DOCSLIB.ORG

Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services INMATE GRIEVANCE OFFICE INITIAL RESPONSE TIME AVERAGES FROM: 1/2003 TO: 12/2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services INMATE GRIEVANCE OFFICE INITIAL RESPONSE TIME AVERAGES FROM: 1/2003 TO: 12/2013 Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services INMATE GRIEVANCE OFFICE INITIAL RESPONSE TIME AVERAGES FROM: 1/2003 TO: 12/2013 1 I 2003 208 61 2 ! 2003 185 71 3 I 2003 199 62 4 :2003 234 78 5 2003 220 76 6 2003 247 87 7 2003 276 84 8 2003 177 97 9 ! 2003 188 131 10 2003 209 157 11 2003 152 145 12 2003 120 117 2004 125 106 2 I 2004 118 17 3 ! 2004 183 7 4 / 2004 203 7 5 2004 122 6 6 2004 142 9 I 7 I 2004 156 10 8 I 2004 178 13 9 I 2004 195 8 10 ' 2004 152 7 11 2004 172 17 12 2004 110 10 1 ! 2005 153 12 2 I 2005 132 11 Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services INMA.TE GRIEVANCE OFFICE INITIAL RESPONSE TIME AVERAGES FROM: 1/2003 TO: 12/2013 5 2007 212 83 6 2007 212 36 7 I 2001 258 43 8 / 2007 245 38 9 i 2007 234 11 IO ; 2007 287 15 11 2007 275 47 12 2007 218 50 1 ; 2008 234 45 2 / 2008 352 45 3 I 2008 266 38 4 ,i 2008 215 38 5 .i 2008 223 34 6 2008 184 30 7 / 2008 149 42 8 / 2008 165 47 9 I 2008 188 55 10 I 2008 196 55 1 I 2008 160 64 12 / 2008 237 64 1 / 2009 262 63 2 I 2009 215 57 3 I 2009 326 60 4 / 2009 270 71 5 / 2009 186 74 6 2009 242 75 Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services INMATE GRIEVANCE OFFICE INITIAL RESPONSE TIME AVERAGES FROM: 1/2003 TO: 12/2013 7 2009 225 69 8 2009 172 64 9 2009 263 55 10 2009 230 53 11 / 2009 163 46 I 12 ! 2009 161 33 I : 2010 204 39 2 2010 181 35 3 ' 2010 233 22 4 2010 185 29 5 ' 2010 146 47 6 ! 2010 194 29 1 I 2010 224 24 8 ' 2010 166 32 9 2010 214 32 10 2010 263 45 11 2010 234 50 12 2010 279 68 1 2011 234 48 2 20 11 231 37 3 2011 230 42 4 I 2011 192 52 5 ! 2011 227 76 6 ! 2011 240 73 1 I 2011 208 80 8 ! 2011 242 62 Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services INMATE GRIEVANCE OFFICE INITIAL RESPONSE TIME AVERAGES FROM: 1/2003 TO: 12/2013 9 / 2011 216 71 1 10 . 2011 269 78 11 i 2011 200 80 12 / 2011 192 71 1 2012 250 71 2 I 2012 228 67 3 / 2012 238 80 4 I 2012 208 75 5 .' 2012 184 72 6 2012 209 58 7 / 2012 229 66 8 I 2012 198 77 9 / 2012 234 82 10 / 2012 217 73 11 / 2012 208 81 12 ! 2012 199 76 1 ! 2013 171 66 2 I 2013 159 55 3 / 2013 206 62 4 / 2013 174 53 5 / 2013 203 63 6 / 2013 160 63 7 ,' 2013 203 68 8 I 2013 185 67 I 9 ! 2013 142 59 10 I 2013 218 62 Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services INMATE GRIEVANCE OFFICE INITIAL RESPONSE TIME AVERAGES FROM: 1/2003 TO: 12/2013 11 .·· 2013 183 64 12 . 2013 99 55 Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services - - --------- --- . ---- - - INMATE GRIEVANCE OFFICE AVERAGE REPORT FROM: 1/2003 TO: 12/2013 January 2003 164 / 68 55 / 189 February 2003 149 / 76 42/ 204 March 2003 144 / 66 62 / 195 April 2003 178 / 86 60 / 190 May 2003 164 / 75 60 / 222 June 2003 192 / 100 72 / 205 July 2003 216 / 91 70 / 243 August 2003 130 I 88 52 / 223 September 2003 147 '; 126 48 h87 I I October 2003 152 / 151 61 / 268 I November 2003 I18 / 134 40 / 257 December 2003 96 / 140 21/ 278 January 2004 111 / 114 18 / 267 February 2004 96 / 79 30/ 206 March 2004 151 ; 101 36/ 252 April 2004 174 / 99 34/ 260 May 2004 106 / 80 22 / 222 June 2004 131 / 88 22/ 208 July 2004 131 ; 16 31 / 215 August 2004 153 ; 11 33 / 220 September 2004 177 / 65 46/ 184 October 2004 120 / 15 35 / 188 November 2004 144 / 67 33 / 223 December 2004 86 / 65 27 / 157 January 2005 126 / 52 31 / 150 February 2005 113 / 39 22 / 173 March 2005 126 / 44 39/ 119 April 2005 101 / 39 35 / 144 May 2005 111 / 32 42 / 129 June 2005 164 / 36 s2/ 118 Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services INMATE GRIEVANCE OFFICE AVERAGE REPORT FROM: 1/2003 TO: 12/2013 July 2005 110 / 55 64 / 140 August 2005 176 / 73 78 / 175 September 2005 158 I 84 57 / 211 October 2005 154 '! 92 I 58 / 249 November 2005 135 I 101 ! 51 / 211 December 2005 196 I 157 48 / 282 I I January 2006 191 ; 209 21 / 385 February 2006 225 / 194 22 / 342 I March 2006 223 / 213 21 / 395 April 2006 221 ; 219 23 / 434 May 2006 221 / 208 25 / 427 June 2006 196 / 218 21 / 407 July 2006 160 ; 236 17 / 450 August 2006 190 / 246 24/ 450 I September 2006 178 / 213 11/ 431 October 2006 195 / 199 17 / 341 November 2006 173 / 106 8/ 296 December 2006 192 / 143 12 / 506 January 2007 252 / 147 27 / 282 February 2007 193 / 134 13 / 274 March 2007 203 / 188 11 / 436 April 2007 252 / 232 23 / 420 May 2007 199 / 278 18/ 384 June 2007 190 / 61 34 / 183 July 2007 232 / 97 31 / 155 August 2007 211 / 62 44/ 167 September 2007 220 / 64 24/ 151 October 2007 264 / 54 33 / 112 November 2007 253 / 67 28/ 179 December 2007 203 / 63 26 / 180 Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services INMATE GRIEVANCE OFFICE AVERAGE REPORT FROM: 1/2003 TO: 12/2013 January 2008 228 i' 54 13 /175 February 2008 337 /' 51 22 / 154 March 2008 255 ; 46 18/,166 April 2008 206 / 51 14; 122 May 2008 213 I 53 26 /118 I June 2008 116 ; 43 13 / 176 July 2008 139 •,I 59 14/ 157 August 2008 153 / 52 19 / 197 September 2008 181 / n 29 / 210 October 2008 191 / 54 20 "! 160 I November 2008 153 ; 66 23 / 203 December 2008 212 I 59 46/ 237 January 2009 231 ; 58 50 /221 February 2009 198 / 60 24 / 173 March 2009 295 / 57 49/ 160 April 2009 245 / 65 39/ 145 May 2009 161 ; 68 34/128 June 2009 223 / 80 40 f 193 July 2009 216 / 74 29 / 168 August 2009 156 / 57 29 / 203 September 2009 247 / 55 30 / 166 October 2009 222 I 51 30 / 136 November 2009 150 ; 44 27 / 136 December 2009 153 ; 35 29 / 117 January 2010 201 / 44 23 / 113 February 2010 111 ; 39 20/ 221 March 2010 231 / 21 30/ 116 April 2010 111 ; 32 35 / 138 May 2010 137 ; 49 25 / 144 June 2010 190 ; 32 21 / 142 Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services INMATE GRIEVANCE OFFICE A VERA GE REPORT FROM: 1/2003 TO: 12/2013 July 2010 210 ; 25 25 / 105 August 2010 155 ; 34 27/155 September 2010 203 ; 33 37 / 139 October 2010 248 I 47 31I164 1, November 2010 223 ( 49 38/ 120 December 2010 262 / 68 32 / 138 January 2011 224 / 48 29/ 154 I February 2011 229 i 37 28 / 210 March 2011 232 / 46 31 / 153 April 2011 188 / 52 23/175 I . May 2011 221 / 80 22 / 154 June 2011 228 / 73 29 /200 July 20 11 191 / 18 29/173 August 2011 226 / 63 45 / 162 September 2011 212 / 77 25 /163 October 2011 258 / 83 31 / 181 November 2011 191 ; 84 23 / 110 December 2011 179 / 72 21/140 January 2012 231 ; 14 30 / 134 I February 2012 218 / 66 26/ 146 March 2012 221 ; 18 35/155 April 2012 196 / 75 25 / 174 May 2012 174 / 68 21; 193 June 2012 194 / 55 29/141 July 2012 221 ; 66 24 / 186 August 2012 178 / 74 35/176 September 2012 224 / 80 22 / 180 October 2012 202 / 72 34/ 164 November 2012 196 / 80 36/179 December 2012 174 / 75 43 / 138 Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services INMATE GRIEVANCE OFFICE AVERA GE REPORT FROM: 1/2003 TO: 12/2013 January 2013 137 ; 51 49/ 131 February 2013 146 / 52 19/160 I March 2013 180 / 58 35 / 146 April 2013 150 / 41 35/136 May 2013 187 ; 60 33 / 145 June 2013 143 ; 60 28 / 124 July 2013 183 / 62 31/159 August 2013 166 / 62 33 / 125 September 2013 129 / 55 19 / 127 October 2013 200 ; 60 34/136 November 2013 170 i 64 32 / 123 I December 2013 96 / 55 12/108 Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services INMATE GRIEVANCE OFFICE IGO STATISTICAL COMPILATION OF CASE ACTIVITY ENDING 1/2003 TOTAL TOTAL THIS FISCAL CALENDAR MONTH YEAR YEAR COMPLAINTS RECEIVED 208 1,471 208 COMPLAINTS REOPENED 11 36 11 ADMINISTRATIVE DISPOSITION 130 987 130 CASES SCHEDULED FOR HEARING 74 386 74 CASES POSTPONED 13 74 13 CASES OPEN PENDING ADMIN. DISMISSAL OR TO BE SCHEDULED FOR HEARINGS 564 CASES SCHEDULED FOR FUTURE HEARINGS 69 (Represents additional Cases that are currently scheduled for a hearing beyond the current reporting month) GRIEVANCES RECEIVED BY INSTITUTION 1 ~ 6 BROCKBRIDGE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY l :~:DC ECI 31 EASTERN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION HCDC JPRU 2 JESSUP PRE-RELEASE UNIT MCAC 23 MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL ADJUSTMENT CENTER MCIH 8 MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION - HAGERSTOWN MCIJ 3 MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION JESSUP MCIW 14 MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION WOMEN MCPRS 3 MCTC 7 MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL TRAINING CENTER MHC 11 MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION MHCX 41 MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION ANNEX MRDCC 5 MARYLAND RECEPTION DIAGNOSTIC AND CLASSIFICATION CENTER MTC 3 METROPOLITAN TRANSITION CENTER PATUX 4 PATUXENT INSTITUTION RCI 23 ROXBURY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION WCI 21 WESTERN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION Pagel ofl Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services INMATE GRIEVANCE OFFICE IGO STATISTICAL COMPILATION OF CASE ACTIVITY ENDING 2/2003 TOTAL TOTAL THIS FISCAL CALENDAR MONTH YEAR YEAR COMPLAINTS RECEIVED 186 1,657 394 COMPLAil'ffSREOPENED 7 43 18 ADMINISTRATIVE DISPOSITION 76 1,063 206 CASES SCHEDULED FOR HEARING 66 452 140 CASES POSTPONED 25 99 38 CASES OPEN PENDING ADMIN.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement (“Agreement
    SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) pertains to the resolution of the case titled, Jarboe, et al v. Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS), et al, U.S. District Court of Maryland Case No. 1:12-cv-00572-ELH, and is entered into between Christopher Jarboe, Carroll Connelly, Vander Davis, Gary Denmark, and Garfield Redd (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), and Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (“DPSCS”), Maryland Division of Correction (“DOC”), Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, Division of Workforce Development and Adult Learning (Correctional Education) (“DLLR”), Maryland Correctional Enterprises, DPSCS Secretary Gary D. Maynard, Stephen T. Moyer (as substitute for Gary Maynard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 25), J. Michael Stouffer, Wayne Webb (as substitute for J. Michael Stouffer pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 25), Paulette Francois, Julie Squire (as substitute for Paulette Francois pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 25), James Rzepkowski (as substitute for Julie Squire pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 25), and Stephen M. Shiloh, Maryland Correctional Institution- Jessup (“MCI-J”), Western Correctional Institution (“WCI”), Dayena Corcoran, Carroll Parrish (as substitute for Dayena Corcoran pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 25), J. Phillip Morgan, and Richard J. Graham (as substitute for J. Phillip Morgan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 25) (collectively, “Defendants”). The foregoing individuals and entities are each referred to as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.” The Parties hereby stipulate and agree as follows: RECITALS WHEREAS, Plaintiffs are or were previously inmates in the custody of DPSCS who claim a disability by virtue of their being deaf and have filed a lawsuit against the Defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, styled Jarboe, et al.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 PREA Annual Report and Summary.Pdf
    Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services Prison Rape Elimination Act Annual Report 2019 This report is submitted pursuant to the National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) 28 C.F.R. Part 115 §115.88 and §115.89 Introduction Section 115.88 and §115.89 of the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act requires that each agency publish a report that includes a summary and analysis of reported incidents, a comparison of prior year’s data, problem identification, and corrective actions. This report contains incident data for each facility covering calendar years 2018 and 2019, along with a problem and corrective action summary for 2019. This report will be available on the Department’s website (dpscs.maryland.gov/prea/index.shtml) to comply with the public reporting requirements of the Act. PREA Background Beginning in 2003, President Bush signed the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) into law, and the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) worked to develop national standards for implementation by federal, state, and local correctional organizations. The intended purpose of these standards is to provide comprehensive guidelines for preventing, detecting, and responding to incidents of sexual abuse involving inmates in a confinement facility. After a lengthy process that included public review and comment, the DOJ published minimum PREA standards that significantly impacted administrative and operational procedures of federal, state, and local adult prisons and jails, lockups, community confinement facilities and juvenile facilities. The national PREA standards became effective on August 20, 2012. On September 1, 2012, the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (Department) issued directive DPSCS.020.0026 establishing a “Zero Tolerance” policy for sexual abuse and sexual harassment of inmates.
    [Show full text]
  • Detention Facilities Correctional Facilities
    Detention Facilities Facility Title Locale BCBIC Baltimore Central Booking and Intake Center Baltimore BPC Baltimore Pretrial Complex Baltimore MTC Metropolitan Transition Center Baltimore YDC Youth Detention Center Baltimore Correctional Facilities Facility Title Locale BCCC Baltimore City Correctional Center Baltimore BCF Brockbridge Correctional Facility Jessup BPRU BPRU/Jail Industries Building Baltimore BPRU-W Baltimore Pre-Release Unit for Women Baltimore CDF Chesapeake Detention Facility (Formerly MCAC) Baltimore CMCF Central Maryland Correctional Facility (Formerly CLF) Sykesville CMHC-J Correctional Mental Health Center - Jessup Jessup DRCF Dorsey Run Correctional Facility Jessup ECI Eastern Correctional Institution Westover ECI-A Eastern Correctional Institution Annex Westover EPRU Eastern Pre-Release Unit Church Hill HDU Home Detention Unit Baltimore JCI Jessup Correctional Institution Jessup JPRU Jessup Pre-Release Unit N/A MCI-H Maryland Correctional Institution - Hagerstown Hagerstown MCI-J Maryland Correctional Institution - Jessup Jessup MCI-W Maryland Correctional Institution for Women Jessup MCPRS Maryland Correctional Pre-Release System Admin Offices Jessup MCTC Maryland Correctional Training Center Hagerstown MRDCC Maryland Reception, Diagnostic and Classification Center Baltimore NBCI North Branch Correctional Institution Cumberland PATX Patuxent Institution Jessup RCI Roxbury Correctional Institution Hagerstown THRESH Threshold Baltimore WCI Western Correctional Institution Cumberland Units MCCS Commission on Correctional
    [Show full text]
  • Correctional Education Council Activity Report for the Fiscal Year 2020
    this page is intentionally blank Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services CORRECTIONAL EDUCATION COUNCIL 1100 N. EUTAW STREET RM. 121 November 2020 The Honorable Larry Hogan, Governor State House 100 State Circle Annapolis, Maryland 21401 The Honorable Boyd K. Rutherford, Lieutenant Governor State House 100 State Circle Annapolis, Maryland 21401 The Honorable Bill Ferguson, President Senate of Maryland State House, H-107 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 The Honorable Adrienne A. Jones, Speaker Maryland House of Delegates State House, H-107 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Re: 2020 Annual Report Correctional Education Council Activity - MSAR #11520 Dear Governor Hogan, Lieutenant Governor Rutherford, President Miller and Speaker Jones: The Correctional Education Council (CEC) is pleased to submit the Fiscal Year 2020 Report of Activities, as required by MD Code, Labor and Employment, §11-902 (d). The Report provides a comprehensive description of the academic, occupational and transitional programs, as well as services and resources provided to individuals incarcerated in Maryland correctional facilities. The CEC was established in 2008 to oversee the implementation of the Maryland Department of Labor’s (MD Labor’s) Correctional Education (CE) Program. The CE Program reaches inmates with academic, occupational and transitional programs that help them prepare for a positive transition and employment when they are released. With every High School Diploma awarded and every occupational certificate received, inmates move towards a brighter future. The CEC works collaboratively with the business community to develop the employment opportunities that will allow returning citizens to use the skills they obtained while incarcerated. The COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented disruptions to CE Program services and activities in the latter half of FY20, but the CEC, CE Program administrators and instructional staff worked tirelessly to maintain a meaningful connection to students despite the constraints.
    [Show full text]
  • ATTACHMENT Q DPSCS Facilities Acronym Facility Name SDA Type of Facility BCBIC Baltimore Central Booking and Intake Center Balti
    ATTACHMENT Q DPSCS Facilities Acronym Facility Name SDA Type of Facility BCBIC Baltimore Central Booking and Intake Center Baltimore Pre-trial BCCC Baltimore City Correctional Center Baltimore Minimum BCF Brockbridge Correctional Facility Jessup Minimum BPRU Baltimore Pre-Release Unit Baltimore Pre-release CDF Chesapeake Detention Facility Baltimore Maximum Level II CMCF Central Maryland Correctional Facility Jessup Minimum CMHC-B Correctional Mental Health Center - BCBIC Baltimore Pre-trial CMHC-J Correctional Mental Health Center - Patuxent Jessup Maximum CMHC-W Correctional Mental Health Center - MCIW Jessup All levels DRCF Dorsey Run Correctional Facility Jessup Minimum ECI Eastern Correctional Institution East Medium Level I ECI-A Eastern Correctional Institution Annex East Minimum EPRU Eastern Pre-Release Unit Jessup Pre-Release HDU Home Detention Unit Baltimore Pre-Release Maximum Level JCI Jessup Correctional Institution Jessup I/Medium Level II JI Jail Industries Building Baltimore Pre-trial MCI-H Maryland Correctional Institution - Hagerstown Western Medium MCI-J Maryland Correctional Institution - Jessup Jessup Medium MCI-W Maryland Correctional Institution for Women Jessup All levels MCPRS Maryland Correctionall Pre-Release System Jessup Pre-Release MCTC Maryland Correctional Training Center Western Medium MRDCC Maryland Reception, Diagnostic and Classification CenterBaltimore Classification MTC Metropolitan Transition Center Baltimore Pre-Release NBCI North Branch Correctional Institution Western Maximum Level II PATX Patuxent Institution Jessup Specialty PHPRU Poplar Hill Pre-Release Unit East Pre-Release RCI Roxbury Correctional Institution Western Medium SMPRU Southern Maryland Pre-Release Unit Jessup Pre-Release WCI Western Correctional Institution Western Maximum Level I YDC Youth Detention Center (opening September 2017) Baltimore.
    [Show full text]
  • Products & Services
    ABOUT US Maryland Correctional Enterprises (MCE) is the prison industry arm of the Department of Correction and is one of the top prison industries in the nation. We offer CONTACT US products and services, and we are an effective correctional industry model for preparing offenders for employment upon release. OUR MISSION 7275 Waterloo Rd Jess up, MD 20794 The mission of Maryland Correctional Enterprises (MCE) is to provide structured employment and training activi- ties for offenders in order to improve employability upon release, to enhance safety and security, to reduce prison 410-540-5400 idleness, to produce quality, saleable goods and services, and to be a financially self-supporting State Agency. PRODUCTS & OUR VISION www.mce.md.gov [email protected] SERVICES Maryland Correctional Enterprises endeavors to transform lives through mentoring, providing marketable skills, and instilling positive work ethics to contribute to a safer community. OUR FACILITIES Brockbridge Road Warehouse & Showroom Central Maryland Correctional Facility Eastern Correctional Institution Jessup Correctional Institution Maryland Correctional Institution Women Maryland Correctional Institution – Jessup Maryland Correctional Institution – Women OUR Maryland Correctional Training Center MCE Headquarters/Central Warehouse PRODUCTS & SERVICES Patuxent Institution Roxbury Correctional Institution We offer a variety of services to meet your business needs, from Western Correctional Institution mailing and distribution for small to large-sized
    [Show full text]
  • Patuxent Institution Annual Report 2018
    MARYLAND DE~ARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PATUXENT INSTITUTION ANNUAL REPORT 2018 LARRY HOGAN, GOVERNOR BOYD K. RUTHERFORD, LT GOVERNOR J. MICHAEL ZEIGLER, ACTING SECRETARY RANDALL S. NERO, Ph.D., DIRECTOR Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services Office df the Se tj retary 300 E. JOPPA ROAD• SUITE 1000 • TOWSON, MARYLAND 21285-3020 (410) 33 9-5000 • FAX (410) 339-4240 • TOLL FREE (877) 379-8636, TTY USERS 1-800-735-2258 • www.doscsn\aryland gov STATE OF MARYLAND 14. April 2019 LARRY HOCAN GOVERNOR The Honorable Lawrence J. Hogan BOYD K RUTHERFORD Governor of the State of Maryland LT . GOVERNOR State House J. 1,IICHAEL ZEIGLER 100 State Circle AC TING SECRETARY Annapolis, Maryland 21401-1991 'I\ILLIAI,\ G. STEWART -DEPUTY SECRETARY AD~,IINISTRATI ON RE: Report on Chapter 269, 2002-2018 Annual Report of the Patuxent Institution (MSAR #1584) VACANT DEPUTY SECRETARY OPERAllONS Dear Governor Hogan: DAVID N. BEZANSON ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAPITAL PROGRAM S I am pleased to provide the Annual Report of the Patuxent Institution that GARY W. l,\CLHINNEY documents the agency's activities for Fiscal Yea r 2018. The information ASSISTANT SECRETARY contained in the report is intended to satisfy the reporting documents set forth in the Correctional Services Article, Section 4-203, of the Ann otated Code of Maryland. Patuxent continues its focus on the Department' s mission of protecting the public, protecting the staff, and protecting the offenders under its supervision. The unique mission of the Institution is embodied by its focus on providing specialized mental health services within a safe and secure environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Patuxent Institution Annual Report 2012
    Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services Patuxent Institution Annual Report 2012 Martin O’Malley, Governor Anthony G. Brown, Lt. Governor Gary D. Maynard, Secretary Randall S. Nero, Ph.D., Director Chapter I Introduction 1.1 Patuxent Institution Today Patuxent Institution is a treatment-oriented maximum- security correctional facility that is centrally located in Jessup, Maryland between Baltimore and Washington, D.C. It has a maximum static capacity of 1113 beds and offers diverse services to the most varied male and female offender population in the state and possibly the nation. In the service of this mission, it employs 465 staff members who maintain the facility’s security procedures, treatment services, and business operations. There are 377 correctional officer positions for maintaining the safety and security of the Institution. During fiscal year 2012, there was an Average Daily Population (ADP) of 953 offenders distributed among the various treatment programs at Patuxent Institution. There was an ADP of 450 in DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY the two Patuxent programs that serve both male and female AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES MISSION offenders, the Eligible Persons (EP) Program and Youthful The Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services protects the public, its employees, and detainees Offenders Program. The ADP for the Correctional Mental and offenders under its supervision. Health Center – Jessup (CMHC-J) serving offenders with mental health issues was 160, and the ADP for the Regimented Offender Treatment Center (ROTC) providing substance abuse treatment for male offenders was 106. There also was an ADP of 236 DOC offenders housed at Patuxent Institution who were awaiting evaluation for the EP and Youth programs, receiving specialized services (Parole Violator Program, Patuxent Assessment Unit), or transitioning between Patuxent and DOC jurisdictions.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland Division of Correction
    MARYLAND DIVISION OF CORRECTION INMATE HANDBOOK 2007 FOREWORD This handbook is a reference guide to rules and other important information that inmates need to know. However, it must be kept in mind that all information in this handbook is subject to change. Division of Correction Information Bulletins (DCIBs) will be published to inform inmates about changes, and these bulletiµs may be found in the prison's library. This handbook should be used with other handbooks and orientation information an inmate will receive at his/her holding institution. Ifthere are questions about any subject in this handbook, it is suggested that an inmat<: read the Division of Correction Directive (DCD) on that subject or ask his/her assigned case management specialist for more information. J. Michael Stouffer Acting Commissioner Page 2 of 41 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. General Administrative Information ............ ................................ 5 A. Division of Correction (Division) Organization .......................... 5 B. Non-DOC }{ousing ........................................................... 5 C. Initial Assigp.ment ........................................................... 5 D. Security Levels ............................................................... 5 E. Institutions tµld Facilities ................................................... 6 F. Maryland Cqrrectional Enterprises (MCE) ............................... 10 II. Institutional Livin~ ..... ............................................................ 10 A. Inmate Resppnsibilities ....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wayne Resper V. State of Maryland, No. 154, September Term, 1998
    Wayne Resper v. State of Maryland, No. 154, September Term, 1998. SENTENCING--SENTENCE REVIEW PANEL When a person requests review of sentence pursuant to Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol.) Art. 27 § 645JA, the sentence review panel has the authority to review and revise the entire sentencing scheme, including a recommendation for evaluation for Patuxent Institution. Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County Case No. K-97-1354 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 154 September Term, 1998 WAYNE RESPER v. STATE OF MARYLAND Bell, C.J. Eldridge Rodowsky Raker Wilner Cathell Karwacki, Robert L. (Retired, specially assigned) JJ. Opinion by Raker, J. Filed: July 8, 1999 The issue in this appeal is the propriety of the sentence imposed upon Appellant by the sentence review panel which reviewed Appellant’s sentence pursuant to Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol.) Article 27, §§ 645JA - 645JG.1 The primary question we must answer is whether a three-judge sentence review panel has the authority to review a recommendation for Patuxent Institution. We conclude that it does, and accordingly we shall affirm. I. On March 27, 1998, appellant, Wayne Resper, was convicted in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County after he pled guilty to attempted first degree murder, intimidating or influencing a juror,2 and reckless endangerment. At the sentencing proceeding the trial judge stated: [I]t is the judgment and sentence of this Court for the crime of attempted first degree murder, I sentence you to life imprisonment. For the offense of intimidating or influencing a witness, I sentence you to five years to run consecutive.
    [Show full text]
  • Patuxent Institution
    PATUXENT INSTITUTION ANNUAL REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2000 Parris N. Glendening Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend Lieutenant Governor Stuart O. Simms Secretary Richard B. Rosenblatt Director Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ii LIST OF TABLES iii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 EVOLUTION OF PATUXENT INSTITUTION 2 1.2 PATUXENT INSTITUTION'S LEADERSHIP 4 1.3 PATUXENT INSTITUTION BOARD OF REVIEW 5 1.4 HIGHLIGHTS FROM FY 2000 7 CHAPTER II FY 2000 OPERATING COSTS AND STAFFING LEVEL 11 2.1 OPERATING COSTS 11 2.1 STAFFING 12 2.3 PHYSICAL PLANT 14 CHAPTER III OFFENDERS EVALUATED IN FY 2000 FOR TREATMENT 15 3.1 DEMOGRAPHICS 16 3.2 OFFENSE CHARACTERISTICS 18 CHAPTER IV PATUXENT POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS 21 4.1 DEMOGRAPHICS OF TOTAL POPULATION 21 4.2 DEMOGRAPHICS OF CURRENT PATUXENT POPULATION 22 4.3 AGE OF ADMISSION OF CURRENT PATUXENT PROGRAM POPULATION 24 4.4 OFFENSE CHARACTERISTICS 24 4.5 LENGTH OF SENTENCE 26 4.6 COUNTY OF CONVICTION 27 CHAPTER V PATUXENT INSTITUTION BOARD OF REVIEW SUMMARY 28 5.1 BOARD OF REVIEW ACTIVITY SUMMARY 28 5.2 GRANTS OF STATUS 29 5.3 REVOCATION OF STATUS 30 CHAPTER VI DISCHARGES FROM PATUXENT INSTITUTION'S AUTHORITY 32 CHAPTER VII PAROLE OUTCOMES 36 7.1 OFFENSE CHARACTERISTICS 33 7.2 PAROLE REVOCATIONS 34 ii LIST OF TABLES Tables Page 2a OPERATING COSTS – FY2000 11 3a GENDER, RACE & AGE DISTRIBUTION OF OFFENDERS EVALUATED AT PATUXENT 16 INSTITUTION IN FY 2000 3b MOST SERIOUS OFFENSE OF INMATES EVALUATED IN FY 2000 18 3c SENTENCE LENGTH IN YEARS OF OFFENDERS EVALUATED
    [Show full text]
  • Glenn Watkins, John Dillard, & Gerald Fuller V. Secretary, Department Of
    Glenn Watkins, John Dillard, & Gerald Fuller v. Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, No. 118, September Term, 2002. [Constitutional Law: Whether the Division of Correction Directives that establish new security classifications and limit which inmates are eligible for work-release and family leave violate the Federal and State constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws? Held: The Division of Correction Directives at issue do not violate the constitutional ex post facto prohibitions because they are not “laws” within the meaning of the ex post facto clauses of the United States Constitution and Maryland Declaration of Rights]. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 118 September Term, 2002 GLENN WATKINS, JOHN DILLARD, & GERALD FULLER V. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES Bell, C.J. Eldridge Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia, JJ. Opinion by Battaglia, J. Filed: September 9, 2003 The issue in this case is whether Division of Correction Directives (hereinafter “DCDs”) 100-105, 100-508, and 100-543, governing the security classification of inmates of the Division of Correction (hereinafter the “DOC”), are ex post facto laws and thus violate Article I of the United States Constitution and Article 17 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. We hold that DCD 100-105, DCD 100-508, and DCD 100-543 do not constitute “laws” within the meaning of the ex post facto clauses of the United States Constitution and Maryland Declaration of Rights because they were promulgated as guidelines for the exercise of discretionary administrative authority. Therefore, the DCDs in issue do not violate the constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws.
    [Show full text]