject to substantialalleviation, agement or administi anon of internal pris- order was entered with respect to mail, law and that delay or denial of care wwould work,on affairs. Petitions to courts must appear library, receipt of printed material, disci- substantial harm on him. to involve a basic right. plinary procedures, job assignmets and Martinez v. State, 149 Cal. Rptr. 519 grievances. The compromise reached was (Cal. App. 1978) The Department of Cor- XXI. Miscellaneous for the parties only and does not r present rections was sued by tni, father of a 15-year- a judicial determination of prat ices or old girl wl.J was kidnapped, tortured, andPi Time credit standa, ds required by the Consul Thor of m.ardered by a prisoner they had paroled. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 the United Sates or i,f the state o Ohlu. Even though the parolee was cl&ssified as(1974) Due process hearing required where Gahagan v PennsylvaniaBoardof an untreatable mentally disordered sex of- action may result in los of good time. Pro- Probation and Parole, 444 F Surf, 1326 fender with a recommendation of no parole,cedural requirements include. (I) written kE D. Pa. 19'8) Absent an allegat on that govern mei. tal immunity was applicable to notice of charges at least 24/hours prior to members of the prim. board xneof the the officials Official acts ore privileged ifhea. ins, (2) a hearing must be he J in which complained of conduct of sub( rdm tes and they .,re done whian the scope of official the int .ate may pre.e.: a defense, (3) must acquiesced or participated in then), the ac- duties. be a written statement by.fact Enders as to tion brought against them must, be dis- WI/Mims v. Martimucci, 276 N. W .2 d eviderme relied upon and reasons for c`Isci- missed. . 'F76 (Mich. Aop. I i,79) The failure of prison plinary action. . L Hooker v. Arnold, 454 F. Supp. 527 administratuts to deliver copies of cc: min .(D.C. Pa. 1978) Wardens are not protected documents contained in a pri.oner's file to byabsolute immunity. They must rely on a prisoner did not violate the prisoner's the qualified defense of good faith. / right to them because th9 prisoner did not 1 Appendix B. Case law compendium89
Owens v. Oakes, 568 F.2d 355 (4th versed, he is entitled to credit the "dead Hanks v. Wainwright, 360 So.2d 783 Cie. 1978) No deprivation of civil rights time" spent in the state prison against his (Fla. App. 1978) The forfeiture of the de- occurred where the loss of prison privileges federal sentence. fendant's "good time" without notice or and good conduct time were twell within Bills v. Henderson, 446 F. Supp. 967 hearing, subsequent to his conviction for accepted limits of punishment under North(E.D. Tenn. 1978) Inmates are not entitL 1 escape and pursuant to statutory provisions, Carolina procedure. to punitive damages nor restoration of good did not violate due process. Granville v. Hogan, 591 F.2d 323 time merely because they were not afforded Rush/rig v. State, 355 So.2d 501 (F1'a. (5th Cir. 1479) Parole violators forfeit their a written record of the hearing wherein App. 1978) A sentence should specifically good time credits and time spent on condi- orders were entered placing them in segre- set forth the period of time to be credited tional release. gation and depriving them of good time. against one's sentence. Bayless v. Estelle. 583 F.2d 730 (5th. State v. Layman, 573 P.2d 909 (Ariz. Williams v. State; 370 So.2d 1164 Cir. 1978) cert. dis. 99 S.Ct. 2065 (1979) App. 1978) Defendant was,enutled to cred- (Fla. App. 1979) Statutes which allow gain Where a prisoner is erititled to considera- ,n the time previously spent in Jail as a con- time for good conduct and extra good time tion Tor good time credit it does not neces- dition of probation against the maximum allowances are meant to reward those pris- sarily follow that he is entitled to such credit. sentence for his conviction of burglary. oners who have made an effort to conduct Award of good time is not mandatory, but In re Ewing, 144 Cal. Rptr. 229 (Cal. Themselves m a proper manner during in- depends upon a prisoner's good conduct. App.'19) Where an arrest is followed,by a carceration. Lazard v. United States, 583 F.2d parole hOla, the aefendant is entitled to Wright v. State, 355 So.2d 870 (Fla. 176 (5th Cir. 1978) When a prisoner's re- credit the tim e spent in custody duringApp. 1978) The defendant was entitled to lease is revoked because of his violation of those proceed''}, gs against a subsequentcredit for the time spent in ietistody as a conditions, the United States Parole Com- sentence. condition of his probation, even though it mission has authority to forfeit his good- In re Stinnette, 155 Cal. Rptr. 912 was subsequently revoked.' time credit as well as 9redit for, time spent (Cal. App. 1979) It was held that there was Wright v. Wainwright, 359 So.2d 11 on condition of release.! no denial of equal protection for the state(Fla. App. 1938) The state may revel e a Arsberry v. Sidaff;586 F.2d 37 (7th to refuse to retroactively apply good behav- prisoner's good-time without notice or hem- Cir. 1978) Prisoners do dot enjoy an enti: ior and participation credits toward a pris- mg after the prisoner effectuates an escape dement to earn good under the laws of oner under the Determinate Sentencing from prison. Illinois. A Law. Such punishment-lessening statutes People 'v. Bailey, 371 N.E.2d i.266 Hubbert v. UMteditates Parole Com- are to be utilized prospectively only. (Ill. App. 1978) A court may not deny one mission, 585 F.2d 857(7th Cir. 1978) Good In re Wolfenbarger, 142 Cal. Rptr.credit for time served on periodic impris- time only reduces time to be spent in prison 745 (Cal. App. 1977) The Penal Code amend- onment and probation where the crime and does not reduce the term of a sentence, ments that permit credit for time spent in a took place prior to the enactment of the including time to be spent on parole. "work furlough facility, halfway house, re-statute w high authorizes the power to deny. Hamilton v. United States, 464 F. habilitation facility, etc." are applicable to People v. Jones, 376 N.E.2d 454 (Iii. Supp. 210 (D.C. Fla. )979) Good time and sentences impo..ea :Nriur to the effective App. 1970 The defendant was entitled to industrial good time ,a,-t dependent upon a date of the amendment. where judgement credit the time he spent in jail prior to trial prim aer's continued good behavior. It may is not final. The trial court e,rred in failing against tile six-month sentence he received be forfeited at any time prior to the term of to consider the petitioner's motion for back as a condition of probation, even though custody and parole. time credit solely because the period relat- the pre-trial Jail time was spent because his Gregg v. Wyrick, 449 F. Supp. 969 ed to "drug-program time." bail bond was revoked for the commission (W:D. Mo. 1978) Since the petitioner was People v. Sage, 153 Cal. Rptr. 533 of a new came while on bai'. guilty _A first degree murder, he was not (Cal.'App. 1979) Credit for work time and People v. Vahle, 376 N.E.2d 766 (III. entitled under Missuuu law to credit the good time may be earned during periods of App. 1978) The defendant was not entitleJ time spent incarcerated prior to trial against presentence detainment. to ...edit the time J pent incarcerated pend- his subsequent sentence. People v. Schuler, 142 Cal. Rptr. 79R ing the revocation of his probation against Craig v.! Hocker. 405 F. Supp. 656(Calif. App. 1977) Under California Law, his sentence: (D. Neg. 19,5.) When good time is taken by the defendant was entitled to credit the time Dunn v. Jenkins. 377 N.E. ' 868 (Ind. a board separate trom the disciplinary com- spent in custody from the date of his arrest 1978) Inmates that are serving determinthe mittee, it must hold d separate Wolff hear; to the day he was originally sentenced, in- terms begun prior to the effe.tiv e date of a mg. cluding the time spent in prison pursuant to new good time statute may have their good Carey v. Garrison. 452 F. Soi.p. 485 an mini ineflectual guilty plea, against histime credit evaluated by the oki formula. (N.D.N,C, 19'3) An indivic!.:..1 sentenced new sentence. Jennings v. State. 389 N.E.2d 283 to death and :lien later resenteni.e.: t. life State v. ,'tore, 396 A.2d 144 (Conn. (Ind. 1979) Different treatment of good time imprisonment is ernitled to credit the tune Super. 19,8) I he court was wrong when it for "lifers" and "non lifers" does notlo- spent incareeta- ted prior to trial against his directed that no "good time credit couldlate the rights of either. Sentencing and sentence. A given for the period an inmate spent at a treatment classification is a benefit given Dolph v. Crisp. 4+5 F. Supp.,,1179 drug treatment hospital. Good time creditby the State and the Mate only ,needs to (ED Okla.1978) The ple.intiff'S loss of the is an administrative function and is decided show a reasonable basis for the classifica- opportunity to earn good-time credits. al- by prison authorities. tion. legedly because the warden placed letters in Brett: v. Wainti right, 360 So.2d i 299 Campbell v. State, 575 P.2d 524 (Kan. his file containing false information cor- (FL. App. 1978) Good time and extra good 1978) One is not entitled to credit the time cerning drug trafficking. did not deprave time earthen be forfeited without notice of a spent inciircerated against another comic him of a constitutionally protected right. hearing. The Division of Corrections may tion for an unrelated offense. Kincade v. Levi. 442 F. Supp. 5'1 not forfeit the good time earned by an es- Polsgrove v. Kentucky Bureau ,f Cor- (M.D. Pa. 1977) Because the defendants capee without affording notice ar.d a hear- rections, 557 8.17,1.2d 736(Ky. 977) Because indigene), prevented him from obtaining a ing when the state decides to none presses Kentucky .aw provides that pry institution it release after his state conviction was ire- the charge of escape. custody time is treated as "time served in /
G 90' Correctional data analysis systems
prison," thedefenda t was entitled to "good Wycoff v.Vitek, 266 N.W.2d 211 Commonwealth v. Brain, 392 A.2d time credit" for theays spent in custody (Neb. 1978) Good time reductions in one's 858 (Pa. Super. 1978) Good time credit was prior to the commencemnt of his sentence. sentence are subject to forfeiture and noth- not allowed for time spent on parole where Chalifoay. Com sioner, 377 N.E.2d ing can compel an institution's chief execu-parole was later revoked as a result of tech- 923-(Mass. 1978) Massa asetts is under no,tive officer to provide for restoration ofnical violations. obligation to credit the time spent by theforfeited or withheld good time credits. Gaito v. .Pennsyl ania Board of Pro- s* defendant in a California ,ostitution against Millard v. Perrin.391 A.2d 886 (N.H.bation and Parole, 392 1.2d 343 (Pa. Cinwlth. a Mass5thusetts senten 1978) When deciding whether it is legal to 1978) The requirement that "street time': In re Lynch, 389 N.E.2d 91 (Mass. treat prisoners differently in the applicationcredit be forfeited by a convicted parole App. 1979) A prisoner did not forfeit all of good time, that different treatment must violator is legal. good time deductions by escaping from further some rational and stated interest of Gasper v. Commonwealth Beard-of confinement because when such escape oc- the state. Probation and Parole, 388 A.2d 1139 (Pa. curred, he shnold already have been released State v. Allen, 383 A.2d 138 (N.J.Cmwlth. 1978) A prisoner is not entitled to on parole but for errors in computing hisSuper. App. 1978) One is not entitled tothe time spent incarcerated on a dismissed .good time deductions. credit the time spent in custody pendingsentence credited against two earlier and In re Patter,369 N.E.2d 10.4. I (Mass. the disposition of charges in one county later sentences for different crimes. App. 1977) Goon conduct credits which against a subsequent conviction obtained Howell v. State, 569 S.W.2d 428 'might be earned subsequent to an unsuc- in a different county even though a detainer(Tenn. 1978) Good and honor time affect cessful prison escape are not subject to for- was lodged against him from the secondonly the flat release date of the prisoner. feiture bckause of the escape. county during that'time. Parole eligibility is not effected. Pina v. Superintendent, Massachusetts Midgley v. Smith, 407 N.Y.S 2d 283 Trivento v. Commissioner of Correc- Correctional Institution, 382 N.T.'2d 1079 (N.Y. A.D. 1978) The Time -Allowance tions, 380 A.2d 69 (Vt. 1977) State statutes (Mass. 1978) Good conduct time car_not be Committee cannot rescind good time and that allbw good time reduction on sentences earned while on parole. - extend the period of incarceration. It canfor those in custody of the Commissioner People v. Risher, 260 N. W.2d 121 only consider how much good time it willof Corrections but not lb: persons in cus- (Mich. App. 1977) Where one is released on grant a prisoner, thereby shortening thetody of the Commissioner of Mental Health bond pending sentencing for an assault length of incarceration. are constitutional. conviction and is subsequently incarcerated People ex rel. Lawrence v. New York Woods v.Whyte, 247 S.E.2d 830 in a juvenile facility for another unrelat-State Bard of Parole, 414 N.Y.S.2d 230(W.Va. 1978) The purpose of good time is ed offense, he may not credit that time (N.Y.A.D. 1979) Even though good timeto improve prison discipline. It does not against his original sentence. credit must be earned and is not automatic,applj, to paroledbut only to the prison Williams v. Warden. Michigan Reform- the forfeiture of such credit may only fol-population. The loss of parole, itself, was atory, 279 N.W.2d 313 (!lich. App. 1979) low a hearing. established to accomplish good behavior A prisoner's good time was ordered restored Vogler v. Smith, 407 N.Y.S.2d 310for the parolee population. Parole revoca- because the warden had not properly issued (N.Y.A.D. 1978) .1 prisoner who is recap-tion does not entitle one good time credit rulesgoverning the forfeiture of good time. tured after escape= ended to credit forfor time spent on parole. The "guidelines" that he issued were hei time served in local. .ustody from the date Woodring v. Whyte,"242 S.E2d 238 unsatisfactory under the requirements ofof his arrest until the date he is returned to(W.Va. 1978) The statute providing for the statute, the Department of Corrections. allowance of good time credit to prisoners Post v. Ruth, 354 So.2d 1111 (Miss. Arnold v. Adult Parole Authority, 372is to be applied prospectively, and is man- 1978) The application of a good time statute N.E.2d 585 (Ohio 1978) A prisoner is notdatory. to the defendant that was in force at The entitled to time credit earned under prior State ex ref Hauser v. Carballo, 261 time he was admitted to the ginisentiary, convictions, where he is subsequently con-N.W.2d 133 (Wisc. 1978) A mandatory re- rather than the statute that wff in force at victed'under the habitual offender statute.lease parole violator mum' be given a dire the time of his sentence, was not an ex post Melton v. Oregon State Correctionalprocess hearing prior to the forfeiture of his facto application. Institution, Corrections Division, 580 P.2dgood time credit. Spencer v. Basinger, 562 S.W.2d 350 572 (Ore. App. 1978) The prison disciplin- (Mo. 1978) The defendant was :ntitled to ary ;ommiltee order recommending thatB. Civil disabilities credit for jail time served prior to the. date the defendant serve 30 days in isolation and Rutherford v. Pitchess, 457 F. Supp. of judgment imposing his sentence. suffer forfeiture of 426 days of statutory104 (D.C. Cal. 1978) Prisoners retain all Staley. Stamps, 562 S.W.2d 354 (Mo. good time was justified in that his miscon-their rights that are not inconsistent with 1978) A convicted felon is entitled to credit duct constituted a hazard to human life andthe legitimate functioning of a correctional \for jail time accumulated before judgment health. institution.< even where the sentence imposes confine- Penrod v. OregonState Penitentiary, Holland v. Hutto, 450 Supp. 194 meta to a city jail and not to the custody bf Corrections Division, 581 P.2d 124 (Ore.(W.D. Va. 1978) The decision of the Direc- the Division of Corrections. App. 1978) An order recommending thetor of the Virginia Department of Correc- State v.Blazek, 259 N.W.2d 914 forfeiture of 45 days of good time is nottions to deny a prisoner's request to remarry (Neb. 1977) Where one is sentenced with invalid for the failure of the record to dem- was not arbitrary nor violative of due pro- the statutory maximum term for an offense, onstrate supporting material relating to thecess. he must be credited with the time spent prisoner's prior disciplinary maiters.o Hetherington v. California State Per- incarcerated before trial. Storms v. Oregon State Penitentiary, sonnel Board, 147 Cal. Rptr. 300 (Calif. State v. Kerns, 271 N.W.2d 48 (Neb. Corrections Division, 581 P.2d 979 (Ore. App. 1978) A statute banning ex-felons from 1978) When-a prisoner loses good time be- App. 1978) In an appeal for loss of statutorybecoming "peace officers" is constitution- cause of a disciplinary proceeding, it does hood time, the transcript of a discipline al. not con< titute double jeopardy. committee's findings are necessary for the In re Calrafa, 143 Cal. Rptr. 848 court's review of the case. (Calif. App. 1978) A prisoner's right to marry was impermissibly infringed by the Department of Corrections actions to tem- porarily prohibit him from marrying be- 97 Appendix B. Case law compendium 91 a cause his prospective bride was suspected Johnson v. Levine, 450 F. Supp. 648 Miller v. Carson, 563 F.2d 741 (5th of smuggling contraband into the prison. 2317 (D. Md. 1978) aff'd 588 F.2d 1378 (4th Cir. 1977) "The trial court erred in order- Massman v.' Ward, 408 N.Y.S.2d Cir. I978)TAe Maryland House of Correc- ing that the ombudsman have permanent 254 (N.Y. Sup. 1978) Thestate may deny an tions is unconstitutionally overcrowded. office . Court ordered permanency is an Inmate's request toenter into marriage while The conditions of the Special Confinement Intrusion into state administration of pris- incarcerated if the inmate is not a "lifer.". Area within the facility compel its discon-ons beyond the necessities of theease." tinuance as soon as arrangements can be Ahrens v. Thomas,434 Fnupp. 873 C. EvIckinc made to transfer theinmates elsewhere. (8th Cir. 1977) modified 570 F.2d 286 (8th United States v. Bailey, 574 F.2d 637 O'Bryan v. County of Saginaw, 437 Cir. 1978) The trial court's prescription of (D.C. Cir. 1978) The defendants were en- F. Supp. 582 (E.D. Mich. 1978) The Sagi-specific standards for the future construc- titled to prese:3 evidence relevant to speci-naw County Jail officials received their fi-tion and operation of a county jaij.4onsti- fiCjail conditionsduring their trial for escape nal order to implement specific changes.tuted an unpermissible intrusion into the, even though the defendants failed to turn and improvements in the overall conditions affairs of state prison administration. themselves over to authorities after effec-of the jail. Unconstitutional deprivations Newman v. State of illabama, 466 F. tuating their escape. stemming from the conditions of the facili- Supp. 628 (D.C. Ala. 1979) Where no effort State v. Franklin, 579 P.2d 96 (Ore. ty were found there in an earlier related was made to come within zompliance of a 1977) The possession of marijuana was not decision. court order to remedy the Alabama prison enough to convict a prisoner under the con- Gates v. Collier, 454 F. Stipp, 567 conditions, the court appointed the gover- traband statute. Evidence was necessary to (D.C. Miss. 1978) The court ordered the nor as temporary receiver ill order that he show that a danger ts related to its use, notclosing of two camps of a state penitentiary be duty- bot?nd and authorized to execute its possession. Evidence of a possible danger which aged buildings could not be adequate- the standards set in the court order. The is not enough to support a conviction. ly maintained. Prisoners have protected case includes a description of the violatiohs - State v. Dauzat,364 So.2d 1000 (La. rights to a decent prison environment. and sets forth the corrections to be made. 1978) A prisoner has no right to belongings Gates v. Collier, 423 F. Supp. 732. Pugh 'v. Locke,406,F.Supp. 318 in his cell wtiich are required for evidence.Affd 548 F.2d 1241 (5th Cir. 1977) After(M.D. Ala. 1976) aff'd 559 F.2d 283 (5th A warrant is not necessary in order to seizeJanuary I, 1977, no prisoners can be ac-Cir. 1977), cert. den. 98 S.Ct. 3144 0978) such material. , cepted for whom the defendents are unable Thrity-nine member Human Rights Com- Rodriguez v. Ward, 407 N 731 to provide constitutionally adequate facili- mittee appointed to monitor implementa- (N.Y.A.D. 1978) The court ordered a newties (50 square feet.) tion Df court order, inspect prisons, inter- discipline hearing because of lack of evi- Owens-Ely. Robinson, 22 Cr. L. 2444 view inmates and inspect records, review dence and improper records. (W.D. Pa. 1978) The overall conditions ofplans for implementation, engage indepene Doe V., Swinson, 20 Cr. L. 2272,the Allegheny County Jail violate the in-.dent specialists, employ full