noble correctional institution › docs › noble_correctional_institution_2011_2.pdfnoble...

CIIC Report: Noble Correctional Institution 1

Noble

Correctional

Institution

July 11, 2011

July 12, 2011

July 14, 2011

July 19, 2011

Carol Robison,

Report Coordinator


TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

SECTION I. INSPECTION PROFILE AND INSTITUTION OVERVIEW ..........................3

A. INSPECTION PROFILE ......................................................................................3

B. INSTITUTION OVERVIEW ...............................................................................4

C. COST SAVINGS INITIATIVES ..........................................................................4

D. INMATE POPULATION .....................................................................................5

1. Security Threat Groups .............................................................................5

E. STAFF DEMOGRAPHICS ..................................................................................6

SECTION II. CRITICAL CONCERNS AND POINTS OF PRIDE ........................................8

SECTION III. INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE EVALUATION .............................11

SECTION IV. KEY STATISTICS .............................................................................................12

A. USE OF FORCE ..................................................................................................12

B. ASSAULTS ...........................................................................................................12

C. SUICIDES AND SUICIDE ATTEMPTS ..........................................................13

D. INVESTIGATOR DATA ....................................................................................14

SECTION V. EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS ..................................................................15

A. MEDICAL SERVICES .......................................................................................15

B. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES .......................................................................16

C. FOOD SERVICES ...............................................................................................17

D. HOUSING UNITS ...............................................................................................18

E. COMMISSARY ...................................................................................................19

SECTION VI. EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS ....................................................................21

A. PROGRAM EVALUATION ..............................................................................21

B. LIBRARY/LAW LIBRARY ..............................................................................23

C. RECREATION ...................................................................................................24

D. VOLUNTEERS ....................................................................................................25

SECTION VII. INMATE COMMUNICATION ......................................................................26

A. INQUIRIES ..........................................................................................................27

SECTION VIII. APPENDIX ......................................................................................................28

A. DRC ACTION PLAN ..........................................................................................28

B. SCHEDULES .......................................................................................................31

C. DATA TABLES ...................................................................................................34

D. INSPECTION CHECKLISTS ............................................................................50

SECTION IX. GLOSSARY OF TERMS ....................................................................................91


CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION INSPECTION COMMITTEE REPORT

ON THE INSPECTION AND EVALUATION OF

NOBLE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

SECTION I. INSPECTION PROFILE AND INSTITUTIONAL OVERVIEW

A. INSPECTION PROFILE

Date of Inspection: July 11, 2011

July 12, 2011

July 14, 2011

July 19, 2011

Type of Inspection: Unannounced

CIIC Member and Staff Present: Joanna Saul, Director

Darin Furderer, Inspector

Jamie Hooks, Inspector

Adam Jackson, Inspector

Carol Robison, Inspector

Molly Yeager, Inspector

Facility Staff Present: Christopher LaRose, Deputy Warden of

Operations

Timothy Buchanan, Deputy Warden of

Special Services

CIIC spoke with many additional staff at

their posts throughout the course of the

inspection.

Areas/Activities Included in the Inspection:

Housing Units

Recreation

Inmate Dining Hall

Kitchen

Segregation

Commissary

Programming

Library/Law Library

Medical Services

Mental Health Services


B. INSTITUTION OVERVIEW

Noble Correctional Institution is a 164 acre facility, which opened in 1996.1 The facility is a

Level 2 security (medium security) male institution serving Level 1 and 2 inmates. The

institution‟s FY11 GRF budget is $35,314,245 and the daily cost per inmate is $43.83.2 The date

of the most recent Internal Management Audit was April 12-13, 2011. Noble Correctional

Institution achieved 100 percent compliance with the ACA Mandatory Standards. Areas of non-

compliance were inadequate cell size (applicable to segregation), inadequate bedding or bunk

accommodation for inmates, incomplete inspections of security devices such as radios carried by

Maintenance Staff, Groundskeeper, and Executive Staff, inadequate security searches and

inspections of infirmary cells, and a failure to conduct Return to Work Partnership Program

meetings in designated months. 3

C. COST SAVINGS INITIATIVES

In the 129th General Assembly biennium, one of CIIC‟s goals is to identify cost savings across

the DRC. A variety of operational measures have been taken at Noble Correctional Institution to

reduce costs and create savings. The institution has modified the rates of consumption of basic

utilities, including water and electricity, reduced expenses associated with office and vehicle

operations, implemented recycling to reduce costs for trash removal, and adopted a „repair rather

than replace‟ approach to all aspects of the institution. The following examples illustrate some

of the cost savings measures:

Switching from hot water laundry to cold water wash reportedly saves several thousand

dollars; and in one representative month, the savings were determined to be $8,100.

Reducing the number of leased photocopiers has reportedly generated an annual savings

of $17,760.

Regulating the length of showers through installation of timers has reduced the amount of

water consumed.

Replacing flexible dryer vents with PVC pipe vents has reduced the consumption of

electricity.

Outfitting a minivan for transporting inmates on short trips, rather than using the large

bus, and purchasing vehicle oil and fluids in bulk have reduced expenses associated with

transportation and vehicle maintenance.

Repairing appliances (microwaves, ice machines, washers, dryers) and furniture (chairs),

rather than replacing these items has reportedly generated savings.

The file folders used for the inmate programming records are reused when inmates

progress from active to closed program status. The materials held in closed files are

archived in plain folders, so that the more expensive sturdy folders are recycled for use as

active file records.4

1 Noble Correctional Institution website, http://www.drc.ohio.ohio.gov/Public/nci.htm. 2 Ibid.

3Full Internal Management Audit, Noble Correctional Institution, April 12-13, 2011.

4Warden‟s Office, Noble Correctional Institution, July 11, 2011.


D. INMATE POPULATION

The rated capacity for Noble Correctional Institution is 1,855. The inmate count on July 11,

2011 was 2,502 inmates, with 1,497 inmates classified as white, 955 inmates classified as black,

and 50 inmates of other races. 5 The average age of the inmate population was 35.42 years as of

June 2011.6 Table 1 in the Appendix provides information about the DRC population and prison

rated capacity per institution as of July 5, 2011.

Chart 1

Breakdown of Inmate Population by Percentage7

July 11, 2011

1. Security Threat Groups

There were 94 identified security threat groups at Noble Correctional Institution and 395 STG-

affiliated inmates, which was 15.6 percent of the 2,530 inmate population count on July 13,

2011. STG-affiliated inmates are divided into three categories or levels based on their gang

participation level. On July 13, 2011, there were 16 inmates listed as disruptive (level 3), 75

inmates listed as active (level 2), and 304 inmates listed as passive (level 1). Approximately 264

or 66.8 percent of all STG-affiliated inmates belong to one of five groups. As of July 11, 2011,

the following five most common security threat groups at Noble Correctional Institution were:8

White Supremacists (117, of which 19 are Aryan Nation and 24 are Aryan Brotherhood)

Bloods (47)

Crips (44)

Folks (29)

Cincinnati White Boys (27)

5 Racial Balance Statistics documentation, Noble Correctional Institution, July 11, 2011.

6 Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, www.drc.ohio.gov/web/Reports/FactSheet/June%202011.pdf.

7 Ibid, footnote5.

8 Security Threat Group Coordinator, Noble Correctional Institution, July 11, 2011.

60%

38%

2%

White Black Other


E. STAFF DEMOGRAPHICS

As of July 1, 2011, there were 415 total staff at Noble Correctional Institution. Of the 415 total

staff at Noble Correctional Institution as of July 1, 2011, 313 (75.4 percent) were male and 102

(24.6 percent) were female.9 Of the total staff, 14 (3 percent) were classified as black, 398 (96

percent) as white, and 3 (1 percent) other.10

Table 2 of the Appendix provides more information

about the staff population.

Chart 2

Staff and Inmate Race Comparison by Percentage of Total Staff and Total Inmates

July 1, 2011

Of the 440 approved positions, 413 positions were filled, and 27 positions were vacant. With 413

filled positions, Noble Correctional Institution is operating with approximately 94% of its

approved staff. The Correctional Officer (CO) staff is approved at 266 positions, and currently

has 12 CO vacancies.11

The following chart compares the institutional ratio or percentage of inmates in each institution

to the number of correctional officers (security staff) within each institution. At Noble

Correctional Institution, as of July 5, 2011, there were 9.3 inmates for each Correctional Officer.

9 Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) Workforce Composition, July 1, 2011.

10 Ibid.

11 Personal Communication, Table of Organization, Noble Correctional Institution, July 14, 2011.

* Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) Workforce Composition (staff), July 1, 2011.

**The DRC inmate percentages are as of June 2011, Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Fact Sheet,

www.drc.ohio.gov/web/Reports/FactSheet/June%202011.pdf.

Staff White Staff Black Staff Other Inmate White

Inmate Black Inmate Other

NCI* 96 3 1 60 38 2

DRC** 80 17 2 51 47 2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

http://www.drc.ohio.gov/web/Reports/Fact


Chart 3

DRC Institutional Staffing: Number of Inmates per Corrections Officer12

July 5, 2011

12

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC), DRC Staffing Report, ODRC Workforce

Composition, July 1,2011; and Noble Correctional Institution, Master Count Sheet, July 11, 2011.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

AC

I

Be

CI

CC

I

DC

I/M

EPR

C

FPR

C

GC

I

HC

F

LoC

I

MaC

I

MC

I

NC

CI

NC

I

NEP

RC

PC

I

RIC

I

SCI

RC

I

LeC

I

Man

CI

TCI

ToC

I

WC

I

SOC

F

OSP

CR

C

LorC

I

CM

C

OC

F

OR

W

Level

1/2

Level

3

Level

4/5 Reception

Center Special


SECTION II. CRITICAL CONCERNS AND POINTS OF PRIDE

Overall, the inspection was very positive. The following highlights the points of pride and

critical concerns observed during the inspection. NCI staff provided a response, which has been

inserted in the shaded box below, and an action plan to address the concerns, which is

reproduced in the Appendix.

CRITICAL CONCERNS

INMATE SAFETY

The CIIC inspection team interviewed 128 inmates during the inspection. During the interviews,

inmates consistently relayed concerns regarding frequent fights and the presence of gang

activity. In particular, inmates relayed that fights break out for a place in the line to the

Commissary, now that the institution has moved to an “open Commissary” schedule. Noble

Correctional Institution has experienced several large violent disturbances, including one last

winter that involved several hundred inmates. Staff relayed that the most recent violent

disturbance (meaning a physical altercation involving six or more inmates) occurred in March

and that they are working to proactively address problems that might spiral into disturbances.

NCI Response:

NCI transitioned to open commissary on March 28, 2011 this occurred after our last large

disturbance which was March 4, 2011. Since this date we have not experienced any large or

major yard incidents or disturbances. The transition to open commissary occurred as a

response to on-going reported issues of property theft. As of the date of this report there have

been zero (0) reported physical altercations in the commissary, commissary line or within the

designated waiting area.

LACK OF ACTIVITIES

Related to the above, the other primary concern relayed by inmates was a reported lack of

activities, which they stated has a direct effect on the number of fights. Many inmates

complained about the modified recreation schedule, which limits recreation in the evening.

Although CIIC understands why the schedule has been implemented and is not recommending a

change, inmates requested activities and programming for the time that they are locked down.

Several staff also relayed a concern regarding inmate idleness since the implementation of the

split recreation schedule.

POINTS OF PRIDE

PRAISE FOR WARDEN AND ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

The staff interviews were the most positive of any institution inspected yet this year, with staff

openly praising the Warden and administrative staff. Staff consistently relayed that the Warden

is supportive and approachable, yet does not micromanage, allowing staff to do their jobs. He


reportedly seeks the input of both line staff and inmates regarding issues and changes throughout

the institution. The Warden and administrative staff have also implemented several initiatives

for staff accountability, including a weekly report on executive staff rounds, a weekly report on

maintenance concerns, regular review of officer conduct reports, and an online work order

system, to name just a few. Staff relayed that the institution “runs like a well-oiled machine.”

Overall, the depth of quality in every level of staff – from Deputy Wardens to line staff – was

impressive.

FACILITY CONDITIONS

Facility conditions were excellent. All areas were clean and swept, and all inmate property was

orderly. There were no obvious signs of maintenance or pest issues. Although some inmates

relayed concerns regarding ventilation due to the heat, no inmates relayed concerns regarding

facility conditions overall, which is in contrast to CIIC inspections at other facilities. While it is

true that the institution is newer than some other DRC institutions, staff and inmates have clearly

worked together to maintain the facility.

MAINTENANCE STAFF

Related to the above, staff relayed that the Maintenance Department at Noble Correctional

Institution is “excellent.” Despite losing staff in recent budget cuts, maintenance staff have

continued to provide top of the line care for the facility, practicing preventative maintenance that

preserves current equipment and buildings and ultimately saves money. Staff relayed that the

maintenance staff are both responsive and proactive, with staff taking a maintenance cart to each

housing unit on a daily basis and asking staff what maintenance problems need to be fixed. As

stated above, maintenance staff also utilize an innovative online work order system that allows

for efficient communication between officers and maintenance workers. In total, the

maintenance staff – similar to other staff at Noble Correctional Institution – work toward both

efficiency and accountability, providing a service that positively affects every person who lives

and works within the facility.

MEDICAL SERVICES

Medical Services was rated by the CIIC inspection team as excellent. Despite the high turnover

of the inmate population, there was no backlog of the 1,083 chronic care clinics. The infirmary

was clean and organized, with no broken equipment. Staff even took the initiative to create

educational posters and DVDs for the inmates to learn about infection prevention. Equally

important, only one inmate relayed a concern in regard to medical services, and it pertained to

procedures rather than quality of care.

CREATIVE INCENTIVE PROGRAMS

Inmate behavior management is an ongoing challenge at open campus, dorm-style facilities such

as Noble Correctional Institution. The facility has implemented several incentive programs to

positively affect inmate behavior, including multiple honor dorms with rewards such as extra

phone time, extra exercise equipment, and hand-held electronic game systems. Staff organized a


three-on-three basketball tournament and stated that they also bring in community softball teams.

Staff are currently developing activities for inmates on the unit that will also incentivize good

behavior, such as games and additional recreation time.

Also notable is the Food Service Incentive Program, which was implemented in 2008. Staff

consulted inmates on the incentives and then designed a point system that rewards inmates for

attendance, good work, and good behavior. Inmates are removed from the program if they

commit rule infractions. This combination of incentives and disincentives is an example of the

kind of efficient and proactive thinking that was evident in every area of the facility.


SECTION III. INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE EVALUATION

Pursuant to Section 103.73 of the Ohio Revised Code, the CIIC is required to evaluate the inmate

grievance procedure (IGP) at each state correctional institution.

The IGP is a three step administrative process, established in DRC Administrative Rule 5120-9-

31. The grievance procedure allows for investigation and nonviolent resolution of inmate

concerns. The first step is an informal complaint resolution, which the inmate submits to the

supervisor of the staff person or department responsible for the complaint. The second step is a

notification of grievance, submitted to the Inspector. The final step is an appeal of the

Inspector‟s disposition to the Chief Inspector in DRC Operations Support Center.

The Inspector‟s Activity Report for January 2010 through December 2010 is provided in Table 3

of the Appendix. According to the Inspector‟s report, there were 779 informal complaints filed,

to which 52 (6.7 percent) responses were untimely. There were 161 grievances filed during the

year,13

of which 139 were denied, 2 were withdrawn by the inmate, and 20 were granted. The

top three categories with the most grievances were Personal Property with 55, Health Care with

32, and Staff/Inmate Relations - Supervision with 20.

During the inspection, the CIIC inspection team interviewed 128 inmates. Questions regarding

inmates‟ perception and use of the IGP were included in the interviews, so as to accomplish

CIIC‟s statutory obligation to evaluate the IGP at each institution during the biennium. The

following responses were collected:

Number of inmates who said they knew who the Inspector was: 40 (31.25 percent)

Number of inmates who said that the IGP was explained to them: 105 (82 percent)

Number of inmates who said that they know how to use the IGP: 98 (76.6 percent)

Number of inmates who try to resolve issues by first speaking with staff: 86 (67.2

percent)

Of the inmates who said that they had filed an informal complaint, the following number

said that the informal complaint was resolved fairly: 18/35 (51.4 percent)

Of the inmates who said that they had filed a grievance, the following number said that

the grievance was resolved fairly: 12/20 (60 percent)

Of the inmates who said that they had filed an appeal, the following number said that the

appeal was resolved fairly: 4/11 (36.4 percent)

Although CIIC believes the number of inmates who said that they knew who the Inspector was

could be improved, the low number could be due to the high turnover that the institution

experiences in its inmate population. The other numbers are all high compared to the results

obtained as part of CIIC‟s 2007 survey of the inmate population in regard to the grievance

procedure, which is a credit to the Inspector. More information on the 2007 survey and the

responses obtained can be found in the CIIC Biennial Report to the 129th

General Assembly:

Inmate Grievance Procedure, available on the CIIC website.

13

2010 Institution Grievances Statistics, Noble Correctional Institution.


SECTION IV. KEY STATISTICS

A. USE OF FORCE

The Noble Correctional Institution reported 149 Use of Force incidents from January 2011

through June 2011.14

There were 76 incidents involving black inmates, 73 involving white

inmates, and zero involving an inmate of another race. Tables 4 and 5 of the Appendix provide

an explanation of Use of Force and a breakdown of the use of force incidents from January 2011

through June 2011.

Chart 4

Use of Force by Institution15

January 2011 through June 2011

B. ASSAULTS

According to the Noble Correctional Institution‟s assault incident lists reflecting information,

beginning January 1, 2009 through July 11, 2011, there were 287 reported inmate on inmate

assaults. 16

Of the 287 inmate on inmate assaults, 277 (97 percent) were physical, seven (2

percent) were harassment, and three (1 percent) were sexual assaults. The institution also had 71

inmate on staff assaults from January 1, 2009 through July 11, 2011.17

Of the 71 inmate on staff

14

Noble Correctional Institution, Report of Racial Breakdown and Use of Force, January through June 2011. 15

Report of Racial Breakdown and Use of Force monthly reports provided by Ohio Department of Rehabilitation

and Correction, January through June 2011. 16

Noble Correctional Institution, IIA Incident List Between Dates 01/01/2009 through 07/11/11. 17

Noble Correctional Institution, IOS Assault Incident List Between Dates 01/01/09 through 07/11/11.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

AC

IB

eC

IC

CI

DC

I/M

EPR

CFP

RC

GC

IH

CF

LaEC

ILo

CI

MaC

IM

CI

NC

CI

NC

IN

CC

TFN

EPR

CP

CI

RIC

ISC

I

RC

ILe

CI

Man

CI

TCI

ToC

IW

CI

SOC

FO

SP

CR

CLo

rCI

CM

CO

CF

OR

W

Level

1/2

Level

3

Level

4/5

Reception

Center Special


assaults, 35 (49 percent) were harassment assaults, 30 (42 percent) were physical assaults, three

(4 percent) were inappropriate contact assaults, and three (4 percent) were sexual assaults. Tables

6 and 7 provide a snapshot of the assault data at Noble Correctional Institution from January 1,

2009 through July 11, 2011.

Chart 5

Total Assaults18

January 1, 2009 to July 11, 2011

C. SUICIDES AND SUICIDE ATTEMPTS

The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction has reportedly had 79 attempted suicides

from June 2010 through May 2011. Noble Correctional Institution has had zero suicides and one

suicide attempt during this period.19

Table 8 of the Appendix outlines the suicide attempts per

month for each institution.

18

Ibid. 19

Monthly Suicide Reports. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. June 2010-May 2011.

2009 2010 2011 YTD

Inmate on Staff 23 37 11

Inmate on Inmate 111 125 51

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Nu

mb

er

of

Ass

ault

s


Chart 6

Suicide Attempts by Institution20

June 2010 to May 2011

D. INVESTIGATOR DATA

The role of the Institutional Investigator is an essential component to ensuring the safety and

security of the institution. Investigators are generally focused on investigating illegal substances,

assaults, or issues regarding the professional misconduct of staff members. Investigator-initiated

investigations do not constitute the total number of investigations conducted regarding

contraband or any other matter in the institution, which may be initiated by other staff persons.

From January 2010 to December 2010, the Investigator initiated 282 investigations. The majority

of the activity involved investigations associated with weapons, background checks, inmate-on-

inmate assaults, and tobacco-related issues. 21

The three highest volume investigation categories for 2010 were Weapons (79), Inmate-on-

Inmate Assault (37), and Tobacco (29). These top three investigation types totaled 145

investigations and accounted for 51 percent of the total investigations during 2010.22

Weapons

confiscated in the one year time period included 79 shanks, seven locks in socks (or other

instruments used to sling the lock), and six brass knuckles.

Table 9 in the Appendix provides a breakdown of investigator‟s caseload by type.

20

Monthly Suicide Reports. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. June 2010- May 2011 21

Noble Correctional Institution, Investigator‟s Monthly Caseload reports, January 2010 through December 2010. 22

Ibid.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

AC

IB

eC

IC

CI

DC

I/M

EPR

CFP

RC

GC

IH

CF

LaEC

ILo

CI

MaC

IM

CI

NC

CI

NC

IN

CC

TFN

EPR

CP

CI

RIC

ISC

I

RC

ILe

CI

Man

CI

TCI

ToC

IW

CI

SOC

FO

SP

CR

CLo

rCI

CM

CO

CF

OR

W

Level

1/2

Level

3

Level

4/5

Reception

Centers Special


SECTION V. EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS

A. MEDICAL SERVICES

CIIC‟s inspection of Medical Services in a correctional facility focuses on three primary areas:

Cleanliness of Facilities, Staffing, and Access to Medical Staff. Overall, the CIIC inspection

team rated medical services as excellent, with zero areas in need of improvement.

Facilities

Medical facilities at Noble Correctional Institution include five exam rooms, nine beds for

medical patients, and four crisis cells (plus four crisis cells in segregation). Overall, the CIIC

inspection team rated the facilities as excellent in terms of overall cleanliness and orderly

appearance.

Staffing

Adequate staffing has a clear and direct connection to patient care. At the time of the inspection,

the facility had 35 positions, of which four were vacant, including one part-time Certified Nurse

Practitioner scheduled to start in August. This facility has two part-time physicians, including

one who just started in July.

Access to Medical Staff

Access to medical staff is evaluated based on several factors: (1) time period between inmate

submission of a health service request form and appointment with medical staff; (2) time period

between referral to the doctor and appointment with the doctor; (3) response times to kites and

informal complaint forms; and (4) current backlogs for Nurse Sick Call, Doctor Sick Call, and

Chronic Care Clinic. Based on information provided by institutional staff, the average time

period between submission of a health service request form and appointment with medical staff

was within a day. The average time period between referral to the doctor and appointment with

the doctor was up to one week, given that they do not have a fulltime doctor at this time. The

average response time to kites was the same day. The average response time to informal

complaints was one to two days. The current backlogs for Nurse Sick Call and Chronic Care

Clinics was zero. Doctor Sick Call appointments were at a backlog of one week, due to a change

of doctors. The Regional CMO (Chief Medical Officer) position is now being shared with

BECI, and has only completed three shifts thus far.

Data regarding Medical Services can be found in Table 10 in the Appendix. Further information

regarding Medical Services can be found in the inspection checklist in the Appendix.

B. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Similar to Medical Services, CIIC‟s inspection of Mental Health Services in a correctional

facility focuses on three primary areas: Cleanliness of Facilities, Staffing, and Access to Mental


Health Staff. Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated mental health services as excellent, with

zero areas in need of improvement.

Facilities

Mental Health facilities at Noble Correctional Institution include a waiting room supervised by a

corrections officer, a classroom for running programs, five offices that are used for one-on-one

counseling sessions, eight crisis cells that are shared with medical services (including four crisis

cells in segregation), a locked room containing mental health files, and a multi-purpose

conference room. The facility was clean, and included a colorful mural painted by an inmate

several years ago that spans the entire hallway.

Staffing

Adequate staffing has a clear and direct connection to patient care. As a result of the recently

announced new table of organization, the facility had nine positions, of which two were vacant.

The team (the social work supervisor, the two RNCs, and the two social workers) have all

worked together for over a dozen years, resulting in a strong sense of teamwork amongst these

women.

Additionally at NCI, mental health staff interacts closely with medical services staff. Given that

inmates often experience medical and mental health problems hand in hand, this is important to

both access to care and quality of care. The nurses communicate daily with each other regarding

medication issues and the medical staff knows that they can send a referral to mental health and

it will be addressed.

Access to Mental Health Staff

Access to mental health staff is evaluated based on several factors: (1) time period between

inmate or staff referral and appointment with mental health staff; (2) current backlogs for mental

health clinics; and (3) program accessibility. Based on information provided by institutional

staff, the average time period between submission of a referral and appointment with mental

health staff was within one week. There were 401 inmates on the mental health caseload on the

day of the inspection, and the current backlog for clinics was zero. One staff member is entirely

responsible for running the programs throughout the week and the remaining staff members see

inmates in their offices for one-on-one therapy. In June, mental health received 170 kites that

were answered within five days, as well as receiving 110 referrals from staff requesting mental

health evaluations. An inmate must have a pass to be admitted to the building, but can walk-in

during the hours of 8am-4pm to be seen by a mental health staff member. The staff also makes

rounds in the segregation unit to service the needs of that population.

Table 11 of the Appendix gives a snapshot of the mental health caseload per institution while

Table 12 provides information about the amount of SMI inmates per institution.


C. FOOD SERVICES

Pursuant to Section 103.73 of the Ohio Revised Code, a general meal period was attended on the

day of the Inspection. The menu consisted of a barbeque rib patty, applesauce, potatoes, peas

and carrots, and lettuce with salad dressing. CIIC rated this meal as good. Inmates rated this

meal as average.

Dining Hall

On the day of the inspection, the atmosphere in the dining hall was calm. There are six officers

assigned to the dining hall during first shift and four officers assigned during second shift.

Inmates were racially segregated at most tables. The cleanliness of the dining hall was rated by

CIIC staff as an eight on a scale of one to ten.

Kitchen Prep Area

As of 2010, the cost per inmate meal at Noble Correctional Institution was $0.96.23

In

comparison, the average DRC cost per inmate meal in 2010 was $1.00.24

The conditions of the

kitchen prep area were rated a seven on a scale of one to ten. Although the rating was based on

the overall cleanliness and orderliness of the kitchen, a small amount of debris on one food prep

table prevented the area from receiving a higher rating. According to staff, Noble Correctional

Institution passed its most recent health inspection in February 2011.25

The kitchen consisted of six ovens, four kettles, two coolers, and two freezers. There were no

maintenance concerns regarding the dishwasher, freezers, and coolers. However, staff relayed

that two kettles were inoperable. A work order was reportedly submitted for repair.

Inmate Workers

There were 358 inmates assigned to food service. Inmates are assigned to food service upon

arrival at the institution and earn a monthly wage of $18.26

Inmates receive performance

evaluations after their first 30 days and can re-class to another position in 90 days. Inmates can

receive wage increases from $20 to $24 per month if promoted to a Cook‟s Helper, Cook 1, or

Cook 7 position.27

Incentive Program

During inspections and in separate correspondence to CIIC, inmates have relayed that working in

food service is considered a punishment.28

In 2008, Noble Correctional Institution staff

23

Evaluation of Correctional Food Services. Correctional Institution Inspection Committee. February 14, 2011.

http://www.ciic.state.oh.us/. 24

Ibid. 25

Personal communication with Noble Correctional Institution staff on July 11, 2011. 26

Ibid. 27

Ibid. 28

Evaluation of Correctional Food Services. Correctional Institution Inspection Committee. February 14, 2011.

http://www.ciic.state.oh.us/.


developed the incentive program in an effort to place an importance on working in food service.

Staff met with inmates to develop incentives based on what was most important to them and

would motivate inmates to remain productive.

According to staff, 310 of the 358 inmates assigned to food service are part of the incentive

program. Inmates earn benefits while accumulating points for attendance, good work or good

behavior. Points are provided by a member of the food service staff each day and totaled at the

end of each month. The highest possible point total an inmate can earn each month is 45.29

The benefits that inmates may receive include: double meal portions, a uniform exchange, extra

visits, third shift snack bags, outside food ordered from a local restaurant, upper and lower bunk

exchanges, and a vacation day. Inmates that are part of the program are housed in a separate

housing unit from other general population inmates. Inmates may be removed from the program

for rule infractions.30

Inmates interested in the incentive program must complete an application and meet the following

requirements: GED (under 21 years old), at least six months remaining at the institution, and 90

days of no conduct reports prior to hiring. Further information regarding the inspection of food

services is available on the food service checklist located in the Appendix.

D. HOUSING UNITS

The inmate housing units at Noble Correctional Institution are arranged around an open campus

with Dorms A, B, and C on one side and Dorms D and E on the opposite side. Within each

housing unit, there are upper and lower floors, comprised of two large dorm rooms on opposite

sides of the floor and shared bathroom facilities, laundry room, and officers‟ station located in

the middle. The dayrooms and shared areas are located along the front of the two dorms or bunk

areas. Within the dayrooms, inmates have access to appliances including an ice machine and

microwave oven. The outdoor temperature on the day of the inspection was above 90 degrees

Fahrenheit. The average temperature inside the housing units was very warm, estimated in the

mid-80‟s Fahrenheit.

Housing Unit Conditions

Of the ten general population housing units, the average level of cleanliness for the bunk areas

was rated high by CIIC staff at 9, on a 10-point scale for cleanliness. The rating was based on

the absence of clutter and trash, orderliness throughout the dorms, property confined within the

2.4 storage boxes, and clean and buffed floors. 31

The average level of cleanliness for dayrooms

was also high at 9 on a 10-point scale for cleanliness, based on good lighting and no odors,

clutter, or trash.

29

Personal communication with Noble Correctional Institution staff on July 14, 2011. 30

“Incentive Benefits Program” form provided by Noble Correctional Institution staff on July 11, 2011. 31

Please reference the Housing Checklists, located in Appendix C., for a breakdown and description of the rating

scale.


Each dormitory contains 15 sinks, 18 showers, eight toilets, and eight urinals for common use by

an average of 230 inmates per unit. On the date of the inspection, there were a total of six

inoperable showers, zero inoperable toilets, six inoperable urinals, and one inoperable sink. The

average level of restroom and shower cleanliness was rated by CIIC staff as 7 on a 10-point scale

for cleanliness, based on observations of discolored grout, intermittent soap scum, some floors in

need of fresh paint, some gnats, and a faint but frequent urine odor in spite of ventilation from

large industrial fans.

Segregation Unit

The segregation inmate count on the day of the inspection was 132, with 119 inmates under

Security Control (SC) status, 61 inmates under Local Control (LC) status, and 22 inmates under

Disciplinary Control (DC) status. The cleanliness of the segregation unit was rated by CIIC staff

as 7 on a 10-point scale. The rating was based on observations of property lying on the floor in

the cells. All plumbing was operating properly and cell fixtures are sanitized three or four times

each week. Inmates may clean their cells daily, and showers are cleaned three or four times per

week.

Supervision of segregation inmates includes shakedowns and security checks, which are

completed on a schedule and logged. Individual segregation inmate log sheets were noted as up

to date. Various inmate services are brought to the segregation unit, including medical services,

mental health, library, and religious services. Additionally, kites and Informal Complaint

Resolution forms were observed in stock and available to segregation inmates upon request.

E. COMMISSARY

The commissary area was also included during the inspection. To order commissary items, the

inmates must turn in their commissary sheet, which is a form indicating items they wish to

purchase. From there an inmate worker will fill the order, staff will charge the inmate account,

and items will be given to the inmate. Inmates are permitted to spend up to $90.00 each week at

the commissary and the profits are placed in the institution‟s Industrial and Entertainment (I and

E) funds, which are reinvested back into the institution. All inmate property must fit within a 2.4

cubic foot storage box.

On March 28, 2011, Noble Correctional Institution commissary began “open shopping,” which

provides inmates with daily shopping opportunities on non-state pay weeks. Although this has

caused many complaints from inmates, staff relayed it has reduced the amount of property

typically found in the housing areas on a daily basis and has helped to reduce theft/loss reports

by at least one-third of the former number of theft/loss reports.32

On state-pay weeks, the open

shopping system is not followed, and inmates may only shop on an assigned schedule based on

their inmate number.

Additionally, open shopping has reportedly generated new sales and revenue. Commissary sales

figures were provided comparing two similar weeks, the first week of May 2010 prior to the

implementation of open shopping to the first week of May 2011 after implementation of the open

32

Personal communication with Noble Correctional Institution staff , July 11, 2011.


shopping system. The figures reveal that an additional 301 inmates spent an increase of

approximately $6,800 at the commissary during the open shopping week in May 2011.33

Commissary figures comparing Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2011 reveal that an increase of

3,569 inmates made purchases at the commissary accounting, resulting in an increase of

approximately $80,000 in new sales.34

The 2011 data includes the impact of three months of

operating with the open shopping system in place.

Three commissary staff supervise a current total of 14 inmate workers, who reportedly earn an

average $22 per month for their services. Commissary staff indicated that inmate theft in the

commissary occasionally occurs, but the annual 2010 rate of shrinkage was 1 percent, which is

less than some estimated retail industry averages of approximately 2 percent. Inmate workers at

the commissary are searched before and after their shifts as a theft preventative measure. 35

Most popular among inmate sales are soups, bagels, and summer sausages. Additional

comments reflected that the commissary is now selling ketchup only in packets to offset the ease

of inmates engaging in creating hooch from full bottles of ketchup.

The inspection team rated the commissary at 9 on a 10-point scale for cleanliness, due to an

absence of rodents and pests, and overall cleanliness and orderliness.36

33

Ibid. 34

Ibid. 35

Ibid. 36

Please reference the Commissary Checklist in Appendix C. for onsite inspection observations.


SECTION VI. EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS

A. PROGRAM EVALUATION

Ohio Revised Code Section 103.73 requires CIIC to evaluate an educational or rehabilitative

program as part of each inspection. CIIC‟s evaluation of educational programs in a correctional

facility focuses on four primary areas: Cleanliness of Facilities, Staffing, Access to Programs,

and Quality of Programs. The CIIC inspection team rated the observed academic and vocational

programming at the facility as excellent, but the area of Access to Programs is in need of

improvement.37

Facilities

Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated the program facility as excellent. The educational

facilities at Noble Correctional Institution include multiple enclosed classrooms within the

program building. The classroom size, lighting, acoustics and furnishings are typical of average

modern classrooms. Classrooms, hallways, and open areas were notably clean and painted and

floors were washed and well-buffed. The observed rooms contained several traditional lecture

hall student-tables, individual chairs, desk for the facilitator/teacher, and at least one dry erase

board. Classroom temperatures were somewhat warm, but offset by a large rotating fan.

Separate from the classrooms, the education building has a large open workshop area used for

the carpentry program, in which inmates systematically construct and deconstruct all parts of a

full-size house. There are two enclosed classrooms at one end of this vocational area, where the

carpentry and horticulture programs conduct classroom instruction. The prison yard outside the

vocational area and across the back of the institutional property serves as the horticulture

program‟s „lab‟ where plants are grown and turf management projects and instruction are

undertaken.

Staffing

There are 15 approved education positions for academic and vocational programming, which

includes 12 teaching positions, one Teaching Supervisor, one Librarian, and one Education

Specialist. Of the 12 current teaching positions, five vacancies appeared in the organizational

chart, with seven teachers delivering instruction. Post-inspection information indicated that six

instructors, who are not employed by DRC, but rather by Muskingum University, provide some

educational services to the institution.38

Access to Programming

Access to programming is evaluated based on the current waitlist. As of the Ohio Central School

System Monthly Enrollment Report for June 2011 for Noble Correctional Institution (NCI), there

were 259 NCI inmates enrolled in academic programming and there were 787 inmates listed on

37

See associated remarks in Noble Correctional Institution Inspection Report. Section II. Critical Concerns and

Points of Pride, Lack of Activities. 38

Personal Communication with Noble Correctional Institution staff, July 14, 2011.


the NCI academic wait list.39

Therefore, for every one NCI inmate enrolled, there are

approximately three inmates waiting on the wait lists for a seat in an NCI academic class. By

comparison, across all DRC institutions for June 2011, there were 5,911 DRC inmates enrolled

in academic programming and 9,238 inmates on the DRC academic waitlist. Statewide, for every

DRC inmate student enrolled, there were approximately 1.6 inmates on the DRC academic

waitlist. 40

Quality of Programming

Quality of programming is evaluated based on three factors: (1) outcome measures, including

GED passage rates and program completion rates; (2) an on-site observation of an academic or

vocational program during the inspection; and (3) a file review conducted by a member of the

CIIC inspection team in conjunction with the educational staff at the facility.

Outcome Measures. In 2010, there were 84 Noble Correctional Institution inmates who

received a GED.41

In comparison, an average of 31inmates per institution received a GED at

institutions of similar security levels during the same time period.42

In addition to GED

completions, there were 278 inmates at Noble Correctional Institution who completed

educational and career-technical (vocational) programs in 2010.43

Onsite Observation. During the inspection, a member of the CIIC inspection team observed the

following programs: Recovery Services Intensive Outpatient (IOP) group, Carpentry, and Turf

Management/Horticulture. The overall rating from observations was very high, at 4.5 on a scale

of 5 possible points. The following key observations were made:

All teachers/facilitators were rated high regarding positive reinforcements or statements,

relaying only positive reinforcements to students during the observed class.

Teacher responsiveness to the students in the class was observed as a contributing factor

in prompting student interaction with the content, the instructor, and the instructional

process. Students were engaged with the material, clarifying details, and showing

evidence of thinking by asking questions about application of the material to job

situations.

All teachers modeled or demonstrated good instructional pedagogy through open-ended

questioning, reframing questions, paraphrasing, summarizing, reviewing, using examples,

and transferring content to job applications through the process of “thinking aloud” how a

specific application is completed.

No teachers implemented behavior modification techniques because there was not cause

to use such techniques. All students were attentive and respectful.

File Review. A member of the CIIC inspection team conducted a review of 10 active program

files and 10 closed program files for inmates in the Recovery Services Program for alcohol and

other drug addictions. All files are maintained in locked storage with only a Supervisor‟s access.

39

Ohio Central School System Monthly Enrollment Report, Noble Correctional Institution, June 2011. 40

Ibid. 41

Ohio Central School System Monthly Enrollment Report, Noble Correctional Institution, December 2010. 42

Ohio Central School System Monthly Enrollment Report, all Level 1 and 2 DRC institutions, December 2010. 43

Ohio Central School System Monthly Enrollment Report, Noble Correctional Institution, December 2010.


Files include a treatment or case plan, progress reports, and assessment instruments with scores.

The review of the 10 active files revealed inmates at two risk levels: high (60 percent) and

moderate (40 percent). The review of the closed program files revealed all files to be complete

in the specific inmate documentation that is recorded and maintained.

A list of Academic/Vocational, Community Service, and Religious Services programs, as shown

on the DRC website on July 20, 2011 is provided in Table 16 in Appendix B. Please refer to

Appendix A for the following schedules related to programming as provided by Noble

Correctional Institution: Programs Offered July 11th

and 12th

, 2011 and Unit Program Schedule

for July 2011. Data regarding programs can be found in Tables 13, 14, and 15 in Appendix B.

Further information regarding the program observation and file review can be found in the

Program Checklists in Appendix C.

B. LIBRARY/LAW LIBRARY SERVICES

Each institution has a library and a law library. Access to both sections of the library remains a

primary issue of concern for CIIC, as numerous letters have indicated inmates‟ dissatisfaction

with the number of hours allowed, particularly when inmates wish to perform legal research.

Facilities

The library facilities at Noble Correctional Institution were clean and uncluttered, including the

adjacent law library area. The law library includes copies of Administrative Rules and DRC

policies; and second sets are kept in the Librarian‟s office for copying and reference.

Bookshelves are full to capacity and tables and chairs provide ample seating for 50 inmates. The

library maintains three computers and five typewriters for inmate use. Cleaning includes daily

wiping of computers and keyboards, and disinfecting of the typewriters weekly.

Materials

The Noble Correctional Institution library maintains a collection of approximately 12,353 total

General Library items, which includes books, magazines, newspapers, CDs, DVDs, VHS tapes,

and cassette tape/audio books. With the reported inmate use of library materials for June 2011,

the per capita use was calculated to be 1.34 materials per NCI inmate. The usage rate was

calculated on inmate population of approximately 2,490 inmates.44

Diversity in the genres

comprising fiction and expository literature, as well as a comprehensive variety of employment

and job-related reference materials are indicators of the quality of library materials.

The library reportedly maintains a 300-450 book collection of African-American fiction and

magazines, a 100-item collection of Hispanic materials, and numerous multi-language

dictionaries. Books of African-American ethnicity are tagged with a color coded spine sticker

and integrated into the stacks.

.

44

Library Monthly Report, Noble Correctional Institution, July 11, 2011.


Funding

Books and reference materials are purchased from Industrial and Entertainment (I and E) Funds

twice each year and accepted as donations throughout the year. The librarian recently completed

a $2,536 bi-annual purchase for magazines and newspaper subscriptions. Book purchases per

year at Noble Correctional Institution range from $1,500 to $2,000 in cost.45

Staffing

At the time of the inspection, the library was staffed by a fulltime DRC staff librarian and ten

employed inmate library aides, who assist other inmates with library services. Library aides may

photocopy documents, assist in legal research, repair books, and complete porter duties. The

librarian most frequently responds to kites requesting legal forms for judicial release.

Access to the Library and Law Library

According to staff, the Noble Correctional Institution library provides inmate access to the

library seven days a week, including many hours of open library when any inmate may use the

services. Further information regarding the inspection of the library can be found with

Schedules in Appendix A and the Program Checklists in Appendix C.

C. RECREATION

The conditions of the recreational facilities were observed to be clean, with equipment in good

working order. Among the 140 recreation workers, there are 62 inmate porters, 12 game

officials, 12 additional officials, 10 program aides, 40 inmate workers assigned to the dog

program, and numerous volunteers. Accommodations are made so that all inmates, including

those with disabilities, have opportunities to participate in some form of recreation.

The hours of recreation are spread over nine periods a day for each of the seven days a week.

The facility includes an equipment room, workout cage, indoor and outdoor basketball courts,

handball court, softball field, music room, arts and craft room, and a photo room (where inmates

may have photos taken for a $2.00 fee.) The photo room reportedly generated $28,000 in sales

in 2010.46

Additional activities include the use of pool tables, ping pong, cards, chess,

volleyball, and wiffle ball. Foosball tables are on order for future use by inmates. Products

created by inmates in the arts and craft room are often donated for community service ventures

or charity projects.47

45

Ibid. 46

Personal Communication, Noble Correctional Institution, July 11, 2011. 47

Please reference the Recreation Checklist in Appendix C. for onsite inspection observations.


D. VOLUNTEERS

Per House Bill 113 of the 127th

General Assembly, CIIC monitors the DRC‟s use of volunteers.

According to institutional staff, Noble Correctional Institution has maintained a list of 767 names

of individuals who have previously served or are currently serving as approved religious

volunteers. Institutional data for current volunteer groups lists 40 separate groups, with 35 of

the groups shown as faith-based groups; thus, at least75 percent of the volunteer groups represent

the faith-based community. In addition to volunteers from the religious community, there are 25

individuals listed as Recovery Services volunteers at Noble Correctional Institution.48

Volunteer

data provided at the inspection indicated that the institution has been logging volunteer

participation for many years, dating back to 1997.

48

Recovery Services Volunteer list, Noble Correctional Institution, July 11, 2011.


SECTION VII. INMATE COMMUNICATION

From January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010, CIIC received 28 contacts from or regarding

inmates at Noble Correctional Institution, of which 80 concerns were reported. The institution

ranked 23rd among all DRC institutions for total number of contacts. The top five concerns

reported to CIIC during 2010 regarding Noble Correctional Institution were: Health Care,

Supervision, Staff Accountability, Institutional Assignment, and the Inmate Grievance

Procedure.

Chart 7

2010 CIIC Contacts with Institutional Breakdown (DRC)

Tables 17 and 18 of the Appendix provide information about the concerns relayed to CIIC

regarding Noble Correctional Institution.

In comparison, the following chart provides a breakdown of the top three concerns received

regarding Noble Correctional Institution in the first six months of 2011:

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

AC

IB

eC

IC

CI

DC

I/M

EPR

CFP

RC

GC

IH

CF

LaEC

ILo

CI

MaC

IM

CI

NC

CI

NC

IN

CC

TFN

EPR

CP

CI

RIC

ISC

I

RC

ILe

CI

Man

CI

TCI

ToC

IW

CI

SOC

FO

SP

CR

CLo

rCI

CM

CO

CF

OR

W

Level

1/2

Level

3

Level

4/5

Reception Centers

Special


Chart 8

Breakdown of Top Three Reported Concerns (Noble Correctional Institution)

January 1, 2011 through June 30, 2011

A. INQUIRIES

Written inquiries are conducted for the most serious concerns communicated to CIIC such as

personal safety, medical, and use of force. CIIC conducted two written inquiries regarding

inmates at Noble Correctional Institution during the six-month period of January 1, 2011 through

June 30, 2011. The inquiries were in regard to medical concerns, gang-related activity, and the

operations of the commissary.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

MedicalCare Inmate Relations Supervision


SECTION VIII. APPENDIX

A. DRC ACTION PLAN

Issue Problem noted by CIIC –Inmate Idleness Concern relayed by inmates was a reported lack of activities, which they stated has a direct effect on the number of fights. Many inmates complained about the modified recreation schedule, which limits recreation in the evening.

Tasks 1. Increased recreational activities within dormitories. 2. Expansion of program providers through recruitment of internal and

external volunteers 3. Increased authorized inmate groups 4. Organized group activities (i.e. Bingo, Movie Night, etc..) as behavioral

incentive for offenders 5. Installation of addition tables/benches within dormitories to allow for

authorized activities. 6. Installation of additional television connections within inmate living areas

Person Responsible 1. UMA 2. DWSS/UMA

3. UMA/DWSS

4. UMA/DWO/Unit Managers 5. Business Administrator 3

6. Business Administrator 3

Comments: At the time of the CIIC visit NCI had two (2) Back to Basics Committees reviewing the issue of inmate idleness and the response to both positive and negative behaviors. At the time of this report those committees have submitted their reports with recommendations for expanding activity during split recreation and for overall facility recreation times. NCI has networked with CIIC recommended facilities to expand inmate groups as well programming and activity schedules.


Issue Problem noted by CIIC –Inmate Safety Level The CIIC inspection team interviewed 128 inmates during the inspection. During the interviews, inmates consistently relayed concerns regarding frequent fights and the presence of gang activity. In particular, inmates relayed that fights break out for a place in the line to the Commissary, now that the institution has moved to an “open Commissary” schedule.

Tasks 1. Increased tracking measures for violence indicators 2. Use of “Facility Cop” program to monitor STG activity 3. Unit staff to monitor and evaluate incidents of violence within assigned

units 4. Commissary operational committee to meet monthly to review

commissary procedures and modify according to input 5. Presence of additional staff and supervisors during high inmate traffic

and identified hot spots.

Person Responsible

1. Warden Banks

2. STG Coordinator

3. DWO/UMA/Security

Supervisor

4. Business Administrator 3

5. DWO/Security Supervisors

Comments: Beginning in May of 2011, NCI began to utilize several tracking measures for institutional violence indicators. This data is shared monthly with all staff encouraging heightened focus on reduction of prison violence. In June focus groups were held with all shifts, support staff and inmate population. These groups were tasked with reviewing institutional hot spots and reasons contributing to facility violence, it should be noted that the commissary line was not reported as a top “hot spot”. Issues raised during these focus groups are the basis of committee assignments and future operational reviews. The change to open commissary was one operational change based on property thefts and reported acts of extortion. With open commissary, inmates are afforded the opportunity to shop regularly in lieu of having to stock commissary items in their locker box. In addition open commissary has shown roughly a 33% reduction in theft/loss reports, reduced property in dormitories and unit staff report a reduction in overall property complaints. Since implementing open commissary NCI has seen increases in both total sales and number of inmates shopped based on date from this year versus last year. (4/2010 through 6/2010: 12,350 inmates $ 551,628.36 total sales/ 4/2011 through 6/2011: 15,098 inmates $ 556,229.95) Increase of 2,748 inmates shopped and $4,601.59 in total sales for time periods compared.


Issue Problem noted by CIIC –Sanitation levels of dormitory restrooms The average level of restroom and shower cleanliness was rated by CIIC staff as 7 on a 10-point scale for cleanliness, based on observations of discolored grout, intermittent soap scum, some floors in need of fresh paint, some gnats, and a faint but frequent urine odor in spite of ventilation from large industrial fans.

Tasks 1. Focus on restroom areas during announced and unannounced

inspections

2. Availability of adequate cleaning chemicals for unit details

3. Proper training of unit porters in regards to use of chemicals within restrooms

4. Area of focus during Executive staff and Administrative Duty Officer Rounds

5. Review and assess dorm of the month incentives for sanitation levels

Person Responsible 1. Health and Safety

Coordinator/ Administrative Assistant

2. Health and Safety Coordinator/ Administrative Assistant

3. Unit team

4. Executive Staff/A.D.O

5. DWO/UMA

Comments: NCI has long taken pride in our reputation of high sanitation levels. Unit staff will be refocusing on the noted areas of concern when conducting training of unit team and dormitory porters. Increased incentives for “dorm of month” will add to rewards for increased dormitory sanitation levels.


B. SCHEDULES (scanned as provided by Noble Correctional Institution)


C. DATA TABLES

Table 1.

Prison Rated Capacity with Population and Percent of Capacity

July 5, 2011

Institution

Rated

Capacity

Count as of July

5, 2011 Percent of Capacity

LorCI 756 1,612 213

LeCI 1,481 2,807 190

ORW 1,641 2,884 176

WCI 807 1,403 174

CCI 1,673 2,899 173

HCF 298 489 164

GCI 939 1,525 162

ManCI 1,536 2,453 160

CRC 900 1,422 158

MCI 1,666 2,629 158

ACI 844 1,331 158

BeCI 1,855 2,660 143

RCI 1,643 2,230 136

RiCI 1,855 2,498 135

NCI 1,855 2,413 130

NCCI 1,855 2,332 126

TCI 902 1,064 118

SCI 1,358 1,560 115

ToCI 1,192 1,362 114

MaCI 2,167 2,349 108

NCCTF 660 695 105

OCF 191 198 104

DCI 482 495 103

LaECI 1,498 1,494 100

LoCI 2,290 2,247 98

FPRC 480 461 96

SOCF 1,540 1,398 91

OSP 684 594 87

PCI 2,465 2,147 87

NEPRC 640 510 80

MePRC 352 260 74

CMC 210 126 60

Total 38,715 50,547 131


Table 2.

Staff Population Breakdown – Noble Correctional Institution49

July 1, 2011

Total Staff 415

Total Male Staff 313

White 301

Black 12

Other 0

Male Unknown Race 0

Total Female Staff 102

White 97

Black 2

Other 3

Female Unknown Race 0

Total Correctional Officers (CO) 257

Total Male CO 219

White 212

Black 7

Other 0

Male CO Unknown Race 0

Total Female CO 38

White 36

Black 1

Other 1

Female CO Unknown Race 0

Table 3.

Inspector’s Report50

January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010

Grievance Numbers

Total Number of Grievances Filed During Year 161

Total Number of Inmates Who Filed Grievances During Year 108

Highest Number of Grievances Filed by Single Inmate 23

Grievances on Hand at Beginning of This Period 1

Grievances Received during this period 162

Total 163

Grievances Completed During This Period 161

49

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Workforce Composition, Monthly Fact Sheet, July 1, 2011. 50

Institution Grievance Statistics, 1/1/2010 through 12/31/2010, Noble Correctional Institution, provided July 15,

2011. *Note: the Total Number of Grievances Filed During the Year‟ has been determined to be „161‟ rather than

the „162‟ shown in the original document provided to CIIC.


Grievances on Hand at End of This Period 2

Total 163

ICR Summary

Number of Informal Complaints Received 779

Number of Informal Complaint Responses Received 777

Number of Informal Complaint Responses Untimely 52

Grievance Dispositions

Granted W B O Total

Granted – Problem Corrected 2 5 0 7 Granted – Problem Noted, Correction Pending 8 5 0 13

Granted – Problem Noted, Report/Recommendation to the Warden 0 0 0 0

Subtotal Granted 10 10 0 20

Denied

Denied – Insufficient Evidence to Support Claim 25 29 1 55

Denied – Staff Action Was Valid Exercise of Discretion 27 19 0 46 Denied – No Violation of Rule, Policy, or Law 5 3 0 8 Denied – Not within the Scope of the Grievance Procedure 3 10 0 13

Denied – False Claim 0 0 0 0

Denied – Failure to Use Informal Complaint Procedure 9 4 0 13

Denied – Not within Time Limits 0 4 0 4

Subtotal Denied 69 69 1 139

Withdrawn at Inmate‟s Request 0 2 0 2

Pending Disposition 0 0 0 0

TOTALS 79 81 1 161

Percent 49% 50% 1% 100% Extensions

14-Day Extensions 39

28-Day Extensions 5

Total 44

Table 4.

Use of Force with Racial Breakdown


Black White Other Total

Use of Force Incidents 76 73 0 149

Percentage 51% 49% 0 100%

Action Taken on Use of Force Incidents:

Assigned to Use of Force Committee for Investigation 18 6 0 24

Logged as “No Further Action Required” 58 67 0 125


Referred to the employee disciplinary process 0 0 0 0

Referred to the Chief Inspector 0 0 0 0

Number of investigations not completed within 30 days

and extended 1 3 0 4

Number of extended investigations from previous month that were:

Completed 22 8 0 30

Not Completed 30 22 0 52

Table 5.

Use of Force with Racial and Monthly Breakdown


Black White Other Total

January 2011 16 15 0 31

February 2011 14 23 0 37

March 2011 14 11 0 25

April 2011 14 7 0 21

May 2011 14 12 0 26

June 2011 4 5 0 9

Total 76 73 0 149

Staff is authorized to utilize force per DRC Policy 63-UOF-01 and Administrative Rule 5120-9-01, which

lists six general circumstances when a staff member may use less than deadly force against an inmate or

third person as follows:

1. Self-defense from physical attack or threat of physical harm.

2. Defense of another from physical attack or threat of physical attack.

3. When necessary to control or subdue an inmate who refuses to obey prison rules, regulations, or

orders.

4. When necessary to stop an inmate from destroying property or engaging in a riot or other

disturbance.

5. Prevention of an escape or apprehension of an escapee.

6. Controlling or subduing an inmate in order to stop or prevent self-inflicted harm.

Administrative Rule 5120-9-02 requires the Deputy Warden of Operations to review the use of force

packet prepared on each use of force incident, and to determine if the type and amount of force was

appropriate and reasonable for the circumstances, and if administrative rules, policies, and post orders

were followed. The Warden reviews the submission and may refer any use of force incident to the two

person use of force committee or to the Chief Inspector. The Warden must refer an incident to a use of

force committee or the Chief Inspector. The Warden must refer an incident to a use of force committee or

the Chief Inspector in the following instances:

Factual circumstances are not described sufficiently.

The incident involved serious physical harm.

The incident was a significant disruption to normal operations.

Weapons, PR-24 strikes or lethal munitions were used.


Table 6.

Assaults: Inmate on Inmate


Category of Assault 2009 2010 2011 YTD

Physical Assault 104 124 49

Harassment Assault 6 1 0

Sexual Assault 1 0 2

Total 111 125 51

Table 7.

Assaults: Inmate on Staff


Category of Assault 2009 2010 2011 YTD

Physical Assault 11 14 5

Harassment Assault 8 21 6

Sexual Assault 2 1 0

Inappropriate Contact 2 1 0

Total 23 37 11

Table 8.

Inmate Suicide Attempts

June 2010- May 2011

Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Tot

ACI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BeCI 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 5

CCI 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 15

CMC 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

CRC 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 10

DCI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2

FPRC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

GCI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

HCF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LaECI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LeCI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

LoCI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2

LorCI 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3

MaCI 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4

ManCI 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 4

MCI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NCCI 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3

NCCTF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NCI 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1


NEPRC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

OCF 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

ORW 1 1 0 0 0 4 5 1 2 0 0 0 14

OSP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

PCI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

RCI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

RiCI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SCI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SOCF 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3

TCI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 3

ToCI 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

WCI 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

TOT 9 8 3 4 5 9 11 5 13 2 5 5 79

Table 9.

Investigator Monthly Report Summary by Type of Investigation

January 2010 to December 2010

Investigations Cases Initiated

Drugs (Staff/Inmate) 0

Drugs (Inmate/Visitor) 5

Drugs (Mail/Package) 2

Drugs (Staff) 0

Drugs (other) 13

Positive Urinalysis 12

Staff/Inmate Relationship 3

Staff Misconduct 12

Assault-(Inmate on Staff) 7

Assault (Inmate on Inmate) 37

Sexual Assault (Inmate on Inmate) 5

Other: Weapons 79

Other: Tobacco 29

Other: Inmate Miscellaneous 3

Other: Suicide Attempt 4

Other: Sexual Assault – Staff 1

Other: Extortion 1

Other: Yard Disturbance 2

Other: Visitor - Sexual Act 1

Background Investigations 66

Total 282


Table 10.

Medical Services

December 2010 through May 2011

December January February March April May Total

Sick Call

Nurse Intake Screen 216 227 109 262 254 255 1323

Nurse Referrals to Doctor 245 260 225 259 232 265 1486

New Intakes Referred to

Physician 50 45 32 51 43 29 250

Nurse Sick Call and

Assessments 663 607 617 558 513 517 3475

Doctor Sick Call 414 358 354 475 389 432 2422

Doctor History and

Physicals Done 9 7 5 0 12 5 38

Doctor No Shows 65 41 43 53 56 37 295

Emergency Triage

Sent to local ER 9 3 14 6 9 22 63

Sent to OSU ER 2 0 1 1 0 0 4

Sent from Local to OSU 0 1 0 0 0 1 2

Inmate Emergencies

Treated On Site 11 2 11 12 10 18 64

Staff Treated 11 13 9 6 3 3 45

Visitors Treated 0 1 0 0 1 1 3

Bed Days Used for

Medical 75 64 68 27 50 28 312

Bed Days Used for

Mental 10 14 14 14 19 13 84

Bed Days Used for

Security 35 65 32 86 86 41 345

Dental Care

Scheduled Visits 450 521 533 690 599 573 3366

Emergency Visits 8 17 34 26 23 30 138

Total Visits 458 538 567 716 622 603 3504

No Shows 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AMAs 50 77 92 123 114 75 531

Specialty Care On Site

Optometry

Consults 43 37 38 45 61 47 271

Inmates Seen 26 78 35 39 42 35 255

Emergencies Seen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hours On Site 8 16 8 7 8 8 55

Podiatry

Consults 19 21 28 15 42 14 139


Inmates Seen 18 19 26 15 40 13 131

Emergencies Seen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hours On Site 5 4 5 3 8 2 27

Pharmacy

Medical Refills 835 914 755 967 835 958 5264

Mental Refills 242 1160 215 249 232 223 2321

Medical New Prescriptions 1614 1751 1638 1660 1719 1818 10200

Mental New Prescriptions 286 2044 242 342 338 343 3595

Total Prescriptions 2977 5869 2850 3218 3124 3342 21380 Medical Controlled

Prescriptions 6 5 9 5 5 7 37 Mental Controlled

Prescriptions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lab Data

Blood Draws 558 642 293 608 324 561 2986

DNA Blood Draws 0 0 3 1 1 0 5

Mental Health Blood Draws 216 160 131 196 246 191 1140

EKGs 7 19 8 17 19 16 86

Non CMC X-Rays 89 99 80 107 112 139 626

Infections Disease Data

Number Inmates Tested for

TB 11 3 0 0 3 5 22

Positive PPD Test 0 0 0 0 0 4 4

Staff PPD 7 6 8 1 10 15 47

Inmates Completed INH 1 2 1 0 0 3 7

Inmates Incomplete INH 39 38 35 34 34 33 213

Inmates Refusing INH 20 23 20 22 19 26 130

HIV Positive Inmates 15 15 16 13 16 160 0

Inmate HIV Conversions 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

Deaths

Deaths Expected 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Deaths Unexpected 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Suicides 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Homicides 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Deaths at Local Hospital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Deaths at OSU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Deaths at CMC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Table 11.

Percent of Prison Population on the Mental Health Caseload by Institution

May 2011

Institution

Percent of

Total Population on

Mental Health

Caseload

May 31, 2011

Population Count

Number of Inmates on

Mental Health Caseload

May 2011

ACI 23.2 1,334 309

BeCI 21.8 2,579 562

CCI 23.4 2,886 675

CMC 16.9 124 21

CRC 21.0 1,589 333

DCI 0.6 782 5

FPRC 50.2 476 239

GCI 16.1 1,555 250

HCF 21.5 484 104

LaECI 11.9 1,482 177

LeCI 17.6 2,777 489

LoCI 16.3 2,259 368

LorCI 18.4 1,625 299

MaCI 17.6 2,378 419

ManCI 19.8 2,464 489

MCI 20.7 2,632 544

NCCI 18.3 2,312 424

NCCTF 15.9 680 108

NCI 16.7 2,409 402

NEPRC 53.1 510 271

OCF 69.3 199 138

ORW 48.6 2,649 1287

OSP 13.1 601 79

PCI 16.1 2,142 345

RCI 14.2 2,225 315

RiCI 17.7 2,509 445

SCI 15.4 1,567 241

SOCF 31.0 1,419 440

TCI 24.5 1,259 309

ToCI 26.6 1,265 336

WCI 22.7 1,389 315

TOTAL 23.2 50,561 10,738


Table 12.

Seriously Mentally Ill by Institution with Number and Percent

May 2011

Institution

Number of

Seriously

Mentally Ill

Percent of

Institution’s

Total

Caseload

Ohio Reformatory for Women 588 45.7

Chillicothe Correctional Institution 361 53.5

Belmont Correctional Institution 250 44.5

Lebanon Correctional Institution 212 43.4

Noble Correctional Institution 210 71.4

Southern Ohio Correctional Facility 202 45.9

Warren Correctional Institution 199 63.2

Madison Correctional Institution 183 43.7

Marion Correctional Institution 181 33.3

Allen Correctional Institution 174 56.3

Correctional Reception Center 167 50.2

London Correctional Institution 167 45.4

Mansfield Correctional Institution 166 33.9

Pickaway Correctional Institution 157 45.5

Northeast Pre-Release Center (Females) 155 57.2

North Central Correctional Institution 154 36.3

Grafton Correctional Institution 128 51.2

Richland Correctional Institution 119 26.7

Southeastern Correctional Institution 115 47.7

Toledo Correctional Institution 115 34.2

Franklin Pre-Release Center (Females) 108 45.2

Ross Correctional Institution 103 32.7

Oakwood Correctional Facility 97 70.3

Trumbull Correctional Institution 94 30.4

Lake Erie Correctional Institution 79 44.6

Hocking Correctional Facility 31 29.8

Lorain Correctional Institution 20 6.7

Ohio State Penitentiary 12 15.2

Corrections Medical Center 11 52.4

North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility 3 2.8

Dayton Correctional Institution 0 0

Total 4,561 -


Table 13.

Monthly Academic Enrollment and Academic Wait List – DRC

June 2011

Monthly Academic Enrollment –

June 2011

YTD Academic Waitlist –

June 2011*

ACI/OCF 116 97

BECI 380 646

CCI 425 317

CMC 0 0

CRC 184 151

DCI/MEPRC 105 21

FPRC 87 101

GCI 128 108

HCF 60 111

LAECI 155 249

LECI 303 780

LOCI 217 99

LORCI 100 413

MACI 178 720

MANCI 158 415

MCI 259 273

NCI 259 787

NCCI 331 419

NCCTF 73 186

NEPRC 125 5

ORW 473 918

OSP 117 62

PCI 272 516

RICI 336 415

RCI 228 247

SCI 342 274

SOCF 98 212

TOCI 100 266

TCI 151 130

WCI 151 300

Total 5,911 9,238

*Total number of inmates shown as ‘Inmates without GED and on Academic Wait List’

represents a one-day snapshot of the number of inmates on the institutional academic wait

lists.


Table 14.

Monthly GEDs Passed and Academic Wait List – DRC

June 2011

GEDs PASSED - YTD as of

June 2011

Inmates Without GED and on

Academic Wait List - YTD

June 2011*

ACI/OCF 19 97

BECI 126 646

CCI 118 317

CMC 0 0

CRC 32 151

DCI/MEPRC 18 21

FPRC 68 101

GCI 41 108

HCF 2 111

LAECI 63 249

LECI 26 780

LOCI 61 99

LORCI 23 413

MACI 60 720

MANCI 100 415

MCI 48 273

NCI 139 787

NCCI 132 419

NCCTF 64 186

NEPRC 22 5

ORW 93 918

OSP 28 62

PCI 30 516

RICI 113 415

RCI 83 247

SCI 59 274

SOCF 85 212

TOCI 15 266

TCI 39 130

WCI 24 300

TOTAL 1,731 9,238

*Total number of inmates shown as ‘Inmates without GED and on Academic Wait List’ represents

a one-day snapshot of the number of inmates on the institutional academic wait lists.


Table 15.

Inmate Enrollment in Educational Programs (Noble Correctional Institution)

June 2011

Program For

Month

<

22 YTD

Waiting

List

# of Certificates % Attained Goals

Month YTD QTR YTD

Literacy 87 41 111 380 29 99 94% 95%

ABLE (Adult

Basic and

Literacy

Education)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Pre-GED 74 39 94 258 34 150 95% 95%

GED 98 52 121 149 0 68 93% 93%

GED Evening 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0%

HS/HS Options 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0%

Academic Total 259 132 326 787 63 317

Career-Tech

(by program)

For

Month

<

22 YTD

Waiting

List


Month YTD QTR YTD

Carpentry 14 4 25 195 14 14 100% 100%

Drywall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0%

Residential

Wiring

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0%

0% Turf

Management

0

0

0

0

0

0

0%

0%

Career-Tech

Total

14

4

25

195

14

14

Special

Education

23 23 44 0 0 0

Title One 0 0 0 0 0 0

EIPP (Education

Intensive Prison

Program)

0

0

0

0

0

0

TEP

(Transitional

Education

Program)

0

0

0

0

0

0

YTP 0 0 0 0 0 0

ESL (English as

Second

Language)

0

0

0

0

0

0

Career

Enhancement

60

5

277

267

45

221


50% 100% 50% 100%

Apprenticeship 38 3 41 0 0 0 3 0

For

Month < 22 YTD

Waiting

List

Program

Cert. 1-Year Cert. 2-Year Cert.

Term YTD Term YTD Term YTD

Advanced Job

Training

96

8

151

167

0

0

5

24

0

0

For

Month < 22 YTD

Waiting

List


Month YTD QTR YTD

Total GEDs

given

0

203

Total GEDs

passed

0

139

Literacy Tutors 4 23

Other Tutors 14 40

Tutors Trained 30 88

Tutor Hours 449 10,772

Children served

in Reading

Room

145

1,721

Narrator Hours 107 1,260

Work Keys 12 12

Table 16.

Inmate Programs, Noble Correctional Institution*

July 2011

Category Program

Community Service City of Caldwell Grounds Cleanup at Caldwell Reservoir

GMN Tri-County

Noble County Chamber of Commerce Beautification Project

Noble Trustee Cleanup Project at Oak Grove Cemetery

Washington County CAC – Food Cleanup Relief

Restoration Work at Putnam Mansion

Litter Pickup

Adoptable Dog Program Fostering and training abandoned dogs for adoption

Academics ABE

Pre-GED

GED


Special Education

Computer Lab

Pre-Literacy Tutor Training

Apprenticeship

Service Learning Training

Transitional Education - Television

Vocational Residential Wiring

Carpentry

Turf Management

Plastering and Drywall

Apprenticeship

Religious Services Various options

*Inmate programs in this table are those posted to the DRC institutional website as of the date of

the inspection. The list is not inclusive and not every program was included as part of the

inspection.

Table 17.

Top Ten Concerns Reported to CIIC Regarding Noble Correctional Institution


Concern Number of Reports

Health Care 12

Inmate Relations 11

Supervision 8

Institutional Assignment 7

Safety and Sanitation 6

Staff Accountability 6

Inmate Grievance Procedure 6

Special Management Housing 5

Facilities Maintenance 3

Force/Use of Force 3

Table 18.

Breakdown of top three reported concerns to CIIC regarding NCI


Category of Complaint: Health Care

Number of Concerns

Improper /Inadequate Medical Care 5

Access/Delay in Receiving Medical Care 3

Disagree with Diagnosis/Treatment 3

Delay/Denial of Medication 1

Total 12


Category of Complaint: Inmate Relations

Number of Concerns

Assaults 4

Personal Safety 4

Security Threat Group (STG) 3

Total 11

Category of Complaint: Supervision

Number of Concerns

Unprofessional Conduct 6

Abusive Language 1

Intimidation/Threats 1

Total 8


D. INSPECTION CHECKLISTS


SECTION II. GLOSSARY OF TERMS

A

Administrative Assistant (AA) – Staff member who is an assistant to the Warden and

typically responsible for reviewing RIB (Rules Infraction Board) decisions and RIB appeals.

Adult Basic Education (ABE)/Literacy – Literacy classes are for student with reading levels

at 226 and below the CASAS. The ABE/Literacy Unit consist of two afternoon sessions.

Students attend school approximately 1 ½ hours each day on Monday – Thursday. Students

work individually or in small groups with tutors and focus on improving their reading and

math skills. All tutors in the ABE/Literacy Unit are certified through a 10 hour training

course.

B

Brunch – Served on weekends as a cost savings initiative.

Bureau of Classification – Office located at DRC Operations Support Center responsible with

the ultimate authority for inmate security levels, placement at institutions, as well as

transfers.

Bureau of Medical Services – Office located at DRC Operations Support Center responsible

for direct oversight of medical services at each institution.

Bureau of Mental Health Services – Office located at DRC Operations Support Center

responsible for direct oversight of Mental Health Services at each institution.

C

Case Manager – Staff member responsible for assisting inmates assigned to their case load

and conducting designated core and authorized reentry programs.

Cellie/Bunkie – An inmate‟s cellmate or roommate.

Chief Inspector – Staff member at DRC Operations Support Center responsible for

administering all aspects of the grievance procedure for inmates, rendering dispositions on

inmate grievance appeals as well as grievances against the Wardens and/or Inspectors of

Institutional Services.

Classification/Security Level – System by which inmates are classified based on the

following: current age; seriousness of the crime; prior offenses; most recent violence (not

including the current offense); gang activity before going to prison; and present and past

escape attempts.

Close Security – See Level 3

Computer Voice Stress Analysis (CVSA) – A device, which electronically detects, measures,

and charts the stress in a person‟s voice following a pre-formatted questionnaire. Used as a

truth seeking device for investigations.

Conduct Report/Ticket – Document issued to inmate for violating a rule.

Contraband – items possessed by an inmate which, by their nature, use, or intended use, pose

a threat to security or safety of inmates, staff or public, or disrupt the orderly operation of the

facility. items possessed by an inmate without permission and the location in which these

items are discovered is improper; or the quantities in which an allowable item is possessed is

prohibited; or the manner or method by which the item is obtained was improper; or an

allowable item is possessed by an inmate in an altered form or condition.


D

Deputy Warden of Operations (DWO) – Staff member at each institution in charge of

monitoring the Major, custody staff, the Unit Management Administrator, Unit Managers,

Case Managers, and the locksmith. Other areas include count office, mail/visiting, Rules

Infraction Board, segregation unit, and recreation. The Deputy Warden of Operations is also

responsible for reviewing use of force reports and referring them to a Use of Force

Committee when necessary for further investigation.

Deputy Warden of Special Services (DWSS) – Staff member at each institution in charge of

monitoring education, the library, inmate health services, recovery services, mental health

services, religious services, Ohio Penal Industries, and food service.

Disciplinary Control (DC) – The status of an inmate who was found guilty by the Rules

Infraction Board and his or her penalty is to serve DC time. An inmate may serve up to 15

days in DC.

F

Food Service Administrator – An employee within the Office of Administration Services

educated in food service management and preparation, to manage DRC food service

departments.

G

GED/PRE-GED – Pre-GED classes are for those who have a reading score between a 227

through 239 on level C or higher of the CASAS test. GED classes are for those who have a

reading score of 240 on level C or higher on the CASAS test. Students attend class 1 ½

hours each day, Monday – Thursday. Students study the five subjects measured by the GED.

In addition to class work, students are given a homework assignment consisting of a list of

vocabulary words to define and writing prompt each week. All GED and Pre-GED tutors are

certified through a 10-hour training course.

General Population (GP) – Inmates not assigned to a specialized housing unit.

H

Health Care Administrator (HCA) – The health care authority responsible for the

administration of medical services within the institution. This registered nurse assesses,

directs, plans, coordinates, supervises, and evaluates all medical services delivered at the

institutional level. The HCA interfaces with health service providers in the community and

state to provide continuity of care.

Hearing Officer – The person(s) designated by the Managing Officer to conduct an informal

hearing with an inmate who received a conduct report.

Hooch – An alcoholic beverage.

I

Industrial and Entertainment (I and E) Funds – Funds created and maintained for the

entertainment and welfare of the inmates.

Informal Complaint Resolution (ICR) – The first step of the Inmate Grievance Procedure

(IGP). Inmates submit ICRs to the supervisor of the staff member who is the cause of the


complaint. Staff members are to respond within seven calendar days. Timeframe may be

waived for good cause.

Inmate Grievance Procedure (IGP) – A three step process whereby inmates may document

and report concerns, problems, or issues.

Inspector of Institutional Services (IIS) – Staff person at the institution in charge of

facilitating the inmate grievance procedure, investigating and responding to inmate

grievances, conducting regular inspections of institutional services, serving as a liaison

between the inmate population and institutional personnel, reviewing and providing input on

new or revised institutional policies, procedures and post orders, providing training on the

inmate grievance procedure and other relevant topics, and any other duties as assigned by the

Warden or Chief Inspector that does not conflict with facilitating the inmate grievance

procedure or responding to grievances.

Institutional Separation – An order wherein two or more inmates are not assigned to general

population in the same institution due to a concern for the safety and security of the

institution, staff, and/or other inmates.

Intensive Program Prison (IPP) – Refers to several ninety-day programs, for which certain

inmates are eligible, that are characterized by concentrated and rigorous specialized treatment

services. An inmate who successfully completes an IPP will have his/her sentence reduced to

the amount of time already served and will be released on post-release supervision for an

appropriate time period.

Interstate Compact – The agreement codified in ORC 5149.21 governing the transfer and

supervision of adult offenders under the administration of the National Interstate

Commission.

K

Kite – A written form of communication from an inmate to staff.

L

Local Control (LC) – The status of an inmate who was referred to the Local Control

Committee by the Rules Infraction Board. The committee will decide if the inmate has

demonstrated a chronic inability to adjust to the general population or if the inmate's

presence in the general population is likely to seriously disrupt the orderly operation of the

institution. A committee reviews the inmate's status every 30 days for release consideration.

The inmate may serve up to 180 days in LC.

Local Separation – An order wherein two or more inmates are not permitted to be assigned to

the same living and/or work area, and are not permitted simultaneous involvement in the

same recreational or leisure time activities to ensure they are not in close proximity with one

another.

N

Notification of Grievance (NOG) – The second step of the Inmate Grievance Procedure

(IGP). The NOG is filed to the Inspector of Institutional Services and must be responded to

within 14 calendar days. Timeframe may be waived for good cause.

M

Maximum Security – See Level 4


Medium Security – See Level 2

Mental Health Caseload – Consists of offenders with a mental health diagnosis who receive

treatment by mental health staff and are classified as C-1 (SMI) or C-2 (Non-SMI).

Minimum Security – See Level 1

O

Ohio Central School System (OCSS) – The school district chartered by the Ohio Department

of Education to provide educational programming to inmates incarcerated within the Ohio

Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.

Ohio Penal Industries (OPI) – A subordinate department of the Department of Rehabilitation

and Correction. OPI manufactures goods and services for ODRC and other state agencies.

P

Parent Institution – The institution where an inmate is assigned to after reception and will be

the main institution where the inmate serves his or her time. The parent institution is subject

to change due to transfers.

Protective Control (PC) – A placement for inmates whose personal safety would be at risk in

the General Population (GP).

R

Reentry Accountability Plan (RAP) – Plan for inmates, which includes the static risk

assessment, dynamic needs assessment, and program recommendations and participation.

Residential Treatment Unit (RTU) – The Residential Treatment Unit is a secure, treatment

environment that has a structured clinical program. All offenders enter at the Crisis and

Assessment Level (Level 1). This level is designed to assess conditions and provide structure

for the purpose of gaining clinical information or containing a crisis. The disposition of the

assessment can be admission to the treatment levels of the RTU, referral to OCF, or referral

back to the parent institution.

Rules Infraction Board (RIB) – A panel of two staff members who determine guilt or

innocence when an inmate receives a conduct report or ticket for disciplinary reasons.

S

Security Control (SC) – The status of an inmate who is pending a hearing by the Rules

Infraction Board for a rule violation, under investigation or pending institutional transfer and

needs to be separated from the general population. Inmates may be placed in SC for up to

seven days. The seven day period can be extended if additional time is needed.

Security Level/Classification – System by which inmates are classified based on the

following: current age; seriousness of the crime; prior offenses; most recent violence (not

including the current offense); gang activity before going to prison; and present and past

escape attempts.

Level 1A Security (Minimum) – The lowest security level in the classification

system. Inmates classed as Level 1 have the most privileges allowed. Inmates in

Level 1 who meet criteria specified in DRC Policy 53-CLS-03, Community Release

Approval Process, may be eligible to work off the grounds of a correctional

institution. Level 1A inmates may be housed at a correctional camp with or without a


perimeter fence and may work outside the fence under periodic supervision. Level

1A replaces the classification previously known as “Minimum 1 Security.”

Level 1B Security (Minimum) – The second lowest level in the classification system.

Level 1B inmates may be housed at a correctional camp with a perimeter fence and

may work outside of the fence under intermittent supervision. However, Level 1B

inmates who are sex offenders are not permitted to work or house outside of a

perimeter fence. Level 1B inmates may not work off the grounds of the correctional

institution. Level 1B replaces the classification previously known as “Minimum 2

Security.”

Level 2 Security (Medium) – A security level for inmates who are deemed in need of

more supervision than Level 1 inmates, but less than Level 3 inmates. Level 2

replaces the classification previously known as “Medium Security.”

Level 3 Security (Close) – This is the security level that is the next degree higher than

Level 2, and requires more security/supervision than Level 2, but less than Level 4.

Level 3 replaces the classification previously known as “Close Security.”

Level 4 Security (Maximum) – This is the security level that is the next degree higher

than Level 3, and requires more security/supervision than Level 3, but less than Level

5. It is the security level for inmates whose security classification score at the time of

placement indicates a need for very high security. It is also a classification for those

who are involved in, but not leading others to commit violent, disruptive, predatory or

riotous actions, and/or a threat to the security of the. Level 4 replaces the

classification previously known as “Maximum Security.”

Level 4A Security (Maximum) – A less restrictive privilege level, which inmates may

be placed into by the privilege level review committee with the Warden/Designee‟s

approval, after a review of the inmate‟s status in level 4.

Level 4B Security (Maximum) – The most restrictive privilege level assigned to an

inmate classified into level 4.

Level 5 Security (Supermax) – A security level for inmates who commit or lead

others to commit violent, disruptive, predatory, riotous actions, or who otherwise

pose a serious threat to the security of the institution as set forth in the established

Level 5 criteria. Level 5 replaces the classification previously known as “High

Maximum Security.”

Level 5A Security (Supermax) – A less restrictive privilege level, which inmates may

be placed into by the privilege level review committee with the Warden/Designee‟s

approval, after a review of the inmate‟s status in level 5.

Level 5B Security (Supermax) – The most restrictive privilege level assigned to an

inmate classified into level 5.

Security Threat Group (STG) – Groups of inmates such as gangs that pose a threat to the

security of the institution.

Separation – See Institutional Separation and Local Separation

Seriously Mentally Ill (SMI) – Inmates who require extensive mental health treatment.

Shank – Sharp object manufactured to be used as a weapon.

Special Management Housing Unit (SMHU)/Segregation – Housing unit for those assigned

to Security Control, Disciplinary Control, Protective Control, and Local Control.

Supermax Security – See Level 5


T

Telemedicine – A two-way interactive videoconferencing system that allows for visual and

limited physical examination of an inmate by a physician specialist while the inmate remains

at his/her prison setting and the physician specialist remains at the health care facility. It also

includes educational and administrative uses of this technology in the support of health care,

such as distance learning, nutrition counseling and administrative videoconferencing.

Transitional Control – Inmates approved for release up to 180 days prior to the expiration of

their prison sentence or release on parole or post release control supervision under closely

monitored supervision and confinement in the community, such as a stay in a licensed

halfway house or restriction to an approved residence on electronic monitoring in accordance

with section 2967.26 of the Ohio Revised Code.

Transitional Education Program (TEP) – Learn skills to successfully re-enter society.

Release dated within 90-180 days.

U

Unit Management Administrator (UMA) – Staff member responsible for overseeing the

roles, responsibilities and processes of unit management staff in a decentralized or

centralized social services management format. The UMA may develop centralized processes

within unit management, while maintaining the unit based caseload management system for

managing offender needs. The UMA shall ensure that at least one unit staff member visits the

special management areas at least once per week and visits will not exceed seven days in

between visits.

Unit Manager (UM) – Staff member responsible for providing direct supervision to assigned

unit management staff and serving as the chairperson of designated committees. Unit

Managers will conduct rounds of all housing areas occupied by inmates under their

supervision.

W

Warden – Top administrator at each correctional institution.

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Institution Acronyms

Allen Correctional Institution .................................. ACI

Belmont Correctional Institution ............................. BeCI

Chillicothe Correctional Institution .........................

CCI

Correctional Reception Center ................................ CRC

Corrections Medical Center .....................................

CMC

Dayton Correctional Institution ............................... DCI

Franklin Pre-Release Center .................................... FPRC

Grafton Correctional Institution .............................. GCI

Hocking Correctional Facility ................................. HCF

Lake Erie Correctional Institution ........................... LaeCI

Lebanon Correctional Institution ............................. LeCI

London Correctional Institution .............................. LoCI

Lorain Correctional Institution ................................

LorCI

Madison Correctional Institution ............................. MaCI


Mansfield Correctional Institution ........................... ManCI

Marion Correctional Institution ............................... MCI

Noble Correctional Institution ................................. NCI

North Central Correctional Institution ..................... NCCI

North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility .......... NCCTF

Northeast Pre-Release Center .................................. NEPRC

Oakwood Correctional Facility................................ OCF

Ohio Reformatory for Women................................. ORW

Ohio State Penitentiary ............................................ OSP

Pickaway Correctional Institution ........................... PCI

Richland Correctional Institution ............................ RiCI

Ross Correctional Institution ................................... RCI

Southeastern Correctional Institution ...................... SCI

Southern Ohio Correctional Facility ........................ SOCF

Toledo Correctional Institution................................ ToCI

Trumbull Correctional Institution ............................ TCI

Warren Correctional Institution ............................... WCI

noble correctional institution › docs › noble_correctional_institution_2011_2.pdfnoble...

Documents