DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Bureau of Prisons: Special Housing Unit Review and Assessment Key Contributors: Kenneth Mcginnis, Dr

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Bureau of Prisons: Special Housing Unit Review and Assessment Key Contributors: Kenneth Mcginnis, Dr Federal Bureau of Prisons: Special Housing Unit Review and Assessment Key Contributors: Kenneth McGinnis, Dr. James Austin, Karl Becker, Larry Fields, Michael Lane, Mike Maloney, Mary Marcial, Robert May, Jon Ozmint, Tom Roth, Emmitt Sparkman, Dr. Roberta Stellman, Dr. Pablo Stewart, George Vose, and Tammy Felix December 2014 Distribution limited to Federal Bureau of Prisons Acknowledgements The project team acknowledges and thanks Director Charles E. Samuels, Jr. and the executive staff of the Bureau of Prisons for their assistance and support in conducting an independent assessment of the restrictive housing programs within the agency. This review could not have been successfully completed without Director Samuels’ strong personal support of the scope of the review and the goals and objectives of this project. His personal involvement and interest in the independent review of the operations and programs of this aspect of the Bureau was critical to completing the assessment. In addition, the project team thanks the wardens and staff of the institutions visited by the team for their outstanding support and willingness to fully open their operation to outside scrutiny. Finally, this project could not have been possible without the support and deep involvement of the National Institute of Corrections and Acting Director Robert M. Brown, Jr. and his staff. In particular, the CNA project team is grateful to Shaina Vanek for her commitment to and coordination of the project and for facilitating communication and the exchange of information between the project team and the Bureau staff. Without her personal involvement and the initiative she took to find resolution to literally every challenge that arose during the project, this report could not have been completed. Distribution Distribution limited to Federal Bureau of Prisons. Specific authority: Order Number DJBP0700NAS079 Distribution authority is controlled by Federal Bureau of Prisons. This document represents the best opinion of CNA at the time of issue. Approved by: December 2014 Monica Giovachino Managing Director, Safety and Security CNA, Institute for Public Research Copyright © 2014 CNA Abstract This report provides an independent, comprehensive review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ operation of restrictive housing and identifies potential operational and policy improvements. Specifically, it provides a comprehensive, detailed evaluation of the Bureau’s use of restrictive housing, including the following key areas: national trends and best practices in the management of restrictive housing units; profile of the Bureau’s segregation population; Bureau policies and procedures governing the management of restrictive housing; unit operations and conditions of confinement; mental health assessment and treatment within restrictive housing units; application of inmate due-process rights; reentry programming; and the impact of the use of restrictive housing on system safety and security. The report also evaluates the impact of the restrictive housing program on the federal prison system and places the Bureau’s use of segregation in context with professional standards and best practices found in other correctional systems. The findings and recommendations contained in this report are based on the information and data collected while conducting site visits to the Bureau’s restrictive housing units and facilities from November 2013 through May 2014. Any operational changes or new written policies implemented by the Bureau after completion of the site visits regarding their use of restrictive housing are not reflected in this report. Some such changes were in process or were scheduled for implementation after the completion of the site visits. i This page intentionally left blank. ii Executive Summary The Federal Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) uses restrictive housing for serious infractions of institutional and system-wide rules governing inmate conduct, such as engaging in violent, aggressive behavior against other inmates and staff. Restrictive housing is also used for inmates who cannot be safely managed in a general population setting, or who have been otherwise determined to be a security threat. There are three categories of restrictive housing used by the Bureau: Special Housing Units (SHU), Special Management Units (SMU), and the United States Penitentiary, Administrative Maximum (ADX) in Florence, Colorado. The Bureau’s Program Statements governing the three types of segregated housing units indicate that all three types of housing have a similar function and purpose which is to “separate inmates from the general inmate population to protect the safety, security, and orderly operation of Bureau facilities, and to protect the public.” The specific placement criteria and conditions of confinement vary for each type of segregated housing unit as does the type of inmate housed in each of the respective units. As of November 2013, approximately 5 percent of the entire Bureau’s prisoner population was being housed in one of these restrictive housing populations with the vast majority in the SHU status (see Figure 1). Shortly thereafter the number of inmates held in SHU housing began to decline. Similarly the SMU population began to decline in the summer of 2013. The Bureau population as a whole has also been slightly reduced from a peak of 217,815 to its current population of 212,283 as of December 12, 2014. This level of use of restrictive housing is consistent with that experienced by most state correctional systems. Much of the decline is attributable to a reduction in the SHU population and, in particular, inmates who have been assigned to protective custody or are serving disciplinary segregation sanctions. The Bureau was able to provide detailed SHU population statistics beginning in February 2013. At that time, the count was 10,262 in over 100 facilities and has steadily declined since then reaching 8,939 by June 2014. This is a reduction of 31 percent from the 13,000 reported count of the SHU population in 2011. There have been no reductions in the ADX populations. iii Figure 1. Number of ADX, SMU and SHU Inmates February 2013 – June 2014 Below we summarize key findings from our review: The general conditions of confinement in restricted housing units are consistent with national regulations and standards. Management of the SHU’s is complicated by the high percentage of inmates that have requested protection from other inmates, often due to gang related issues. The Bureau does not have adequate non-punitive protective custody housing units that have equivalent levels of programs and privileges as general population inmates. Backlogs in inmates awaiting transfer to the next program level negate the intent of the program design and decrease the motivation to change behavior. Mental health services in restrictive housing require improvement in three specific areas: 1) proper mental health diagnoses; 2) more effective treatment; and 3) providing sufficient psychiatric staffing. The lack of time parameters for completion of disciplinary hearings results in substantial variation among facilities in the amount of time served in segregation for similar offenses, and can result in disproportionately long sanctions. There is no formal Bureau-wide reentry preparedness program specific to restrictive housing and inmates in these settings have very limited access to reentry programming. iv Bureau information systems do not effectively track the number and movement of inmates within the restrictive housing units. There are additional opportunities available to the Bureau to further lower the SHU and SMU populations by adopting the recommendations outlined in this report. Primary approaches to further reduce the restrictive housing population include: Establish a time limit on the amount of time that an inmate can be held in investigative status; Allow credit for time served in SHU upon determination of disciplinary sanction; Establish a housing option separate from SHU for inmates in protection status (protective custody); Continue rigorous review of referrals to restrictive housing; Reduce the time period for completion of the SMU program from the present 18-24 months to 12 months and compress the four levels to three levels by combining Level 3 and Level 4 and allowing more differentiation between the conditions of confinement between the levels; and To ensure appropriate treatment for seriously mentally ill inmates, a complete review of all inmates assigned to ADX, SMU and SHU should be completed by the Bureau to identify all inmates who should be transferred to a secure mental health program similar to the ones being developed at USP Atlanta and USP Allenwood. v This page intentionally left blank. vi Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 Project background ............................................................................................................... 1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 2 Facility selection ............................................................................................................. 3 Operational assessment—facility site visit protocol .............................................. 4 Inmate samples and interviews ................................................................................... 6 Mental health
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Care and Custody in a Pennsylvania Prison
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2016 Wards Of The State: Care And Custody In A Pennsylvania Prison Nicholas Iacobelli University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Public Health Education and Promotion Commons, and the Social and Cultural Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Iacobelli, Nicholas, "Wards Of The State: Care And Custody In A Pennsylvania Prison" (2016). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 2350. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2350 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2350 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Wards Of The State: Care And Custody In A Pennsylvania Prison Abstract In this dissertation, I examine the challenges and contradictions as well as the expectations and aspirations involved in the provision of healthcare to inmates in a maximum-security prison in Pennsylvania. In 1976, the Supreme Court granted inmates a constitutional right to healthcare based on the notion that a failure to do so would constitute “cruel and unusual punishment.” Drawing on two years of ethnographic fieldwork from 2014-2016 in the prison’s medical unit with inmates, healthcare providers, and correctional staff, I demonstrate how the legal infrastructure built around this right to healthcare operates in practice and the myriad effects it has for those in state custody. Through traversing the scales of legal doctrine, privatized managed care, and collective historical memory, bringing these structural components to life in personal narratives and clinical interactions, I advance the notion that the physical space of the prison’s medical unit is a “ward of the state” – a space of care where the state itself is “made” through interactions among individuals who relay and enact the legal regulations on inmate healthcare.
    [Show full text]
  • Jailed and Homeless
    Homeless and Jailed: Jailed and Homeless The John Howard Society of Toronto August 2010 Acknowledgements We are indebted to the many inmates who answered our questions for no recompense than to contribute to this report. We also wish to express our appreciation to the following people for their kind assistance in this study: Gregory Brown and Lina Guzzo, Correctional Services Research Committee Kathy Underhill, Supervisor, Statistics, Community Safety and Correctional Services John Howard Society of Ontario staff Lori Shank and Records Department staff, Toronto East Detention Centre Aldene Buchanan, Toronto West Detention Centre Mariann Taylor-Baptiste, Sheri Murphy, and Jim Aspiotis, Toronto Jail Rhonda Frank, Janette Gauthier, and Glen Maitland, Maplehurst Correctional Centre Gary Reist, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Peel-Halton-Dufferin Kathryn Lynch, John Howard Society of Peel-Halton-Dufferin Harvey Low, Acting Manager, Social Research & Analysis Unit, City of Toronto Tony Doob, Professor, University of Toronto Paula McLellan, Program Manager, Toronto Bail Program Cameron Brown, Program Director, Toronto Bail Program Advisory Committee The following members of the Advisory Committee were selected for their various forms of expertise and provided critical assistance with research design, interpretation of results, and development of recommendations: Greg Rogers, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Toronto Pat Larson, Nurse Practitioner, Sherbourne Health Centre Victor Willis, Executive Director, Parkdale Activity and Recreation Centre Stephen Gaetz, Professor, York University John Sewell, Co-ordinator, Toronto Police Accountability Coalition Frances Sanderson, Executive Director, Nishnawbe Homes Boris Rosolak, Toronto Shelter, Support and Housing Administration, City of Toronto Funders and Contributors This research was made possible with funding from the Homelessness Partnering Secretariat of Human Resources and Development Canada under the Homelessness Knowledge Development Program (HKDP).
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Mchenry National Monument and Historic Shrine
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT MCHENRY NATIONAL MONUMENT AND HISTORIC SHRINE SITE HISTORY, EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ANALYSIS CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT MCHENRY FORT M C H ENRY N ATIONAL M ONUMENT AND HISTORIC S HRINE Prepared by: Mark Davison, Historical Landscape Architect, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation Eliot Foulds, Historical Landscape Architect, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation August 2004 CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT FOR FORT MCHENRY NATIONAL MONUMENT AND HISTORIC SHRINE The Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation promotes the preservation of significant landscapes through research, planning, stewardship, and education. The Center accomplishes its mission in collaboration with a network of partners including national parks, universities, government agencies and private nonprofit organizations. Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation 99 Warren Street Brookline, Massachusetts 02445 617.566.1689 www.nps.gov/frla/oclp.htm Publication Credits: Information in this report may be copied and used with the condition that credit be given to the authors, and the Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation. This report has been prepared for in-house use, and will not be made available for sale. Photographs and graphics may not be reproduced for re-use without the permission of the owners or repositories noted in the captions. Cover Photo: Fort McHenry and Patapsco River, looking east, by the authors, July 2003. NPS / FOMC - D62 August. 2004 ii CONTENTS LIST OF
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Preparing for and Responding to Prison Emergencies
    U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Corrections A Guide to Preparing for and Responding to Prison Emergencies Self-Audit Checklists • National Survey Results • Resource Materials • Case Studies U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Corrections 320 First Street, NW Washington, DC 20534 Morris L. Thigpen Director Larry Solomon Deputy Director George M. Keiser Chief, Community Corrections/Prisons Division Randy Corcoran Project Manager National Institute of Corrections World Wide Web Site http://www.nicic.org A Guide to Preparing for and Responding to Prison Emergencies Self-Audit Checklists • National Survey Results • Resource Materials • Case Studies Jeffrey A. Schwartz, Ph.D. Cynthia Barry, Ph.D. LETRA, Inc. Campbell, California June 2005 NIC Accession Number 020293 This document was funded by cooperative agreement number 02P11 from the National Institute of Corrections, U.S Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not neces- sarily represent the official opinion or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Cover photos: Left photo courtesy of the Office of Law Enforcement Technology Commercialization, Wheeling, West Virginia. Middle photo ©Photodisc Illustration/ Getty Images. Right photo ©Corbis. Contents Foreword . .v Preface . .vii Acknowledgments . .ix Section 1: Introduction . .1 Background . .3 Development of This Guide . .9 Section 2: Conducting an Audit . .15 Purpose and Philosophy . .17 Preliminary Considerations . .21 How To Use the Self-Audit Checklists . .25 Section 3: Self-Audit Checklists . .37–180 Emergency Preparedness Self-Audit Checklist . .EP-1 Natural Disaster/HAZMAT/Fire Self-Audit Checklist . .ND-1 Counterterrorism Self-Audit Checklist . .CT-1 Section 4: Report on the National Survey of Emergency Readiness in Prisons .
    [Show full text]
  • Prison Visits: on the Outside Looking in Victoria Simpson Beck, Stephen C
    Prison Visits: On the Outside Looking In Victoria Simpson Beck, Stephen C. Richards and Preston Elrod he American prison population continues to grow. According to the TBureau of Justice Statistics, as of December 31, 2006, there were 2,258,983 people in American prisons and jails. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is the largest prison system in the United States. As of February 2008, the Federal Bureau of Prisons listed 114 institutions with a total prisoner population of 200,931. The majority of federal prisoners are housed in institutions miles away from their last place of residence, serving extremely long sentences for non-violent offences (Mumola, 2000). Research has found that one major impediment to visiting loved- ones in prison is the distance to the prison (Casey-Acevedo and Bakken, 2002). Visitors face transportation and financial barriers to visiting (Tewksbury and DeMichele, 2006). It is an exhausting, resource- intensive process for a family member to make one visit to a prison (Christian, 2006). Consequently, 41.1 percent of federal prisoners never receive a visit from their family (Mumola, 2000), and are more likely to serve their time in social isolation and feel the pains of imprisonment more acutely. One way to reduce those pains for federal and state prisoners is through volunteer prison visitation work, which is shown to help prisoners cope with life in the penitentiary and build relationships (Duncan and Balbar, 2008). People may decide to volunteer to visit prisoners for religious, spiritual, moral, ethical, social, personal or professional reasons. Numerous religious organizations sponsor and encourage volunteers to visit prisons.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Jail Safety and Security
    Jail Vulnerability Assessment: A Systems Approach to Improve Safety and Security FINAL DRAFT December 2008 [inside front cover] U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Corrections 320 First Street, NW Washington, DC 20534 Morris L. Thigpen Director (to be added) Deputy Director Virginia A. Hutchison Chief, Jails Division Michael Jackson Project Manager _____________________________________________________________ National Institute of Corrections World Wide Web Site www.nicic.org _______________________________________________________ [title page] Jail Vulnerability Assessment: A Systems Approach to Improve Safety and Security Rod Miller John E. Wetzel December 2008 NIC Accession Number 000000 [verso title page] This document is supported by cooperative agreement #07J61GJS0 from the National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official opinion or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. CONTENTS Foreword Acknowledgments Introduction Purpose and Scope 1 Audience and Intended Use 1 Chapter 1. Setting the Stage A. Safety and Security Principles 3 B. Courts and the Constitution 4 C. Standards 5 D. Trends in the Jail Setting 7 E. The Jail Vulnerability Assessment (JVA) Process 9 Chapter 2. Phase One of the JVA Process Introduction 13 A. Step 1A: Defining Threats and Threat Capabilities 13 B. Step 1B: Analyzing Facilities, Technology and Operations 19 C. Step 1C: Assembling and Classifying Findings 26 Chapter 3. Phase Two: Advanced Risk Identification Introduction 33 A. Step 2A: Path Sequence Diagrams (PSD) and Scenarios 40 B. Step 2B: Assessing Risk with the EASI Model 50 Chapter 4. Phase Three- Create Solutions 61 Chapter 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Federal Bureau of Prisons' Monitoring of Contract Prisons
    OfOfffiiccee ooff tthhee IInnssppececttoorr GGenenereraall UU.S.S.. DDeeppaarrtmetmenntt ooff JJuusstiticcee Review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Monitoring of Contract Prisons Evaluation and Inspections Division 1 6-06 August 2016 * EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), which is the component of the Department of Justice (Department) responsible for incarcerating all federal defendants sentenced to prison, was operating at 20 percent over its rated capacity as of December 2015. To help alleviate overcrowding and respond to congressional mandates, in 1997 the BOP had begun contracting with privately operated institutions (often referred to as “contract prisons”), at first on a smaller scale and later more extensively, to confine federal inmates who are primarily low security, criminal alien adult males with 90 months or less remaining to serve on their sentences. As of December 2015, contract prisons housed roughly 22,660 of these federal inmates, or about 12 percent of the BOP’s total inmate population. These contract prisons were operated by three private corporations: Corrections Corporation of America; GEO Group, Inc.; and Management and Training 1 Corporation. The BOP’s annual expenditures on contract prisons increased from approximately $562 million in fiscal year (FY) 2011 to $639 million in FY 2014. In recent years, disturbances in several federal contract prisons resulted in extensive property damage, bodily injury, and the death of a Correctional Officer. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) initiated this review to examine how the BOP monitors these facilities. We also assessed whether contractor performance meets certain inmate safety and security requirements and analyzed how contract prisons and similar BOP institutions compare with regard to inmate safety and security data.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Kairos Prison Ministry at California State Prison Sacramento: a Qualitative Case Study
    Evaluation of Kairos Prison Ministry at California State Prison Sacramento: A Qualitative Case Study A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty Of Drexel University by Philip Timothy Palacio in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education October 2012 © Copyright 2012 Philip Timothy Palacio. All Rights Reserved SIGNATURE PAGE This EdD Dissertation Committee from The School of Education at Drexel University certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Evaluation of Kairos Prison Ministry at California State Prison Sacramento: A Qualitative Case Study Philip Timothy Palacio Committee: ____________________________________ W. Ed Bureau ____________________________________ Holly Carpenter ____________________________________ Lois Lowe ____________________________________ Date Abstract Evaluation of Kairos Prison Ministry at California State Prison Sacramento: A Qualitative Case Study Philip Timothy Palacio, Ed.D. Drexel University, October 2012 Chairperson: W. Edward Bureau, PhD This qualitative case study examined Kairos Prison Ministry to see whether this volunteer, faith-based program has any impact on the men who take part in it at California State Prison Sacramento. The problem stated in this research is as follows: The effectiveness of the Kairos Prison Ministry’s faith-based intervention program is not clearly understood in terms of how it impacts the behavior of its program graduates at California State Prison Sacramento in Folsom, California. The research study was conducted as a qualitative case to collect and compare data among the inmates and staff of California State Prison Sacramento, as well as that of the members of the Kairos Advisory Council. The case study method provided the opportunity for triangulation of data from multiple sources of evidence, as this study utilized document collection, field observations and notes, semi-structured interviews, and two focus group interviews.
    [Show full text]
  • Jail Design Guide
    U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Corrections JAIL DESIGN GUIDE A Resource for Small and Medium-Sized Jails National Institute of Corrections Monis L. Thigpen, Director Michael A. O'Toole, Project Manager Tom Reid, Project Manager JAIL DESIGN GUIDE A Resource for Small and Medium-Sized Jails Project Director Dennis A. Kimme, A.I.A. Associate Project Director Gary M. Bowker, Corrections Specialist Project Staff Robert G. Deichman, R.A. David E. Bostwick, A.I.A. James R. Rowenhorst, Corrections Specialist This project was supported by grant number 94J04GHZ8 from the National Inst~tuteof Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. November I998 OCopyright 1998. Kimme & Associates, Inc. 807% S. Neil Champaign, LL 61820 217-351-7036 The National Institute of Corrections reserves the right to reproduce, publish, translate, or otherwise use, and to authorize others to publish and use, all or any part of the copyrighted material contained in this publication. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements .......................................viii Foreword ...................................................ix Abstract .....................................................x 1 . Background .........................................1- 1 History............................................... 1- 2 Lessons from Experience.......................... 1- 3 Intended Audience.................................
    [Show full text]
  • Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) Audit Report Adult Prisons & Jails
    Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) Audit Report Adult Prisons & Jails ☐ Interim ☒ Final Date of Interim Audit Report: ☒ N/A Date of Final Audit Report: June 7, 2021 Auditor Information Name: Darla P. O’Connor Email: [email protected] Company Name: PREA Auditors of America Mailing Address: 14506 Lakeside View Way City, State, Zip: Cypress, TX 77429 Telephone: 225-302-0766 Date of Facility Visit: April 20-22, 2021 Agency Information Name of Agency: Federal Bureau of Prisons Governing Authority or Parent Agency (If Applicable): U.S. Department of Justice Physical Address: 320 First Street, NW City, State, Zip: Washington, DC 20534 Mailing Address: 320 First Street, NW City, State, Zip: Washington, DC 20534 The Agency Is: ☐ Military ☐ Private for Profit ☐ Private not for Profit ☐ Municipal ☐ County ☐ State ☒ Federal Agency Website with PREA Information: www.bop.gov/inmates/custody_and_care/sexual_abuse_prevention.jsp Agency Chief Executive Officer Name: M.D. Carvajal, Director Email: [email protected] Telephone: 202-616-2112 Agency-Wide PREA Coordinator Name: Jill Roth, National PREA Coordinator Email: [email protected] Telephone: 202-616-2112 PREA Coordinator Reports to: Number of Compliance Managers who report to the PREA Coordinator: Sonya D. Thompson, Assistant Director, Reentry Services Division 0 PREA Audit Report – V6. Page 1 of 178 FCC Beaumont, Beaumont, TX Facility Information Name of Facility: Federal Correctional Complex (FCC) Beaumont, TX Physical Address: 6200 Knauth Road City, State, Zip: Beaumont,
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    TABLE OF CONTENTS INTENT………………………………………………………………….. 1 POLICY………………………………………………………………….. 1 BACKGROUND………………………………………………………… 1 ADMINISTRATION Command Responsibilities……………………………………………. 2 Operational Responsibilities…………………………………………… 2 Rated Capacity of Cells………………………………………………… 4 BOOKING PROCEDURES……………………………………………. 4 Pat-Down Search in the Field………………………………………….. 4 Arrestees Who Shall Not Be Detained in Our Jail…………………… 4 Entry into Sally Port…………………………………………………….. 5 Officer Weapon Removal………………………………………………. 5 Booking Search – Removal and Checking of Prisoner’s Property…. 5 Search of Opposite Sex Prisoner Inside Holding Facility…………… 5 Logging the Prisoner’s Property……………………………………….. 6 Logging the Prisoner’s Money…………………………………………. 6 Jewelry……………………………………………………………………. 6 Contraband……………………………………………………………….. 6 Detention Facility Pre-Booking Medical Clearance Form and The Jail Prisoner Check Log…………………………………………….. 6 The Booking Area/Choice of Cells……………………………………… 6 Use of Cells – Adults and Juveniles……………………………………. 7 Completion of Forms…………………………………………………….. 7 Telephone Calls………………………………………………………….. 7 Inspection of Cells……………………………………………………….. 8 Blanket Provided for Prisoner…………………………………………… 8 Dispatch Personnel to Monitor Prisoner(s)……………………………. 8 DEFINITIONS OF SEARCHES…………………………………………. 8 Normal Pat-Down Search………………………………………………… 9 Booking Search……………………………………………………………. 9 Strip Search or Visual Body Cavity Search…………………………….. 9 Physical Body Cavity Search…………………………………………….. 9 LIMITATIONS OF SEARCHES…………………………………………. 9 Strip Search or Visual
    [Show full text]
  • Piecing Together a College Education Behind Bars Jon Marc Taylor
    Piecing together a College Education behind Bars Jon Marc Taylor his article sets forth the reasons for prisoners to pursue the personal Tquest for a college education. It discusses how equivalency-credit programs can accelerate the pace of that pursuit while decreasing the costs; end-of- course exams and credit bank schools can coalesce divergent academic experiences, and pulling it together by filling in with life-experience credits and relatively inexpensive correspondence courses to fulfill the chosen curriculum. While this article is directed towards incarcerated students in the United States, traditional students may find the advantages applicable. For academics, the article offers a practical method of higher education delivery in the penal setting, and for students and teachers it is an affirmation of the value of post-secondary correctional education (PSCE). A wise man once advised: "If you want to make the world a better place, begin by making yourself a better person." To begin that process behind bars, start by reconstructing self-worth devastated by poor personal decisions, and by systemic devaluing abuses leading to this position in your life. Education is the single most significant program on this journey of self- discovery, individual revelation, and personal transfonnation. Beyond the necessary achievement of a high school or GED diploma (in many jurisdictions in the United States, the GED is required to qualify for parole consideration), earning a college degree not only creates the best chance to stay out after release, it is also the best way to qualify for a decent job and to become equipped with skills for successful re-integration.
    [Show full text]