DOCSLIB.ORG

The Prison Journal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Prison Journal The Prison Journal http://tpj.sagepub.com The Elusive Data on Supermax Confinement Alexandra Naday, Joshua D. Freilich and Jeff Mellow The Prison Journal 2008; 88; 69 DOI: 10.1177/0032885507310978 The online version of this article can be found at: http://tpj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/88/1/69 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: Pennsylvania Prison Society Additional services and information for The Prison Journal can be found at: Email Alerts: http://tpj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://tpj.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations http://tpj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/88/1/69 Downloaded from http://tpj.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on September 17, 2009 The Prison Journal Volume 88 Number 1 March 2008 69-93 © 2008 Sage Publications The Elusive Data on 10.1177/0032885507310978 http://tpj.sagepub.com hosted at Supermax Confinement http://online.sagepub.com Alexandra Naday Metropolitan State College of Denver Joshua D. Freilich Jeff Mellow John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The City University of New York This exploratory research examines supermax confinement in the United States. An examination of counts of supermax institutions and inmates from 2001- 2004 produced by the American Correctional Association and an examina- tion of Criminal Justice Institute data found that different procedures made it difficult to compare numbers across states. Certain states produced incorrect figures about the number of supermax prisons and inmates because of reporting and/or recording errors. This study found, in short, that disagreements about definitions, changing policies and court decisions, reporting and recording errors, and different counting procedures have led to a lack of reliable and valid data on supermax issues. These findings indicate that researchers attempting to examine, or collect data on, supermax issues on the macrolevel (e.g., across states) face important difficulties. This article accounts for this confusion, discusses policy implications that may result from this confusion, and concludes with suggestions for future research. Keywords: supermax institutions; corrections; measurement issues his article examines supermax confinement in the United States. Our Texploratory research demonstrates that disagreements about what consti- tutes supermax confinement or a supermax institution has led to uncertainty about how many such institutions exist. It is also unclear how many inmates are confined under these conditions. Because of policy changes and court decisions, states changed their definitions and produced statistics that fluc- tuated yearly. The percentage yearly change in the number of inmates in supermax confinement in some states topped 1,000. An examination of counts of supermax institutions and inmates from 2001-2004 produced by the American Correctional Association (ACA) and an examination of Criminal Justice Institute (CJI) data found that different procedures and focuses made 69 Downloaded from http://tpj.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on September 17, 2009 70 The Prison Journal it difficult to compare numbers across states. Certain states produced incor- rect figures about the number of supermax institutions and inmates because their departments of corrections (DOCs) made reporting and recording errors. In other words, disagreements about definitions—as well as changing definitions and policies and court decisions—reporting and recording errors, and different counting procedures have led to a lack of reliable and valid data on supermax issues. Supermax confinement was always part of American correctional policies and it still plays an important role. It is usually associated with the “worst of the worst” prisoners (Henningsen, Johnson, & Wells, 1999; Nagel, 1973). Generally, three types of inmates fall into this category: (a) serious institu- tional rule violators, (b) serious escape risks, and (c) prisoners awaiting death sentences. In the past, retribution and rehabilitation were used to justify solitary confinement. Today, most correctional officials defend supermax confinement with incapacitation and deterrence arguments. Supermax insti- tutions are needed to safeguard staff and other inmates from the most dangerous inmates. Some claim that the most vulnerable inmates are disproportionately placed into these harsh conditions (Toch, 2001). Indeed, solitary confined inmates often have co-occurring conditions that implicate public health issues. For example, the Correctional Association of New York (CANY; 2003) found that although mentally ill inmates represented 11% of New York State’s DOC’s inmate population, they were 23% of those placed in disciplinary lockdown, conditions consistent with supermax confinement. Furthermore, once an inmate is placed within a supermax facility, transfer to a lower security level facility is unlikely (Good, 2003). It is alleged that the harsh conditions of supermax confinement—some- times described as custodial overkill—are detrimental to inmates’ mental health (Madrid v. Gomez, 1995). Strict conditions combined with the slim likelihood of transfer may contribute to future dangerousness. Toch (2001) explains that Rules spark efforts to evade them, and regimentation breeds resistance... officers and prisoners are situationally dehumanized....The supermax mission of sequestering “the worst of the worst” can lead staff members to view their charges with trepidation or contempt. The fact that there is no real contact with the inmates converts them into physical objects to be ministered to. The exercise of handmaiden functions...can be experienced as demeaning [to officers]. Sometimes this experience can lead to compensatory demonstrations of power...escalating vindictive interactions result. (pp. 382-383) Downloaded from http://tpj.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on September 17, 2009 Naday et al. / Elusive Data on Supermax Confinement 71 Bruton (2004), the former warden at the Oak Park Heights supermax prison in Minnesota similarly comments that “after long-term confinement and the loss of hope for offenders controlled under these conditions, mental deteri- oration is almost assured” (p. 38). He states that he would not want to live near someone who experienced these conditions for months or years. Supermax confinement directly affects the general American population, because most inmates will eventually be released. In sum, solitary confinement consists of harsher conditions (i.e., more than 23 hr alone in their cells) that are usually applied to a special popula- tion1 who will mostly be released. It is therefore subjected to additional legal scrutiny and should also be subjected to rigorous scientific investigations. Academics and others are unable, however, to systematically study most issues related to solitary confinement. The commissioner of New York State’s DOC recently commented, for example, that historically, the most reliable data on restricted inmate housing around the nation was contained in The Corrections Yearbook, published annually by the Criminal Justice Institute, Inc. in Middletown, CT. Unfortunately, it ceased publication with its 2002 edition that included data for January 1 of that year. (Goord, 2006, p. 19) This article identifies discrepancies in the literature, and highlights the confusion surrounding (a) the definition of the term supermax prison, (b) the number of supermax prisons, and (c) the number of inmates in supermax confinement. Our findings indicate that researchers attempting to examine, or collect data on, supermax issues on the macrolevel (e.g., across states) face important difficulties. The study accounts for this confusion, discusses some policy implications that result from this confusion, and concludes with suggestions for future research. Defining Supermaximum Institutions or Security Levels Developing a nationwide consensus on when the term supermaxium security level, (supermax), should be used to describe a facility’s security level or a specific unit within a facility has been elusive. Riveland (1999) notes, “there are no universal definitions of what supermax facilities are and who should be placed in them” (p. 4). The National Institute of Corrections (NIC; 1997) set forth one of the earliest and most cited definitions of supermax: [A] free-standing facility, or a distinct unit within a facility, that provides for the management and secure control of inmates who have been officially designated Downloaded from http://tpj.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA BERKELEY LIB on September 17, 2009 72 The Prison Journal as exhibiting violent or seriously and disruptive behavior while incarcerated. Such inmates have been determined to be a threat to safety and security in traditional high security facilities, and their behavior can be controlled only by separation, restricted movement, and limited direct access to staff and other inmates. (p. 1) The second part of the NIC’s definition, which is rarely cited, states that the following institutions or units should not be classified as supermax housing: maximum or close custody facilities or units that are designated for routine housing of inmates with high custody needs, inmates in disciplinary segrega- tion or protective custody, or other inmate requiring segregation or separation for routine purposes. (p. 1) The NIC definition incorporates both the conditions expected in a supermax facility (e.g.,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Case 5:15-Cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 1 of 72
    Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 1 of 72 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION ________________________________ ) TIMOTHY GUMM, on behalf of ) himself and a class of similarly ) situated persons, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) CIVIL ACTION v. ) ) NO. 5:15-CV-41-MTT-CHW TIMOTHY WARD, Assistant ) Commissioner, Georgia Department ) SECOND AMENDED of Corrections, ) COMPLAINT ) RICKY MYRICK, Assistant ) CLASS ACTION Commissioner, Georgia Department ) of Corrections, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) STEVE UPTON, Director of Field ) Operations, Georgia Department of ) Corrections, ) ) RICK JACOBS, Former Director of ) Facilities Operations, Georgia ) Department of Corrections, ) ) RANDY TILLMAN, Former Director ) of Facilities Operations, Georgia ) Department of Corrections, ) ) ERIC SELLERS, Warden, Georgia ) Diagnostic & Classification Prison, ) ) BRUCE CHATMAN, Former Warden, ) Georgia Diagnostic & Classification ) Prison, ) ) Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 2 of 72 MICHAEL CANNON, Superintendent, ) Special Management Unit, ) ) RODNEY MCCLOUD, Former ) Superintendent, Special Management ) Unit, ) ) WILLIAM POWELL, Deputy Warden ) of Security, Special Management Unit, ) ) JUNE BISHOP, Former Deputy ) Warden of Security, Special ) Management Unit, ) ) RUFUS LOGAN, Former Unit ) Manager, Special Management Unit, ) ) DWAIN WILLIAMS, Chief of ) Security, Special Management Unit, ) ) MARGARET WASHINGTON, ) Former Food Service Director, ) Georgia Diagnostic & Classification ) Prison, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ ) SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff Timothy Gumm respectfully files this amended complaint for damages and declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated prisoners. In support thereof, Gumm alleges the following: 2 Case 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW Document 73 Filed 03/11/17 Page 3 of 72 INTRODUCTION 1.
    [Show full text]
  • UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title The Most Restrictive Alternative: The Origins, Functions, Control, and Ethical Implications of the Supermax Prison, 1976 - 2010 Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5cj970ps Author Reiter, Keramet A. Publication Date 2012 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California The Most Restrictive Alternative: The Origins, Functions, Control, and Ethical Implications of the Supermax Prison, 1976 - 2010 By Keramet A. Reiter A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Jurisprudence and Social Policy in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in Charge: Professor Franklin E. Zimring, Chair Professor Jonathon Simon Professor Marianne Constable Professor David Sklansky Spring 2012 Abstract The Most Restrictive Alternative: The Origins, Functions, Control, and Ethical Implications of the Supermax Prison, 1976 - 2010 by Keramet A. Reiter Doctor of Philosophy in Jurisprudence and Social Policy University of California, Berkeley Professor Franklin E. Zimring, Chair Concrete, steel, artificial light, complete technological automation, near-complete sensory deprivation, and total isolation – these are the basic conditions of supermaximum security prisons in the United States. “Supermax” prisoners remain alone twenty-three to twenty-four hours a day, under fluorescent lights that are never turned off. Meals arrive through a small slot in an automated cell door. Prisoners have little to no human contact for months, years, or even decades at a time, save brief interactions with correctional officers, who place hand, ankle, and waist cuffs on each prisoner before removing him from his cell.
    [Show full text]
  • Thompson Ehle Company MEP/FP, CIVIL, TSYS ENGINEERING
    Thompson Ehle Company engineering excellence for 40 years MEP/FP, CIVIL, TSYS ENGINEERING PORTFOLIO A COLLECTION OF QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE WHO WE ARE Our History Our Philosophy Our Approach & Executive Summary Sustainable Design 1Our Capabilities Our History Founded in 1977 by W. L. Thompson, Thompson Ehle Company offers a comprehensive package of engineering services including: Mechanical Engineering Civil Engineering + Water Features Design Electrical Engineering + Lighting Design Technology Infrastructure Design Plumbing/Fire Protection Engineering Commissioning + Facility Assessment Our Philosophy Our business, consulting engineering, is a balance of art and science based on a foundation of knowledge and skills acquired through years of study and practical experience. To be successful, any Project must subscribe to total organizational loyalty. The 3-tier commitment includes: • Designing to ethical and professional standards • Providing the client with engineering solutions • Delivering a quality product on time and in budget The design approach includes planning, organization, proper staffing, effective direction, and control over the decision-making process. In order to provide proper up-front planning of a project, six planning elements must be considered and implemented at the beginning of the project. These elements must be maintained and/or adjusted as needed as the project moves through development. The six planning elements include: Establish realistic objective Budget efforts to accomplish tasks Program tasks to achieve objectives Identify and resolve constraints to design process Schedule tasks in a sequential time-frame Devise strategies to ensure profitability and success Our Approach In the TEC organization it is the Project Manager’s task to establish realistic objectives to be accomplished by the Team during the development of a project.
    [Show full text]
  • Advisory Councils 2018.Xlsx
    ADDED ON Last Update: 1/10/2018 State/Country Ad Council/Organization Location Program MOU Alabama Aliceville Federal Correctional Facility Aliceville, Alabama Kairos Women Inside Bibb Correctional Facility Brent, Alabama Kairos Men Inside Added 8.11.15 Decatur Work Release Center Decatur; Alabama Kairos Men Inside Donaldson Correctional Facility (Max/Death Row) Bessemer, Alabama Kairos Men Inside Draper Correctional Facility Elmore, Alabama Kairos Men Inside Elmore Correctional Facility Elmore, Alabama Kairos Men Inside GK Fountain Correctional Facility Atmore, Alabama Kairos Men Inside Hamilton Aged & Infirmed Hamilton, Alabama Kairos Men Inside Holman (Death Row) Correctional Facility Atmore, Alabama Kairos Men Inside Limestone Correctional Facility Harvest, Alabama Kairos Men Inside St. Clair Correctional Facility Springville, Alabama Kairos Men Inside Staton Correctional Facility Elmore, Alabama Kairos Men Inside Talladega Federal Talladega, Alabama Kairos Men Inside Tutwiler Prison for Women Wetumpka, Alabama Kairos Women Inside Was KO Alabama 1.30.17 Kairos Outside North Alabama Calera, Alabama Kairos Outside Added 11.7.16 Kairos Outside South Alabama Southern Alabama Kairos Outside Alaska Hiland Mountain Correction Center (HMCC) Eagle River, Alaska KairosWomen Inside Wildwood Correction Center (WCC) Kenai, Alaska Kairos Men Inside Arizona La Palma Correctional Center Eloy, Arizona Kairos Men Inside Added 9.18.17 Wilmot State Prison Tucson, Arizona Kairos Men Inside Added 5.21.16 Arizona State Prison - Perryville (Lumley Unit)
    [Show full text]
  • Facility Programs Table of Contents
    Facility Programs Table of Contents Subject Page Program Descriptions……………………………….………..….....…6-8 North Region Facilities…………………………………………..…..9-14 Southeast Region Facilities……………………………………..…15-19 Southwest Region Facilities……………………………….….…...20-25 2 Locations North Region Facilities Page (Lee) Arrendale State Prison……………………………..……………….….…….8 Augusta State Medical Prison………………………………………..…….………8 Baldwin State Prison…………………………………………………..…..………..9 Burruss Correctional Training Center…………………………………..…..……..9 Central State Prison……………………………………………………….…........10 Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison……………………………..…….10 Hancock State Prison……………………………………………………......…….11 (Forest) Hayes State Prison………………………………………………..……..11 Helms (Medical) Facility…………………………………………………..……….12 (Clyde N.) Phillips State Prison…………………………………………..…….…12 Walker State Prison……………………………………………………….........…13 Washington State Prison………………………………………..………..............13 Whitworth Women’s Facility……………………………………………..………..14 3 Locations Southeast Region Facilities Page Coastal State Prison……………………………………………………………....15 Emanuel Women’s Facility………………………………………………….........15 Georgia State Prison……………………………………………………………...16 Johnson State Prison……………………………………………………………..16 Montgomery State Prison………………………………………………………...17 (Richard H.) Rogers State Prison………………………………………………..17 (Donald H.) Smith State Prison…………………………………….…………….18 Telfair State Prison………………………………………………….……………..18 Ware State Prison………………………………………………….……………...19 4 Locations Southwest Region Facilities Page (Jimmy)
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of Prison Crowding
    The Politics of Prison Crowding Jeff Bleich t The dramaticgrowth in interestover prison crowding is typically regarded as simply a product of the rapid increase in prison populations and corre- sponding space shortages. Upon examination, however, it appears that many of the complaints being directed at prisons do not relate directly to increased population densities. This Comment argues that other factors have fueled the crowding debate as well. The Author suggests that the intensity of the prison crowding debate is due in part to changes in the definition of crowding, and he attempts to identify the forces responsible for this changingdefinition. He concludes that although allparticipants in prisonpolicy have an interestin relieving crowded conditions, they also rely on the underlying perception of crowding in order to accomplish their institutionalgoals. This analysissuggests severalpolicy implications. Most importantly, even as prisonpopulations fall, the perception ofprison crowd- ing may remain or become exaggerated. In addition, because the debate now focuses on crowding, the term may be used to include or mask other serious defects in the prison system. Prison managers may be misdiagnos- ing-or intentionally misstating-the sources of current prison problems because of the ease of attributingdifficulties to crowding. Accordingly, the Comment concludes, many of the programs being funded by the legisla- tures to combat crowding may be unsuccessful because they are ill-suited to the underlying problems. INTRODUCTION There may be limits [to prison capacity], but they're not like a brick wall.... [They're] more like the elastic in underwear: They just make it slightly more uncomfortable with each expansion.
    [Show full text]
  • University Microfilms
    INFORMATION TO USERS This dissertation was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page{s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. Y ou will find a good image o f the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections w ith a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again - beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation.
    [Show full text]
  • Facilities Directory.Pdf
    FACILITY OPERATIONS LAST UPDATED: 8/1/2021 FACILITY NAM E ADDRESS/LOCATION PHONE/FAX ADM INISTRATIVE TITLE ST AFF State Offices South Gibson Hall – 1st Floor 300 Patrol Road Main Phone: (404) 656-4661 Director, Field Operations Robert Toole DIVISION DIRECTORS OFFICE Forsyth, GA 31029 Fac. Fax: (478) 992-5210 Deputy Director, Fac. Admin/Sup Angela Williams P.O. Box 1529 Forsyth, GA 31029 State Offices South Administrative Assistant Gibson Hall – 1st Floor Carlina Jones Field Operations 300 Patrol Road Phone: (404) 656-4661 SUPPORT STAFF Forsyth, GA 31029 Fax: (478) 992-5210 Administrative Assistant P.O. Box 1529 Martha Taylor Facilities Admin/Support Forsyth, GA 31029 Regional Director Shay Hatcher 1301 Constitution RD SE Phone: (404)- 624-2307 Administrative Assistant Tiffany Hardnett NORTH REGIONAL OFFICE Atlanta, GA 30316 Fax: (404)- 622-5462 Business Manager Deidra Wheeler Human Resource Manager Yvette Crawford Regional Director Stan Shepard 154 1st Ave South Phone: (912) -557-7805 Administrative Assistant Lynette Mobley SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE Reidsville, GA 30453 Fax: (912) -557-7811 Business Manager Andria Holmes Human Resource Manager Melanie Powell Regional Director Vacant 137 Pinewood Road Phone: (229) 759-3038 Administrative Assistant Valerie Jackson SOUTH WEST REGIONAL OFFICE Leesburg, GA 31763 Fax: (229) 759-3145 Business Manager Debra McGriff Human Resource Manager Katrina Sutton State Offices South Gibson Hall – 1st Floor Phone: (478)-994-7507 Female Services Director Pamela Wiggins FEMALE SERVICES P.O. Box 1529 Fax: (478)-992-5210 Admin Asst. (Female Services) Macayla Oglesby Forsyth, GA 31029 Page 1 of 12 State Offices South Gibson Hall – 1st Floor Phone: (404)-326-1717 COUNTY PRISONS County Prisons Coordinator James Payne P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Correctional Staff Training Institutes
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. FINAL REPORT CORRECTIONAL STAFF TRAINING INSTITUTES U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GRANTS NO. 241 AND 317 *JOINTLY SPONSORED AND FINANCED BY THE: OFFICE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF CRIME, DELINQUENCY, AND CORRECTIONS SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY CARBONDALE, ILLINOIS FINAL REPORT CORRECTIONAL STAFF-TRAINING INSTITUTES U. S. Department of Justice Grants No. 241 and 317 July 1969 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ii page A. BACKGROUND, INTRODUCTION, AND PROJECT SUMMARY.. 1 B. PROJECT GOALS AND METHODS 7 C. PROJECT PERSONNEL 14 D. PROJECT TRAINING MATERIALS 19 E. TRAINEE REACTION: AN EVALUATION 24 APPENDIX I. PROJECT STAFF: RESIDENT AND VISITING 38 APPENDIX II. PARTICIPANTS AND SCHEDULE FOR 1st INSTITUTE 43 APPENDIX III. PARTICIPANTS AND SCHEDULE FOR 2nd INSTITUTE 60 APPENDIX IV. PARTICIPANTS AND SCHEDULE FOR 3rd INSTITUTE 76 APPENDIX V. LIST OF SUPPLEMENTARY GRANT- PRODUCED MATERIALS ACCOMPANYING OFFICIAL FINAL REPORT 93 PREFACE 0.L.E.A. Grant No. 241 marks a significant step in bringing to bear the total resources of a major university on the problems and needs of modern corrections programming. Following a developmental program sponsored by the Office of Law Enforcement Assistance (Grant No. 041), the present series of three national institutes for correc- tional staff trainers incorporated substantial new know- ledge and techniques in a systematic attempt to upgrade corrections through improved staff development programs. Seventy-eight trainer participants and over two hundred middle-management staff and correctional officers were involved in the institutes, thus representing an impact on more than one hundred correctional institutions nation- wide.
    [Show full text]
  • Correctional Administrators' Source Book
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. 41 • CORRECTIONAL ADMINISTRATORS' SOURCE BOOK Summary of National and Four Regional Training Institutes for Correctional Administrators Made possible by a grant from the Office of Law Enforcement and Assistance, U. S. Department of Justice • Sponsored by AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION ' Woodridge, Station P.O. Box 10176 - Washington, D.C. 20018 301-864-1070 •- • 1966 • TABLE OF CONTENTS - 0- Page PREFACE 1 INTRODUCTION 5 NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR ADMINISTRATORS SECTION I Welcoming Address 14 Keynote Address 17 Opening Session :23 Defining the Objectives of a Modern 28 Correctional Program New Resources for Modern Correctional Systems 35 New Concepts of Treatment . 40 • Research, Demonstration & Pilot Projects 46 Preliminary Findings — Ford Foundation 52 Law Enforcement Assistance Act 56 Summary by Honorable Nicholas dee. Katzenbach 59 Measuring the Effectiveness of Correctional 61 Programs • Role of Management in Introducing Change 68 • Legal Implications of Prisoners' Rights 74 Evaluation Panel Report 87 Future Plans for Training Institutes 91 Summary Report 94 REGIONAL INSTITUTES FOR WARDENS AND SUPERINTENDENTS SECTION II OPENING SESSION Western Region 103 Northeastern Region 106 Southern Region — Keynote Speech •110 Central Region 115 • a TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION III • DEFINING THE OBJECTIVES OF A MODERN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AND THE ROLE OF THE WARDEN OR SUPER— INTENDENT Western Region 123 Northeastern Region 126 Southern Region 131 Central Region
    [Show full text]
  • DIRECTORY of STATE PRISON LIBRARIANS 1991 PREPARED by MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL EDUCATION LIBRARIES BALTIMORE, MARYLAND If You Have
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. '.~< \ DIRECTORY OF STATE PRISON LIBRARIANS 1991 • PREPARED BY MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL EDUCATION LIBRARIES BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 133209 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in tilis document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been granted by Marvland Correctional Education Libraries to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of the copyright owner. If"you have suggestions for improving the Directory of state Prison Libraries, or if you find errors, omissions or would like a copy of the Directory, please notify: " Ms. Brenda Vogel, Coordinator Correctional Education Libraries Maryland State Department of Education 200 W. Baltimore Street/7th Floor Baltimore, MD 21201-2595 (301) 333-2241 (For a copy of the Directory, please include a stamped, self-addressed 13 x 10 envelope with $ .65 in postage - Library Rate.) • • .. • FOREWORD The Directory of State Prison Librarians has been developed for the purpose of improving communication between the often isolated librarians working in • state correctional libraries and to serve as a resource and networking aid. It includes the names, addresses, telephone numbers and employing agencies of librarians working in adult and juvenile correctional libraries. This Directory began as a project of the ASCLA Library Service to Prisoners Forum of the American Library Assoc,iation.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia Macon Division Ricardo Harris, Brandon ) Cobb, Tommy
    Case 5:18-cv-00365-TES Document 67 Filed 12/05/19 Page 1 of 56 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION RICARDO HARRIS, BRANDON ) COBB, TOMMY GREEN, LEROY ) HENDERSON, TONY MOORE, JR., ) CHRISTOPHER SHIELDS, ANDREW ) SMITH, DARRELL SMITH, JR., and ) JORAE SMITH, on behalf of themselves ) and all others similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.: ) vs. ) 5:18-cv-365 (TES) ) GEORGIA DEP’T OF CORRECTIONS; ) GEORGIA STATE BOARD OF ) PARDONS AND PAROLES; ) GREGORY C. DOZIER, in his official ) capacity as Commissioner of the Georgia ) Department of Corrections; TERRY ) BARNARD, in his official capacity as ) Chairman of the Georgia State Board of ) Pardons and Paroles; TIMOTHY C. ) WARD, in his official capacity as the ) Chief of Staff of the Georgia Department ) of Corrections; CLAY NIX, in his official ) capacity as the Director of Professional ) Standards for the Georgia Department ) of Corrections; RICKY MYRICK, in his ) Official capacity as the Assistant ) Commissioner of the Facilities Division ) of the Georgia Department of ) Corrections; JACK “RANDY” SAULS, ) in his official capacity as the Assistant ) Commissioner of Health Service for the ) Georgia Department of Corrections; JAY ) SANDERS, in his official capacity as the ) Assistant Commissioner of Inmate ) of the Georgia Department of ) Corrections; TOMMY BOWEN, in his ) official capacity as Warden of Central ) State Prison; TED PHILBIN, in his ) official capacity as Warden of Augusta ) State Medical Prison; ANTOINE ) CALDWELL, in his official capacity as ) Warden of Johnson State Prison, ) ) Defendants. ) Case 5:18-cv-00365-TES Document 67 Filed 12/05/19 Page 2 of 56 FIRST AMENDED ANSWER AND DEFENSES Come now Defendants, Georgia Department of Corrections, Georgia Department of Pardons and Paroles, Timothy Ward1 and Terry Barnard, in their official capacities only, by and through the Attorney General for the State of Georgia, and file this First Amended Answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
    [Show full text]