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 . .181 Section 5: Resource Materials . .201 Leadership Issues During Crises . .205 Prevention of Prison Emergencies . .215 Emergency Teams . .227 Prisons and Counterterrorism . .241 iii Contents (continued) Section 6: Case Studies . .255 Fire in a New Institution: Taney County, Missouri . .257 Lucasville Prison Riot: Ohio Department of Corrections . 261 Helicopter Intrusion/Escape: Colorado Department of Corrections . 271 Riot at Max: Montana State Prison . .277 The 1993 Midwest Floods: Missouri Loses Renz Correctional Center . 289 The Morey Unit Hostage Incident: Arizona Department of Corrections . .293 Hurricane Andrew: Florida Department of Corrections . 319 iv Foreword In 1996, the National Institute of Corrections initiatives designed to improve their emergency (NIC) published its monograph Critical Analysis readiness at both the departmental and institu- of Emergency Preparedness: Self Audit tional levels. As a result, substantially more cor- Materials. In introducing that monograph, I rectional agencies are well prepared today for wrote: the possibility of a major crisis situation, and fewer remain complacent and/or unprepared. Emergency preparedness is a crucially important topic for every state depart- Obviously, the world around us has changed dra- ment of corrections and for every cor- matically in recent years. The bombing of the rectional institution. Large-scale inmate federal building in Oklahoma City, the events violence or a natural disaster can of September 11, 2001, the subsequent anthrax threaten the lives of both the institution- incidents, and, as this is written, the train bomb- al staff and inmates. In hours, a major ings in Madrid, Spain, and the killing of hun- emergency can cost a state tens of mil- dreds of school children in Russia serve notice lions of dollars and result in many years on American corrections about a whole new of litigation. The negative publicity sur- range of risks that cannot be ignored. Bomb rounding a major institutional crisis can threats or even the possibility of an outside also be overwhelming and almost assault designed to free an inmate are not new interminable. considerations for prisons or jails. However, the threat of concerted terrorist activity with sophis- Emergency preparedness is often not ticated planning, coordination, and even muni- afforded the priority that it needs and tions represents a challenge that is categorically deserves. In some cases, this may be due different from our traditional concerns about sit- to complacency. In other cases, it hap- uations involving inmate violence or natural dis- pens because establishing a comprehen- asters. It is NIC’s hope that this new guide will sive system of emergency preparation help state and local correctional agencies contin- and emergency response is not easy. It ue to improve their preparedness for traditional requires budget, time, equipment, inter- emergencies and will also provide a starting agency coordination, and long-term point for considering the emerging realities of management attention. terrorist threats. Nearly a decade later, those comments still ring This guide builds on the self-audit instruments true. However, the field of corrections has made that were at the heart of the 1996 monograph. a great deal of progress regarding emergency Those instruments, together with a related series preparedness. A number of state departments of of NIC-sponsored seminars, were designed to corrections have committed to comprehensive v help state departments of corrections evaluate We hope that this new guide will be even more their readiness, at both the institutional and useful. It is much more than a simple update of departmental levels, to handle major crisis situa- the earlier monograph. The self-audit materials tions. The 1996 monograph proved to be have been substantially modified, refined, and extremely popular and useful, and NIC contin- expanded, and the rest of the guide is essentially ues to receive requests for it to this day. One new in scope and character. measure of its success is that department- Morris L. Thigpen conducted self-audits of emergency readiness Director have largely replaced what had been a growing National Institute of Corrections trend of NIC-funded assessments conducted by outside experts. vi Preface It is instructive to review the introduction to the few have changed quite dramatically—as prison emergency preparedness self-audit mate- reflected in the content of this guide. One sub- rials published in 1996 as an NIC monograph. stantial change is the much broader appreciation The monograph noted a number of positive today of the need to prepare for crises that arise changes that had occurred in the previous 20 to not from inmate violence but from incidents 30 years with regard to prison emergencies, and such as fires, floods, and hurricanes. Thus, this it also underscored several problems and chal- guide includes a separate checklist for assessing lenges that remained widespread. The 1996 prison readiness to deal with natural disasters. monograph reviewed the trend toward serious emergency preparedness at most state prisons With regard to dramatic change, terrorism has and drew contrasts with earlier times when com- taken front and center stage. When the 1996 prehensive emergency planning was the excep- monograph was published, the events of tion rather than the rule. It singled out the September 11, 2001, were, for most people and emphasis on prevention of crises and emergen- most agencies, simply unimaginable. It is clear cies as another major improvement. On the that since September 11, some things will never other hand, the 1996 monograph was candid be the same. Considerations of terrorism now about the number of institutions and depart- seem to be a part of our daily lives. Therefore, ments in which emergency preparedness was not this guide includes a separate checklist for taken seriously or existed only on paper, not in assessing counterterrorism efforts and planning reality. The prevailing belief in such places was in prisons—the first self-audit checklist of its “it can’t happen here.” The monograph also kind, but likely not the last. noted a more specific problem: the tendency of In today’s world, the forces that define prison departments and institutions to base their emer- emergencies continue to change, sometimes gency planning almost solely on riot and very rapidly. Thus, this guide clearly cannot be hostage situations. the final word on prison emergency prepared- More than 8 years have passed since that mono- ness. The purpose of the materials in this guide graph was published—not a long time in the is to help move the field of corrections forward evolution of a discipline like corrections. in understanding the demands of prison emer- Predictably, many of the observations in the gency and crisis situations and in understanding 1996 monograph still hold true today. However, current best practices with regard to emergency some things have changed substantially, and a plans, policies, and practices. vii The goals of this guide, then, are simple but averted entirely and others may be mitigated. If important. It is hoped that the guide will result this guide helps prevent violence in just a few in improved prevention efforts, planning, and locations and if it minimizes injuries, deaths, or response, so that some emergencies may be escapes during just a few prison crises, then it will have fully satisfied its objectives. Jeffrey A. Schwartz, Ph.D. Cynthia Barry, Ph.D. LETRA, Inc. Campbell, California viii Acknowledgments This guide is the result of a cooperative agree- of administrative tasks for the Institute. Randy ment funded by NIC. The