toledo correctional institutionciic.state.oh.us/docs/toledo_correctional_institution_2012.pdf ·...

CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 1

Toledo

Correctional

Institution

April 16, 2012

April 19, 2012

April 20, 2012

April 24, 2012

Adam Jackson,

Report Coordinator


TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

SECTION I. INSTITUTION OVERVIEW ................................................................................3

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

B. INSTITUTION DEMOGRAPHICS ....................................................................3

C. FISCAL REVIEW .................................................................................................5

SECTION II. INSPECTION SUMMARY ..................................................................................8

SECTION III. INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE EVALUATION .............................17

SECTION IV. KEY STATISTICS .............................................................................................20

A. USE OF FORCE ..................................................................................................20

B. ASSAULTS ...........................................................................................................21

C. INMATE DEATHS ..............................................................................................21

D. INVESTIGATOR DATA ....................................................................................22

E. SECURITY THREAT GROUPS (STG) ............................................................22

F. INMATE SAFETY RATING .............................................................................23

SECTION V. EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS ..................................................................25

A. MEDICAL SERVICES .......................................................................................25

B. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES .......................................................................26

C. FOOD SERVICES ...............................................................................................27

D. HOUSING UNITS ...............................................................................................29

E. COMMISSARY ...................................................................................................30

SECTION VI. EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS ....................................................................32

A. PROGRAM EVALUATION ..............................................................................32

B. LIBRARY/LAW LIBRARY SERVICES ..........................................................34

SECTION VII. INMATE COMMUNICATION ......................................................................36

SECTION VIII. APPENDIX ......................................................................................................38

A. FULL LIST OF PROGRAMS ............................................................................38

B. SCHEDULES .......................................................................................................40

C. DATA TABLES ...................................................................................................43

D. INSPECTION CHECKLISTS ............................................................................46

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


CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION INSPECTION COMMITTEE REPORT

ON THE INSPECTION AND EVALUATION OF

TOLEDO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

SECTION I. INSTITUTION OVERVIEW

A. INSPECTION PROFILE

Date of Inspection: April 16, 2012

April 19, 2012

April 20, 2012

April 24, 2012

Type of Inspection: Unannounced

CIIC Member and Staff Present: Joanna Saul, Director

Jamie Hooks, Inspector

Darin Furderer, Inspector

Adam Jackson, Inspector

Carol Robison, Inspector

Lanny Sacco, Inspector

Facility Staff Present: Warden Ed Sheldon

CIIC spoke with many additional staff at

their posts throughout the course of the

inspection.

Areas/Activities Included in the Inspection:

Housing Units

Inmate Dining Hall

Kitchen

Medical and Mental Health Services

Segregation

Library

Educational Programs Commissary

B. INSTITUTION DEMOGRAPHICS

Toledo Correctional Institution is a 45.24 acre facility, which opened in 2000.1 The facility is a

Level 3 security (close security) male institution serving Level 3 and Level 4 inmates. The

institution’s budget is $26,394,476 and the daily cost per inmate is $67.39.2

Toledo Correctional Institution formerly housed Level 1 inmates in a minimum security camp

that closed on April 1, 2011. Also in early 2011, the institution began double-celling as part of

the DRC’s larger effort to reorganize and control overcrowding. In late 2011, the institution

1 Toledo Correctional Institution website, available at http://www.drc.state.oh.us/Public/toci.htm.

2 Ibid.


began receiving Level 4 inmates and Protective Control inmates were moved to Allen Oakwood

Correctional Institution.

The date of the most recent ACA accreditation was June 8-10, 2011.3 The facility was 100

percent compliant on mandatory standards and 99.3 percent compliant on non-mandatory

standards.4 The main areas of non-compliance were due to overcrowding. In addition to

reviewing the ACA accreditation, CIIC also reviewed the internal management audit that was

conducted on April 5-7, 2011.

According to the internal management audit, the facility was found to be 96.5 percent compliant

on ACA mandatory standards, 98.4 percent compliant on ACA non-mandatory standards, and

86.4 percent compliant on Ohio standards.5 Non-compliant issues included the following: failure

to document staff OC certification training; failure to have required staff present during DRC

quarterly meetings; delay in providing employee written performance evaluations; overcrowding

concerns; unit staff performing required cell searches; food items are not maintained at required

storage temperatures; failure to complete employee mid probation evaluations in the required

time; missing inmate property inventory files; outdated incident action plans; unsigned and

inaccurate service contract invoices; cell phone reimbursements not submitted within required 14

days; lack of priority for re-entry programming and a reentry accountability plan.

The rated capacity for Toledo Correctional Institution is 1,306. The inmate count as of April 16,

2012 was 1,433 or approximately 110 percent of the rated capacity.6 The average age of the

inmate population was 33.7 years as of April 2012.7

Of the 343 total staff at Toledo Correctional Institution as of April 1, 2012, 64.1 percent were

male and 35.9 percent were female. Of the total staff, 70.8 percent were classified as white, 23.3

percent as black, and 5.8 percent other.8

The following chart provides a comparison of both staff and inmate race demographics at the

facility and across the DRC.

3 Commission on Accreditation for Corrections, “Standards Compliance Reaccreditation Audit,” June 8-10, 2011.

4 Ibid.

5 Toledo Correctional Institution Full Internal Management Audit Report, April 5-7, 2011.

6 Toledo Correctional Institution, Institutional Counts, April 16, 2012.

7 Ibid.

8 ODRC Workforce Composition-April 1, 2012, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction website,

http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/Reports/staffing/April%202012.pdf


Chart 1

Staff and Inmate Comparison by Percentage of Race9

April 2012

C. FISCAL REVIEW

CIIC‟s fiscal evaluation focuses on three primary areas: (1) review of most recent fiscal audit;

(2) staffing, including overtime hours; and (3) cost savings initiatives.

Review of Fiscal Audit

Toledo Correctional Institution provided the most recent fiscal audit performed by an external

auditor, dated July 7, 2011. The audit covered the period of August 8, 2009 through April 5,

2011.10

There was one observation and recommendation for corrective action in the previous

audit. The previous concern was reviewed in the current audit and the following deficiency

remained:

The total inventory adjustments exceeded one percent of the total income for two months.

A negative inventory variance was recorded during nine of the seventeen months of the

audit.11

There were three observations found while reviewing the Cashier and Commissary Trust

Accounting System (CACTAS):

Ten (77 percent) of the fifteen Commissary vouchers and thirteen Request to Purchase

forms (RTP) or Purchase Order forms (PO) were dated after the vendor invoice date. The

9 Ibid. DRC Monthly Fact Sheet, April 2012.

10 DRC Bureau of Fiscal Operations and Fiscal Audits, Fiscal Audits and Accounting Control Section, Toledo

Correctional Institution, August 8, 2009-April 5, 2011. 11

Ibid.

Staff White Staff Black Inmate White Inmate Black

Institution 70.8 23.3 38.9 59.1

DRC 80 17.7 51 47

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Commissary Manual requires all purchases for the commissary to be processed through

the Business Office.12

Review of the Balance Sheets found that the following funds had negative Cash on Hand

(COH) balances as of April 5, 2011:13

o Petty Cash Fund ($41.50)

o Industrial and Entertainment Fund ($126,355.13)

o Housing and Cafeteria Fund ($541.69)

o Employee Activity Fund ($42,303.00)

The CACTAS checkbook was found to be out-of-balance by ($3,163.60) as of March 31,

2011.14

Staffing

Adequate staffing has a direct effect on the safety and security of an institution. Of the total

number of allotted positions, 22 are vacant.15

The vacancies consist of the following:

Ten correctional officers

Four food service coordinators

Two registered nurses

One dietetic technician, laundry coordinator, licensed practical nurse, maintenance repair

worker, teacher, and warden’s assistant.

Vacancies and employees on leave result in staff being mandated to work extra shifts; however

mandated shifts may vary from day to day and week to week. Overtime is calculated by hours.

For example, from September 10, 2011 through February 23, 2012, there were 8,380.26 hours

worked as overtime hours.16

Of the total, 69.8 percent (5,847.58 hours) were in the area of

custody staff. A further breakdown of the custody staff overtime indicates that correctional

officers accounted for 75.4 percent (4,409.92 hours) of the custody staff total.

The following chart compares staffing across the DRC by the number of inmates per corrections

officer (based on the total amount of staff on the payroll, including staff on leave).

12

Ibid. 13

Ibid. 14

Ibid. 15

Toledo Correctional Institution, staff vacancies, received April 19, 2012. 16

Toledo Correctional Institution Overtime Breakdown by Department Staff, September 10, 2011-February 23,

2012.


Chart 2

DRC Institutional Staffing: Number of Inmates per Corrections Officer

January 2012

Cost Savings Initiatives

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

the DRC. Staff relayed the following cost savings measures implemented at the Toledo

Correctional Institution:17

Use of energy saving florescent bulbs.

Domestic water heater cleaning exchanger; reduce water use and natural gas.

HVAC cooling tower; lower amount of electric usage.

Upgrading door control; reduces run time which results in savings in electricity and

purchasing parts.

Grease pit cleaning; reduces frequency of sewers that need cleaning.

Boiler pumps repair-reduce run time; reduces natural gas usage.

Florescent bulbs recycling; sent to Mansfield vs. using outside contractor/company.

Work in association with the Kore Company; notifies TOCI during peak power times to

run generators instead of drawing on electrical grid.

Recycling Program Initiative-reinstituted so as to generate funds from our recyclables;

(cardboard, plastic, cans, paper, pallets, metal); reducing number of refuse pulls.

17

Toledo Correctional Institution, “Cost Savings Initiatives for FY2012.”

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

AC

I/O

CF

BeC

I

CC

I

GC

I

HC

F

Lo

CI

MaC

I

MC

I

NC

CI

NC

I

PC

I

RIC

I

SC

I

LeC

I

Man

CI

RC

I

TC

I

To

CI

WC

I

SO

CF

OS

P

CR

C

Lo

rCI

FM

C

OR

W

DC

I

NE

PR

C

6.8

Level

1/2

Level

3

Level

4/5

Reception

Center Female/

Special


SECTION II. INSPECTION SUMMARY

Overall, the inspection raised some concerns, although there were several positives viewed, particularly in regard to the Warden’s

initiatives. The following is a summary of the inspection findings. The DRC response and action plans in regard to the identified

concerns immediately follow the summary.

KEY STATISTICS

AREA

DE

CR

EA

SE

D

>1

0%

NO

CH

AN

GE

(WIT

HIN

10%

)

INC

RE

AS

ED

>1

0%

COMMENTS

Use of Force X Total uses of force increased by 70 percent from 2009 to 2011. Use of

chemical agents (aka OC spray, mace, etc.) increased by 294 percent in the

same time period.

Assaults X Total inmate-on-inmate assaults increased by 78.9 percent from 2009 to

2011.

Suicide Attempts X Suicide attempts decreased from one reported attempt in 2009 to zero

reported attempts in 2011.

OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT

AREA

EX

CE

LL

EN

T

AC

CE

PT

AB

LE

IN N

EE

D O

F

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

COMMENTS

Operations

Medical Services X The CIIC inspection team rated medical services at TOCI as in need of

improvement in all areas. At the time of the inspection, the Health Care

Administrator had been on leave for a month and the doctor resigned during

the inspection period. In addition, there was a sizeable and concerning

backlog for chronic care appointments, with 255 of the 544 inmates (46.9

percent) enrolled in chronic care clinics on the backlog. Both inmates and


staff reported stoppages in medication.

Mental Health Services X The CIIC inspection team rated mental health services as in need of

improvement, particularly in regard to staffing. It is not clear that the facility

has sufficient staff to treat the high caseload, even if fully staffed according

to the allotted positions.

Food Services X The only concern was the amount of debris under the kitchen prep area.

Housing Units X For the most part, the CIIC inspection team noted an improvement in

housing unit conditions, particularly in regard to the showers, as compared to

prior inspections. However, some of the units varied in terms of security

concerns, such as towels on the floor and inappropriate pictures on the cell

walls.

Commissary X No concerns noted.

Programs

Program Evaluation X Two concerns noted: staffing levels and access to programming. However,

the two observed programs were considered well-managed and engaging.

Library X No concerns noted.

Staff Accountability

Officer Staffing X The institution reported 22 vacancies, including ten corrections officers.

Inmate Grievance Procedure X The institution reported that 20.4 percent of informal complaint responses

were received past the seven day timeframe in administrative rule. However,

staff relayed that Warden Sheldon has been working to address this issue.

Inmate Safety X Of the 115 inmates interviewed by CIIC staff, 95 reported that inmates were

“safe” or “very safe” at Toledo Correctional Institution. However, the large

increase in both inmate-on-inmate assaults and uses of force since 2009 is

concerning.

Executive Staff Rounds X The Warden and the Deputy Warden of Operations should be particularly

commended for dedication to performing executive staff rounds. However,

there was a lack of rounds for both the Inspector and the Deputy Warden of

Special Services, and in some units the Unit Management Administrator (see

the inspection checklists).

Shakedowns (Cell Searches) X There was inconsistency in shakedowns performed on each unit, with staff


not documenting the correct number (two per shift at this institution). On at

least two units, it appeared that second shift officers were not documenting

the shakedowns (see inspection checklists).

Officer Security Checks X Staff appeared to be adequately documenting security checks (officer

rounds). However, CIIC noticed several issues (foreign material obstructing

locks, inappropriate pictures, etc.) that may indicate a need to retrain on how

to perform adequate rounds.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

AREA COMMENTS

Telephones As has been documented in prior CIIC inspection reports on TOCI, inmates have reported

serious concerns regarding the lack of telephones to accommodate the population. Not only does

this affect inmates’ ability to stay in communication with family members, the lack of telephones

causes tension among inmates, which may lead to additional safety concerns.

Recreation Inmates relayed concerns regarding the reduction in recreational time, reportedly as a result of

the increased population.

Executive Staff Visibility The CIIC inspection team was extremely impressed by the Warden’s commitment to executive

staff access and visibility. As discussed above, the Warden consistently documented even more

than weekly rounds. The Warden has also implemented an initiative to be more visible to

inmates by sitting at the “point”– an area that all inmates cross coming and going to chow. Not

only does he reinforce dress code expectations, he also is immediately accessible on a daily basis

to inmates. Furthermore, he requires executive staff and unit staff to sit with him so that inmates

can have their concerns immediately addressed by the correct personnel. This practice is unusual

in the DRC, making it even more commendable and should be implemented at every institution.


DRC RESPONSE AND ACTION PLANS

Issue Problem noted by CIIC - Use of Force Total uses of force increased by 70 percent from 2009 to 2011. Use of chemical agents (aka OC spray, mace, etc.) increased by 294

percent in the same time period.

Tasks

1. Increase presence of staff within the housing units/common areas of the

institution.

2. Establish Merit Housing Units

Person Responsible

1. Warden, Executive Staff,

Department Heads

2. Warden

Comments: ToCI double -bunked inmates and its population grew by 60% between 2011 and 2012. In addition, chemical

agents were made available to all staff as a safety measure in 2010. Prior to this, only Supervisors and SRT members used

chemical agents. The period of time level 4B’s were housed also accounted for the increase in chemical agent use. Since the

establishment of merit housing units, uses of force have dropped significantly in those so designated. Please note inmate on

staff assaults has also decreased due to the use of chemical agents.


Issue Problem noted by CIIC - Assaults Total inmate-on-inmate assaults increased by 78.9 percent from 2009 to 2011.

Tasks

1. Establish merit housing units

2. Increase staff presence and availability

3. Addition of Unit Manager and two Case Manager positions

4. Increase and identify security threat group offenders

Person Responsible

1. UMA, DWO, Unit Managers

2. Executive Staff, Warden, Unit

Staff

3. OSC, Warden

4. STG committee; Major

Comments: ToCI has undergone a mission change during this time frame which has lead to an increase in inmate on inmate

assaults. ToCI has increased its inmate population by 60% in 2011, however, is slowly reducing the inmate double bunked

population in order to house Level 4a offenders. Violence reduction remains a top priority at ToCI. Prior to the CIIC

inspection, ToCI developed incentive criteria for our existing housing units, providing offenders with the opportunity to

participate in merit housing. In line with the ODRC prison reform of security levels 3a and 3b, ToCI is in the process of

identifying inmates to be moved into housing units meant to reward positive behavior (level 3a offenders) while providing

additional staff resources to housing meant for 3b offenders. A part of increasing staff resources is to ensure staff is available

to inmates to address their needs. Staff presence has been increased within the institution by ensuring the Warden, Executive

Staff, and Unit Staff are available daily at “The Point”, a common area of the institution for inmates to have their needs

addressed. Finally, OSC evaluated the need for additional unit staff to be provided within the institution to address inmate

concerns. A new unit manager was hired and begins his position effective 5/6/2012. Two case managers were also hired and

are scheduled to begin their positions 5/21/12 and 6/3/12 respectively. Through combined efforts with investigation of

Security Threat Groups, it should also be noted that the inmate culture since the double-bunking of TOCI’s population has

significantly been effected. TOCI is now receiving inmates from various geographical locations outside of Northwest Ohio.

This has caused tension within the facility between STG profiled inmates. Increased monitoring of these security threat

groups will also allow the institution to better classify offender’s privilege levels and attempt to prevent assaults from

occurring.


Issue Problem noted by CIIC - Medical Services The CIIC inspection team rated medical services at TOCI as in need of improvement in all areas. At the time of the inspection, the

Health Care Administrator had been on leave for a month and the doctor resigned during the inspection period. In addition, there

was a sizeable and concerning backlog for chronic care appointments, with 255 of the 544 inmates (46.9 percent) enrolled in

chronic care clinics on the backlog. Both inmates and staff reported stoppages in medication.

Tasks

1. Train more staff on data entry in to MOSS database for CCC

2. BOMS-OSC providing contract physician to address CCC and DSC.

3. BOMS-OSC approval for temporary HCA

4. Medication Stoppage

Complaint to Vendor filed against Central Pharmacy

Implementation of detailed inventory checks of received mediation

from pharmacy.

Collaboration with BOMS regarding pharmacy training of LPNs to

cross reference medication manifest with new medication orders.

Person Responsible

1. DWSS

2. BOMS-OSC

3. BOMS-OSC

4. BOMS-OSC, DWSS & HCA

Comments: Prior to the CIIC inspection TOCI identified issues with Chronic Care backlogs. Additional medical staff has

been trained to ensure the CCC visits are correctly inputted into MOSS database in a consistent basis. BOMS-OSC has

agreed to provide a contract physician’s to assist with Doctor Sick Call and Chronic Care appointments; this is in addition to

ToCI’s full time Nurse Practitioner. BOMS-OSC has approved an experienced contract HCA is assist with overall

management of the medical area and specifically correct issues with chronic care, nurse/doctor sick call, medications and

staff scheduling. ToCI is also exploring bringing another Nurse Practitioner until the Doctor position is filled. The contract

HCA started on 5/10/12.


Issue Problem noted by CIIC - Mental Health Services The CIIC inspection team rated mental health services as in need of improvement, particularly in regard to staffing. It is not clear

that the facility has sufficient staff to treat the high caseload, even if fully staffed according to the allotted positions.

Tasks

1. Posting of Social Work 3 position

2. BOMHS-OSC evaluating the need for an Activity Therapist

Person Responsible

1. Warden/Personnel

2. BOMHS-OSC

Comments: Upon review of the inspection report prepared by CIIC, it should be noted as of 5/7/12 there are 290 inmates are

on the mental health caseload. At the time of the inspection there was a total of 303 not 397, which is 19% of ToCI’s inmate

population. Prior to the CIIC inspection BOMHS-OSC approved for additional Social Work 3 position and is still evaluating

the need for an Activity Therapist.

Issue Problem noted by CIIC - Officer Staffing The institution reported 22 vacancies, including ten corrections officers.

Tasks

1. Evaluate the need to increase Officer positions based upon increase in

inmate population

Person Responsible

1. Warden, Personnel

Comments: ToCI maintains a 4.5% -5% vacancy rates per institutional budget requirements.18

18

The DRC Assistant Director relayed that he approved the filling of additional positions to bring the institutional vacancy rate to 4%.


Issue Problem noted by CIIC – Grievance Procedure The institution reported that 20.4 percent of informal complaint responses were received past the seven day timeframe in

administrative rule. However, staff relayed that Warden Sheldon has been working to address this issue.

Tasks

1. IIS submits monthly report to LRO identifying what staff members are

untimely.

2. Staff is being recommended for discipline for untimely ICR responses

1.

Person Responsible

1. Warden

2. IIS, LRO

Comments: Prior to CIIC inspection the untimely responses of ICRS was identified and a plan of action put in place.

Warden has initiated discipline on any staff member with untimely responses. To date 4 staff members have received

discipline.

Issue Problem noted by CIIC - Shakedowns There was inconsistency in shakedowns performed on each unit, with staff not documenting the correct number (two per shift at

this institution). On at least two units, it appeared that second shift officers were not documenting the shakedowns.

Tasks

2. Weekly rounds will include check of shakedown logs to ensure

compliance

3. Officers non complaint in shakedowns will be verbally instructed to

complete shakedowns at the time of inspection

4. Recommend discipline for officers who continue non-compliance

Person Responsible

1. DWO, Major, UMA, Unit

Managers, Shift Commanders

2. DWO, Major, UMA, Unit

Managers, Shift Commanders

3. DWO, Major, LRO

Comments: The addition of an entire set of unit management staff will assist in the accountability of staff shakedowns.


Issue Comment noted by CIIC - Telephones As has been documented in prior CIIC inspection reports on ToCI, inmates have reported serious concerns regarding the lack of

telephones to accommodate the population. Not only does this effect inmates ability to stay in communication with family

members, the lack of telephones cause tension among inmates, which may lead to additional safety concerns.

Response: ToCI maintenance department completed the proper wiring needed for

additional phones (CIIC was informed of this during the December 2011

inspection), installation was scheduled with GTL and completed during CIIC’s

current inspection.

Issue Comment noted by CIIC - Recreation Inmates relayed concerns regarding the reduction in recreational time, reportedly as a result of increased inmate population

Response: ToCI inmates are receiving the amount of recreation required by ACA/

DRC policies and procedures


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 procedure19

at each state correctional institution. This evaluation generally includes a

review of grievance data, individual inmate interviews conducted by the CIIC inspection team

on-site during the inspection process, and shadowing the Institutional

Inspector by a member of the CIIC inspection team.

In 2011, there were 475 grievances filed and 2,546 informal complaints received by the Inspector

at the facility.20

Of the 439 grievances completed, 88.8 percent were denied, 8.7 percent were

granted, and 2.5 percent were withdrawn by the inmate. The top three categories with the most

grievances were Health Care with 119, Personal Property with 84, and Supervision with 41.21

The Inspector’s Activity Report for January 2011 through December 2011 is provided in Table 1

of the Appendix.

Timely staff responses to informal complaints have a large impact on inmates’ perception of the

effectiveness of the grievance procedure. While the DRC only requires an action plan for

untimely response rates above 15 percent, CIIC believes that an untimely response rate above 10

percent is unacceptable and five percent is both achievable and preferred. Of the total number of

informal complaints received in 2011, 20.4 percent were answered untimely at Toledo

Correctional Institution. Staff relayed that the new Warden has taken steps to ensure that staff

are responding to informal complaints with the appropriate timeframe.

The following chart provides a comparison of untimely response rates across the DRC in 2011.

19

Please see the Glossary for an explanation of the inmate grievance procedure. 20

Institution Grievance Statistics for 2011, Toledo Correctional Institution, April 16, 2012. 21

Ibid.


Chart 3

Untimely Response Rates to Informal Complaints by DRC Institution

CY 2011

Chart 4

Percent of Grievance Dispositions Requiring Extensions by Institution

CY 2011

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

AC

I B

eC

I C

CI

DC

I/M

EP…

F

PR

C

GC

I H

CF

L

AE

CI

Lo

CI

MaC

I M

CI

NC

CI

NC

CT

F

NC

I N

EP

RC

P

CI

RIC

I S

CI

LeC

I M

an

CI

RC

I T

CI

To

CI

WC

I

SO

CF

O

SP

CR

C

Lo

rCI

CM

C

OC

F

OR

W

20.4

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

AC

I B

eC

I C

CI

DC

I/M

EP

RC

F

PR

C

GC

I H

CF

L

AE

CI

Lo

CI

MaC

I M

CI

NC

CI

NC

CT

F

NC

I N

EP

RC

P

CI

RIC

I S

CI

LeC

I M

an

CI

RC

I T

CI

To

CI

WC

I

SO

CF

O

SP

CR

C

Lo

rCI

CM

C

OC

F

OR

W

21.2

Level

1/2

Level

3

Level

4/5

Reception

Center Special

Level

1/2

Level

3

Level

4/5

Reception

Center Special


During the inspection, the CIIC inspection team interviewed 115 inmates. The following

responses were collected:

54.8 percent of inmates said they knew who the Inspector was

79.1 percent of inmates said that the grievance procedure was explained to them

82.6 percent of inmates said that they know how to use the grievance procedure

32.7 percent of the inmates who said that they had filed an informal complaint at the

institution reported that the informal complaint was resolved fairly

14.3 percent of the inmates who said that they had filed a grievance at the institution

reported that the grievance was resolved fairly

20 percent of the inmates who said that they had filed an appeal with the Chief Inspector

reported that the appeal was resolved fairly

A CIIC staff member observed the Inspector investigate a grievance and conduct rounds. The

Inspector was professional in her interactions with both staff and inmates and was thorough in

her security checks of inmates’ cells.

Further information regarding inmates’ perception of the inmate grievance procedure, obtained

during a 2007 CIIC survey of inmates across the DRC, can be found in the CIIC Biennial Report

to the 129th

General Assembly: Inmate Grievance Procedure, which is available on the CIIC

website (www.ciic.state.oh.us).


SECTION IV. KEY STATISTICS

A. USE OF FORCE

In 2011, the facility reported 391 use of force22

incidents.23

Of the total, 68 percent of the

incidents involved black inmates, 28.9 percent involved white inmates, and 3.1 percent involved

an inmate of another race. Compared to 2009, in which 230 uses of force were reported, total

uses of force increased by 70 percent in two years.24

In the six months prior to the inspection

date, the institution reported 200 uses of force.25

Tables 2 and 3 of the Appendix provide a

breakdown of the use of force incidents in 2011.

In 2011, chemical agents (mace) were used 205 times.26

This is 294 percent more than chemical

agents were used in 2009, in which chemical agents were used 52 times.27

In the six months

prior to the inspection date (October 2011 – March 2012), chemical agents were used 80 times,

which is more than the number of times chemical agents were used in both 2009 and 2010.28

Chart 5

Use of Force by Institution

CY 2011

22

Further information regarding use of force incidents can be found in the Glossary. 23

Use of Force Monthly Reports, Toledo Correctional Institution, January – December 2011. 24

Use of Force Monthly Reports, Toledo Correctional Institution, January – December 2009. 25

Use of Force Monthly Reports, Toledo Correctional Institution, October 2011 – March 2012. 26

Significant Incident Summary reports provided by Toledo Correctional Institution for January 2011- December

2011. 27


2009. 28

Significant Incident Summary reports provided by Toledo Correctional Institution for October 2011- March 2012.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

AC

I B

eC

I C

CI

DC

I F

PR

C

GC

I H

CF

L

aE

CI

Lo

CI

MaC

I M

CI

NC

CI

NC

I N

CC

TF

N

EP

RC

P

CI

RIC

I S

CI

LeC

I M

an

CI

RC

I T

CI

To

CI

WC

I

SO

CF

O

SP

CR

C

Lo

rCI

FM

C

OC

F

OR

W

391

Level

1/2

Level

3

Level

4/5

Reception

Center Special


B. ASSAULTS

In 2011, there were 34 reported inmate on inmate assaults.29

Of the total, 91.2 percent were

physical assaults, 5.9 percent were sexual assaults, and 2.9 percent were harassment assaults.30

Total inmate on inmate assaults increased by 78.9 percent from 2009 to 2011.

The institution also reported 25 inmate on staff assaults.31

Of the total, 48 percent were physical

assaults, 44 percent were harassment assaults, and 8.0 percent were physical assaults.32

Total

inmate on staff assaults decreased by 26.5 percent from 2009 to 2011. Tables 4 and 5 provide a

snapshot of the assault data at Toledo Correctional Institution from 2009 to the date of

inspection. The following chart provides a comparison of the number of assaults at the institution

over time.

Chart 6

Total Assaults

CY 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 YTD

C. INMATE DEATHS

The institution experienced zero deaths in CY 2011.

The DRC shares data on suicide attempts with CIIC. In 2011, the DRC reported 57 attempted

suicides.33

Of those, zero were reported as occurring at Toledo Correctional Institution.

Compared to 2009, in which one suicide attempt was reported, this is a decrease. The following

chart provides a breakdown of the suicide attempts by institution in 2011.

29


2011. 30

Ibid. 31

Ibid. 32

Ibid. 33

Monthly Reports on Attempted Suicides, Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. January-December 2011.

CIIC Annual Report, January 2012.

2009 2010 2011 2012 YTD

Inmate on Staff 34 17 25 3

Inmate on Inmate 19 29 34 9

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Nu

mb

er

of

Ass

ault

s


Chart 7

Suicide Attempts by Institution34

CY 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.

In the 12 months prior to the inspection date,35

the Investigator initiated 72 investigations. The

majority of the activity involved staff misconduct (27) and inmate-on-inmate sexual assaults

(17).36

Table 6 in the Appendix provides a breakdown of cases by type.

E. SECURITY THREAT GROUPS (STG)

As of December 2011, there were 615 STG-affiliated inmates, which was 39 percent of the

institutional population.37

In comparison, 18 percent of the total DRC population was identified

34

Ibid. 35

Investigator’s Monthly Caseload, Toledo Correctional Institution, April 2011- March 2012. 36

Ibid. 37

Correctional Institution Inspection Committee, Security Threat Group Brief, January 2012. Total population from

the DRC website North Central Correctional Institution, accessible at http://www.drc.state.oh.us/public/ncci.htm.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

AC

I

BeC

I

CC

I

DC

I/M

EP

RC

FP

RC

GC

I

HC

F

LA

EC

I

Lo

CI

MaC

I

MC

I

NC

CI

NC

CT

F

NC

I

NE

PR

C

PC

I

RIC

I

SC

I

LeC

I

Man

CI

RC

I

TC

I

To

CI

WC

I

SO

CF

OS

P

CR

C

Lo

rCI

CM

C

OC

F

OR

W

Level

1/2

Level

3

Level

4/5

Reception

Center Special


as having some form of STG affiliation in 2011.38

The following chart provides a breakdown of

DRC institutions by percentage of the inmate population identified as having STG affiliation.

Chart 8

STG Members by Percent of Inmate Population

2011

STG-affiliated inmates are broken up into three groups based on their participation level.39

There were 233 inmates listed as disruptive (level 3), 33 inmates listed as active (level 2), and

349 inmates listed as passive (level 1).

F. INMATE SAFETY RATING

CIIC uses three factors to determine inmate safety: (1) inmate safety ratings, collected by the

CIIC inspection team as part of inspection procedures; (2) the number of medical referrals as a

result of injuries sustained by inmates based on an assault, forced move, disturbance, or other

incident; and (3) the number of reported disturbances. Overall, inmate safety at Toledo

Correctional Institution is rated by the CIIC inspection team as average.

Inmate Safety Ratings. Inmates were asked to rate the safety level of inmates at the facility by

choosing “very safe,” “safe,” “unsafe,” or “very unsafe.” Of the 115 inmates interviewed in the

institution’s general population housing units, 95 inmates said they believe inmates are “safe” or

“very safe.” However, inmates have reported safety concerns to CIIC through letters,

particularly after the double-celling of the facility, and the institution was in the process of

increasing its Level 4 population at the time of the inspection.

38

Ibid. 39

Types of participation that determine STG classification levels range from having STG-affiliated tattoos or

paraphernalia, to actively inciting a riot.

39

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

AC

I

BeC

I

CC

I

DC

I

FP

RC

GC

I

HC

F

LA

EC

I

Lo

CI

MaC

I

MC

I

NC

CI

NC

CT

F

NC

I

NE

PR

C

PC

I

RIC

I

SC

I

LeC

I

Man

CI

RC

I

TC

I

To

CI

WC

I

SO

CF

OS

P

CR

C

Lo

rCI

CM

C

OC

F

OR

W

Level

1/2

Level

3

Level

4/5

Reception

Center Special


Medical Referrals.40

The institution reported three medical referrals for inmate injuries

sustained as a result of an incident at the institution from January 2011 through December

2011.41

In addition, there was one medical referral for 2012 YTD (March 2012).42

Disturbances.43

The institution reported four disturbances from January 2011 through

December 2011 which is one more than what was reported in CY 2009.44

There were two

reported disturbances for 2012 YTD.45

40

A medical referral is defined as an inmate receiving treatment at an outside medical facility due to an incident that

occurred at the institution, including assaults, forced cell moves, restraints, officer use of OC spray, and

disturbances. 41


2011 and January 2011 – December 2011. 42

Significant Incident Summary reports provided by Toledo Correctional Institution for January 2012- March 2012. 43

A disturbance is defined as a violent incident involving four or more inmates. 44


2011 and January 2009 – December 2009. 45

Significant Incident Summary reports provided by Toledo Correctional Institution for January 2012- March 2012.


SECTION V. EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS

A. MEDICAL SERVICES

CIIC’s inspection of medical services in a correctional facility focuses on four primary areas:

cleanliness of facilities, staffing, access to medical staff, and staff/inmate communication. CIIC

staff, as non-medical laypersons with corrections experience, cannot make determinations

regarding the quality of medical care at a facility. The inspection includes information collected

from interviews with the Healthcare Administrator (HCA), observations of the facilities and

focus group discussions.46

Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated medical services at the Toledo

Correctional Institution as IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT in all areas.

Facilities

Medical facilities at the Toledo Correctional Institution include three exam rooms, seven offices,

six infirmary beds, one waiting area, and a records area. Although facilities are improving under

the guidance of the acting HCA, the medical supply room and at least one office was in a state of

disorganization. There were also some additional areas that required cleaning and a hole in the

ceiling due to the roof leaking.

Staffing

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

the HCA had been out on leave for a month. During the inspection period, the physician

resigned. Staff also reported vacancies in one Licensed Practical Nurse position and three

Registered Nurse positions. It should be noted that the Warden relayed an initiative to

aggressively recruit among local medical colleges to build healthcare staffing.

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 a review of data provided by institutional staff, the average time period between

submission of a health service request form and appointment with nursing staff was within two

days. The average time period between referral to the doctor and appointment with the doctor

was within 48 hours (however, the resignation of the physician will quickly impact the

turnaround). The average response time to kites was within one day, with 81 kites answered in

the last three months. A total of 273 informal complaints were received in the last six months,

with response times varying greatly and some responses occurring two weeks or more after the

due date.

46

One focus group is comprised of staff and two, of inmates (one group of chronic care and one group of general

medicine patients).


There was no current backlog for Nurse or Doctor Sick Call. However, there was a sizeable and

concerning backlog for chronic care appointments, with 255 of the 544 inmates (46.9 percent)

enrolled in chronic care clinics on the backlog.

Staff/Inmate Communication.

A focus group of staff was conducted and staff relayed several positive comments, including that

TOCI staff do an excellent job of triaging medical complaints.

During the inspection, CIIC also conducted two focus groups of inmates (both chronic care and

general medicine patients). Both groups relayed that it takes one to two weeks to see the doctor

and relayed that there is negative interactions with inmates by some nurses on staff. Inmates also

relayed concerns regarding reported stoppages in medications – i.e. failure of staff to reorder

medication in a timely manner.

In addition, staff separately relayed concerns regarding the appropriate completion of screening

forms (DRC form 7150). Administrative staff relayed that they were aware of the issue and that

it would be rectified.

More information on the medical services at Toledo Correctional Institution can be found in the

inspection checklist in the Appendix.

B. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

CIIC’s inspection of mental health services in a correctional facility focuses on four primary

areas: cleanliness of facilities, staffing, access to mental health staff, and inmate communication.

CIIC staff, as laypersons with corrections experience, cannot make determinations regarding the

quality of mental health care at a facility. The inspection includes information gathered from

interviewing the Mental Health Manager and observation of the facilities. Overall, the CIIC

inspection team rated mental health services as IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT, with

improvement needed in staffing.

According to staff, Toledo Correctional Institution had 397 inmates on the caseload at the time of

the inspection, or over a quarter of the total inmate population.47

Facilities

Mental health facilities at the Toledo Correctional Institution include four crisis cells (two

located in medical services and two in segregation), seven offices, one classroom, one

conference area, and a records room. Two of the crisis cells were in use at the time of the

inspection. The CIIC inspection team relayed concerns regarding the crisis cells in segregation.

These cells were built as segregation cells, not cells intended for observing inmates on suicide

watch, and they had very poor visibility for officers engaged in constant or close suicide watch.

In addition, there was a toothbrush in the toilet in one of the segregation crisis cells, which could

47

This number was reported to CIIC staff at the time of the inspection. However, ToCI’s response/action plans

indicate that the total mental health caseload was 303 at the time of the inspection, or 19 percent of the population.


present a security concern, and also indicates that staff are not performing the per-policy

cleaning of crisis cells after use.

Staffing

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

the facility employed only two independently licensed non-psychiatry staff, including the Health

Care Administrator. Staff relayed that they were in need of a Social Worker 3 and an Activity

Therapist. Even if fully staffed per the table of organization, it is not clear that there are

sufficient staff to care for the caseload of inmates.

Access to Mental Health Staff

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

inmate submission of a mental health service request form and appointment with mental health

staff, (2) time period between referral and appointment with the psychologist or psychiatrist, (3)

response time to kites and informal complaint forms, and (4) current backlogs.

Based on a review of data provided by institutional staff, kites were generally responded to

within three days, with approximately 220 received within the past six months. Staff relayed that

they had received only 16 informal complaints within the last six months, all of which were

reportedly responded to within the requisite seven day timeframe. Staff reported no backlog in

responding to kites or informal complaints.

Staff reported that they performed weekly rounds in segregation and that the wait time for the

initial psychiatry appointment was within a week.

One concern raised by staff was the wait time to transfer inmates to the Residential Treatment

Unit (RTU), which was reportedly two and a half weeks in one instance, due to the lack of bed

space at the only RTU in the state that accepts Level 3 inmates – the Correctional Reception

Center.

Inmate Communication

Many inmates write to CIIC in regards to their mental health needs. Since January 2011, CIIC

received 13 concerns from inmates reporting denial of treatment or inadequate treatment in the

area of mental health.

Further information regarding mental health services can be found in the inspection checklist in

the Appendix

C. FOOD SERVICES

The overall inspection of the Toledo Correctional Institution food services consisted of two

dining halls, the kitchen preparation area, the loading dock, and attending the general meal. CIIC

also attended the general meal period and spoke with staff regarding the inmate workforce.


Overall, the Toledo Correctional Institution food service was considered ACCEPTABLE. The

dining hall and loading dock areas were clean and the meal was easy to consume. However, there

were some concerns regarding the amount of debris under the serving line. Food service workers

prepared the trays in the kitchen and handed them to inmates through a serving window.

In 2011, CIIC received 24 concerns regarding food services from inmates at the Toledo

Correctional Institution.48

The top concern reported to CIIC regarding Toledo Correctional

Institution was in regard to food portions (seven). Five inmates reported issues to CIIC that were

categorized as “other.” As of 2012 year-to-date,49

12 inmates relayed concerns to CIIC regarding

food service. The largest number of concerns reported in the first four months of 2012 were

regarding portion size (four).

Meal

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 meatloaf patty, two pieces of bread, potatoes, wax

beans, a sliced apple, and two cookies. CIIC rated the meal as acceptable based on the quality of

taste. The meat was cooked at the appropriate temperatures and appeared to provide ample

portion sizes for CIIC and inmates. However, most of the inmates rated this meal as in need of

improvement. The inmate relayed concerns regarding the portion size and the number of calories

contained in each meal. According to staff, the caloric intake of each meal is based on the

requirements established by the DRC Operation Support Center.

As of 2011, the cost per inmate meal at Toledo Correctional Institution was $1.05.50

In

comparison, the average DRC cost per inmate meal was $1.07.51

Dining Hall

Toledo Correctional Institution has two inmate dining halls. The cleanliness of the dining halls

were considered excellent as there were no visible signs of leftover food particles on the tables or

floor. Inmate porters maintained a clean area by wiping off the tables after each use. On the day

of the inspection, the atmosphere in each dining hall was calm. There was one officer assigned

to each dining hall during each meal period. In addition to the assigned officers, up to three

recreation officers may also provide additional assistance during each meal period. Inmates were

racially integrated at most tables.

Kitchen Prep Area

The conditions of the kitchen prep area were considered acceptable. The rating was based on the

efforts of the inmates food service staff to maintain a clean environment as they continued to

serve the lunch meal. Most of the counters and the floor in the kitchen prep area were clear of

48

CIIC Database of Contacts and Concerns, Toledo Correctional Institution, January 1, 2011- December 31, 2011. 49

CIIC Database of Contacts and Concerns, Toledo Correctional Institution, January 1, 2012 – April 24, 2012. 50

Personal communication with Department of Rehabilitation and Correction on January 7, 2011. 51

Ibid.


any debris. However, there was a significant amount of food under the serving line, which is also

located in the kitchen.

According to staff, Toledo Correctional Institution passed its most recent health inspection in

February 2012.52

The kitchen consisted of five ovens, three kettles, three coolers, two tilt skillets and one freezer.

According to staff, two of the tilt skillets needed to be replaced. Staff reportedly submitted a

request for approval to the DRC Operation Support Center during the week prior to the

inspection date.

Inmate Workers

There were 130 inmates assigned to food service. The inmates are selected by the food service

staff after submitting a request by kite. Inmate monthly wages begin at $18.00 per month for

Porter 1 positions.53

Inmates receive performance evaluations after every 90 days or when

inmates request to be re-classed to another position. Inmates must work in food service for a

minimum of 90 days before they can request a re-classification to another job. Inmates can

receive wage increases starting from $19.00 per month if they are promoted to a higher-level

position such as porter 2.54

Inmates who obtain positions such as Cook 7, Baker 7, Porter 7, and

Dishwasher 7 can earn $24.00 per month.55

Incentive Program

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

food service is considered a punishment.56

As a result, some institutions have developed

incentive programs to make food service more attractive to inmates. Toledo Correctional

Institution did not have an incentive program. However, current staff would like to offer inmates

more incentives. Food service staff relayed that some inmates would do not want to work in food

service despite requesting to be placed there. Staff would like to make food service more

efficient by making it more attractive and available only to inmates who truly want to work in

food service operations.

D. HOUSING UNITS

CIIC inspects every housing unit within each correctional institution, which includes a visual

inspection of all areas, interviews with inmates within those housing units, and a review of

documentation to ensure staff accountability. Toledo Correctional Institution has four pods that

comprise a total of 18 housing units. The units are labeled A, B, C, and D. Overall, the housing

units were rated as ACCEPTABLE.

52

Personal communication with institution staff on the date of the inspection. 53

Ibid. 54

Ibid. 55

Each position title ending in “7,” represents the highest pay grade an inmate can earn. 56

“Evaluation of Correctional Food Services.” http://www.ciic.state.oh.us/food-services/view-category.html.

February 14, 2011

http://www.ciic.state.oh.us/food-services/view-category.html


Housing Unit Conditions

Of the 18 general population housing units, the average level of cleanliness for cells was rated as

acceptable, based on the overall conditions of the cell. There were no signs of chipped paint or

any complaints regarding sanitation concerns from inmates. Most inmates kept personal items

off the floor and stacked their shoes neatly under their beds. While some inmates maintained a

clean environment in their cells, several inmate cells were messy and appeared unkempt. Some

beds were unmade and some inmates blocked the air passage under the door with a towel to

prevent cold air from coming in. In addition, some inmates hung pictures that appeared to be

inappropriate. Staff was made aware of this issue during the inspection.

Each cell is outfitted with a toilet and sink. According to staff, all of the sinks and toilets were in

working order. Each unit contained three showers on the upper and lower range. Although

showers had some soap scum, the walls and shower floor appeared to be in good condition.

There were no signs of peeling paint or chipped floor tiles that have been present in other

institutions. The showers are cleaned twice daily by inmate porters.

The dayroom areas were very clean and CIIC observed several inmates mopping the units during

the inspection. In addition to maintaining a very clean environment, inmates were also doing

their laundry in the stackable showers and dryers that are located in each unit.

Segregation Unit

The segregation count on the day of the inspection was 138 with 69 inmates under Security

Control (SC) status, 40 inmates in Local Control (LC) and 29 inmates under Disciplinary Control

(DC). The cleanliness of the segregation unit was rated as excellent, based on the cleanliness of

the hallways, showers, and cells which had no major sanitation concerns.

E. COMMISSARY

Each institution maintains and operates a commissary for inmates to purchase food/snacks,

hygiene products, and other small items.57

CIIC’s inspection of the commissary in a correctional

facility focuses on three primary areas: facilities/inventory, inmate access to the commissary, and

financials. Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated the commissary as EXCELLENT with no

areas in need of improvement.

Facilities/Inventory

The commissary facilities at Toledo Correctional Institution were very clean and well

maintained. Staff relayed they have experienced minor problems with ants, but no major issues

57

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. 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.


with pests or rodents and explained that the exterminator visits every other week. The inventory

was neatly organized and stored properly.

Access to Commissary

Access to commissary and inmate spending limits are determined by security classification.

Level 3 inmates are permitted to spend $60 per week at the commissary and Level 4A inmates

may spend $100 every other week.58

Throughout the inspection there were several concerns

about access to commissary, which stemmed primarily from inmates in the D1 and D2 units.

Financials

Staff relayed that the nine inmates who work in the commissary make on average $18 per month.

The Income Statement reflects that the commissary transferred $18,513.89 dollars to the

Industrial and Entertainment (I and E) fund from July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.59

Staff relayed that the commissary could be more efficient/profitable if they had a Commissary

Manager.

Inmate Communication.

Many inmates write to CIIC regarding various concerns. In CY 2011, there were three inmate

concerns regarding the commissary at ToCI.60

Two concerns were related to the denial of

commissary privileges and the other was regarding pricing.

Further information regarding the commissary can be found in the inspection checklist in the

Appendix.

58

Toledo Correctional Institution, personal communication, April 16, 2012. 59

Commissary Institution Income Statement, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. 60

Information based on CIIC “Contacts and Concerns” for Toledo Correctional Institution relayed from January

2011 – December 2011.


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: facilities, staffing, access to programming, and quality of

programming. Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated academic and vocational programming at

the facility as ACCEPTABLE, with staffing levels and access to programming in need of

improvement, due to the need to increase the volume of classes and instructional textbooks and

materials so that more inmates may participate in educational programs and have more direct

contact with the instructional materials.

Facilities

Educational facilities at Toledo Correctional Institution are housed in a building that was

originally designed for maximum security, so the classrooms and interior hallways are lined with

numerous glass paned windows that allow maximum visibility for safety and security purposes,

and also allow much light to filter throughout the complex. Overall, the extreme cleanliness and

bright atmosphere is positive, inviting, and conducive to learning. Correctional officers in the

school walk around the complex and also maintain a centralized desk/station. Classroom size,

ventilation, and temperature were excellent. Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated the facilities

and plant as excellent. A new Spyder security system is currently installed and soon to be

activated. Teachers are provided with man-down instruments.

Staffing

At the time of the inspection, the academic faculty consisted of only three full-time academic

teachers and one career-technology teacher. There was one career-technology vacancy, but it

reportedly will not be filled due to budget reductions. In addition to DRC teachers, the facility

has one Principal, one Librarian, and one Guidance Counselor. There is no Education Specialist,

no School Administrator, and no Administrative Support Staff. Separate from the full-time DRC

staff, there are eight contracted instructors employed by Owens Community College who

provide post-secondary instruction to qualified inmates through incentive and education (I and E)

funding. The current staffing level is considered to be in need of improvement, due to the small

number of teachers available to approximately 1,500 inmates.

Access to Programming

Access to programming is evaluated based on the current waitlist. As of the March 2012

education monthly report submitted from Toledo Correctional Institution to CIIC, there were 122

inmates enrolled in academic programming and 279 inmates on the academic waitlist, a ratio of

1.0 inmate academic enrollee to 2.3 inmates on academic wait list.61

In comparison, for March

2012, there were 6,294 inmates enrolled in academic programming across the DRC and 7,395

inmates on the academic waitlist, a ratio of 1.0 inmate academic enrollee to 1.2 inmates on the

61

Ohio Central School System Monthly Enrollment Reports, Toledo Correctional Institution, March 2012.


academic wait list.62

Since the ratio between enrollee and waitlisted inmate at Toledo

Correctional Institution is greater than the state-wide average, access to programming is rated in

need of improvement.

While currently in need of improvement, there are reportedly plans to increase inmate access to

educational content through the introduction of a new education channel on the institution’s

closed network, using inmate televisions. The institution is acquiring multiple collections of

educational DVDs and will broadcast them on a dedicated channel within their internal network.

Even though the project is not the same as taking and completing a defined course of study, the

channel will provide a needed venue for a very large number of inmates to learn by viewing the

channel whenever they are in their housing units. Some of the content will consist of basic

instructional modules that will assist inmates in pre-GED and GED instruction, so that some

students may complete the GED at faster rates. This project is funded using incentive and

education (I and E) funds and is scheduled to roll out by June 2012.

Further, there is discussion underway regarding suggestions to increase the number of Certified

Tutors, inmates who are pre-qualified and trained to assist other inmates during the instruction of

various subjects. The benefit of engaging inmate tutors is that students typically make academic

gains and achievement at a faster rate, completing courses successfully, so that additional

inmates may be removed from the waitlist and placed into classes, taking empty seats created by

completers. In addition, the engagement of Certified Tutors on the living units brings

instructional assistance to more inmates even as they are still on the wait lists, awaiting

admission to courses. With the anticipated upcoming influx of additional inmates with higher

security levels and longer sentences, the increase in Certified Tutors is being considered for the

value it may add to reaching additional inmates educationally. Toledo Correctional Institution

currently engages approximately nine Certified Inmate Tutors.

Quality of Programming

The quality of programming is evaluated based on two factors: (1) outcome measures, including

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

or vocational program during the inspection. The Toledo Correctional Institution was rated

excellent for outcome measures and on-site observations.

Outcome Measures: In FY 2011, ending June 2011, there were 15 inmates who received a GED

at the facility, amounting to 6.3 percent of the 238 inmates enrolled year to date in academic

courses. In comparison, at all institutions serving as Security Level 3 institutions during the

same time period, there was an average of 12.1 percent of academically enrolled inmates who

received the GED.63

The percentage of GED completers at Toledo Correctional Institution is

approximately half of the average realized in all Level 3 institutions, which is an indicator for

need of improvement. In addition to GEDs passed, there were 86 inmates at Toledo Correctional

Institution who completed and received a certificate in an academic or vocational program in FY

2011.

62

Ohio Central School System Monthly Enrollment Reports, DRC institutions, March 2012. 63

Ohio Central School System Monthly Enrollment Reports, DRC Institutions, June 2011.


On-Site Observation: During the inspection, a member of the CIIC inspection team observed the

following programs: GED mathematics and Accounting. Key findings included well-managed

classrooms that engaged multiple inmate tutors, small groups working in teams on projects,

individualized instruction, and a variety of instructional strategies appropriate to the course and

students within the two classes. The GED class was an example of a copyrighted curriculum-

defined program, with the instructor engaging the services of four inmate tutors. The accounting

class was one of the post-secondary programs delivered by a contracted instructor, who

effectively delivered instruction using many current verbal strategies. Students in both

classrooms were very responsive to instruction and engaged in the learning process.

A list of Academic/Vocational, Recovery Service, and Unit programs and related schedules can

be found in Appendix A. Further information regarding the educational program observations

can be found in the program checklists in the Appendix.

B. LIBRARY/LAW LIBRARY SERVICES

Each institution has a library and a law library. The library area at Toledo Correctional

Institution is open, well-lighted, clean, and appealing as a place to read, research, and experience

time within the institution that replicates traits of normal community life. The law library is an

adjacent room, accessible through a lockable door from the main library. The library is

reportedly highly valued by the inmates at the Toledo Correctional Institution. Overall, the

library was considered EXCELLENT, with no concerns noted.

Facilities

The Toledo Correctional Institution library was inspected by CIIC staff and found to be well-

organized. The library was a bright, clean area with stacks of books at full capacity around the

perimeter of the room. The upper half of the library walls is constructed of glass panels,

allowing excellent visibility to security staff. The library staff includes a full-time librarian.

There are approximately seven inmates assigned to work in the library as library aides. There are

six computers (Lexus Nexus equipped) and four typewriters available for inmate use.

Materials

The Toledo Correctional Institution library currently maintains a collection of approximately

9,806 total items.64

During March 2012, inmates frequented the library 1,714 times and

generated 3,041 transactions of materials. The use of library materials was 1.77 items per visit

during March 2012.65

The per capita availability of library materials, based on the institution’s

total inmate population of 1,496 inmates and the total number of 9,806 items in the general

library in March 2012 was 6.6 items per inmate. 66

The library includes approximately 175

ethnic-based publications for African-American and approximately 88 Hispanic items. Ethnic

materials are kept on dedicated shelves for easy retrieval. An inter-library loan system is

64

Library Monthly Report, Toledo Correctional Institution for March 2012. 65

Ibid. This calculation was based on a population of 1,714 inmate visits to the library. 66

Library Monthly Report, Toledo Correctional Institution. March 2012.


reportedly used every month. In March 2012, inmates made 94 requests through the inter-library

loan system.67

Access to the Library and Law Library

Access to both main library and law 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. The observation revealed that inmates

from various housing units may have library hours accessible of approximately 17 hours per

week, excluding the hours that inmates are not available due to scheduled job and educational

programming requirements.

According to the Library Monthly Report, the Toledo Correctional Institution library was open

for a total of approximately 108 hours during the month of March 2012.68

There were reportedly

1,714 inmate visits to the library during March 2012. There were reportedly 9,305 inmates

cumulatively served by the library during visits for the six month period from October 2011

through March 2012. Further information regarding the inspection of the library and the library

schedules can be found in the Appendix.

67

Ibid. 68

Ibid.


SECTION VII. INMATE COMMUNICATION

Inmates interviewed during the inspection were asked what changes they would make at the

Institution. Of the 115 inmates interviewed, the top three suggestions made by inmates fall into

the following categories: (1) Improve the safety and security of inmates in regard to the number

of inmate fights and the presence of security threat groups (13 inmates); (2) Staff supervision

concerns as it relates to unprofessional conduct and disrespect towards inmates (11 inmates); and

(3) Improve the quality of medical care including the amount of time it takes to be seen by the

medical staff (11 inmates). In addition, 15 inmates relayed that they had no concerns or

suggestions regarding changes at the Toledo Correctional Institution.

In CY 2011, CIIC received 175 contacts from or regarding inmates at Toledo Correctional

Institution, from which 670 concerns were reported. The institution ranked second among all

DRC institutions for total number of contacts.69

The top three concerns reported to CIIC

regarding Toledo Correctional Institution were: Health Care (89), Inmate Relations (83), and

Supervision (52).70

Chart 9

2011 CIIC Contacts with Institutional Breakdown (DRC)71

69

CIIC Database of Contacts and Concerns, January-December 2011. 70

Ibid. 71

Ibid.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

AC

I

BeC

I

CC

I

DC

I/M

EP

RC

FP

RC

GC

I

HC

F

LaE

CI

Lo

CI

MaC

I

MC

I

NC

CI

NC

I

NC

CT

F

NE

PR

C

PC

I

RIC

I

SC

I

LeC

I

Man

CI

RC

I

TC

I

To

CI

WC

I

SO

CF

OS

P

CR

C

Lo

rCI

CM

C

OC

F

OR

W

175

Level

1/2 Level

3

Level

4/5

Reception

Center Special


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

regarding the facility in 2011.

Chart 10

Breakdown of Top Three Reported Concerns (Toledo Correctional Institution)72

CY 2011

72

Ibid.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Health Care Inmate Relations Supervision


SECTION VIII. APPENDIX

A. FULL LIST OF PROGRAMS


B. SCHEDULES


C. DATA TABLES

Table 1.

Inspector’s Report

CY 2011

Grievance Numbers

Total Number of Grievances Filed During Year 475

Total Number of Inmates Who Filed Grievances During Year 239

Highest Number of Grievances Filed by Single Inmate 25

Grievances on Hand at Beginning of This Period 8

Grievances Received during this period 475

Total 483

Grievances Completed During This Period 439

Grievances on Hand at End of This Period 44

Total 483

ICR Summary

Number of Informal Complaints Received 2,546

Number of Informal Complaint Responses Received 2,477

Number of Informal Complaint Responses Untimely 520

Granted W B O Total

Granted – Problem Corrected 20 6 1 27

Granted – Problem Noted, Correction Pending 7 4 0 11

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

Subtotal Granted 27 10 1 38

Denied

Denied – No Violation of Rule, Policy, or Law 102 81 1 184

Denied – Staff Action Was Valid Exercise of Discretion 1 4 0 5

Denied – Insufficient Evidence to Support Claim 55 69 2 126

Denied – False Claim 4 3 0 7

Denied – Failure to Use Informal Complaint Procedure 0 2 0 2 Denied – Not within the Scope of the Grievance Procedure 29 27 2 58 Denied – Not within Time Limits 1 7 0 8

Subtotal Denied 192 193 5 390

Withdrawn at Inmate’s Request 7 4 0 11

Pending Disposition 16 28 0 44

TOTALS 242 235 6 483 Percent 50.1 48.7 1.2 100.0

Extensions


14-Day Extensions 89

28-Day Extensions 4

Total 93

Table 2.

Use of Force with Racial Breakdown

CY 2011

Black White Other Total

Use of Force Incidents 266 113 12 391

Percentage 68.0 28.9 3.1 100.0

Action Taken on Use of Force Incidents:

Assigned to Use of Force Committee for Investigation 27 16 0 43

Logged as “No Further Action Required” 239 97 11 347

Referred to the employee disciplinary process 3 0 0 3

Referred to the Chief Inspector 0 0 0 0

Number of investigations not completed within 30 days

and extended 0 0 0 0

Number of extended investigations from previous month that were:

Completed 4 3 0 7

Not Completed 2 6 0 8

Table 3.

Use of Force with Racial and Monthly Breakdown

CY 2011

Black White Other Total

January 27 9 2 38

February 20 8 0 28

March 19 9 0 28

April 11 5 0 16

May 20 5 3 28

June 19 11 1 31

July 15 14 1 30

August 25 13 1 39

September 29 5 3 37

October 17 14 0 31

November 30 11 1 42

December 34 9 0 43

Total 266 113 12 391


Table 4.

Assaults: Inmate on Inmate

CY 2009 to CY 2012 YTD

Category of Assault 2009 2010 2011 2012 YTD

Physical Assault 19 27 31 9

Harassment Assault 0 2 1 0

Sexual Assault 0 0 2 0

Total 19 29 34 9

Table 5.

Assaults: Inmate on Staff

CY 2009 to CY 2012 YTD

Category of Assault 2009 2010 2011 2012 YTD

Physical Assault 11 5 12 1

Harassment Assault 23 12 11 1

Inappropriate Contact 0 0 2 1

Total 34 17 25 3

Table 6.

Investigator Monthly Report Summary by Type of Investigation

April 2011 to March 2012

Investigations Cases Initiated

Drugs (Staff/Inmate) 0

Drugs (Inmate/Visitor) 3

Drugs (Mail/Package) 0

Drugs (Staff) 0

Drugs (other) 1

Positive Urinalysis 0

Staff/Inmate Relationship 5

Staff Misconduct 27

Assault-(Inmate on Staff) 5

Assault (Inmate on Inmate) 6

Sexual Assault (Inmate on Inmate) 17

Other: 8

Background Investigations 0

Total 72


D. INSPECTION CHECKLISTS


SECTION IX. 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 the DRC Operation 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 the DRC Operation Support Center

responsible for direct oversight of medical services at each institution.

Bureau of Mental Health Services – Office located at the DRC Operation 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 the DRC Operation 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) – The inmate grievance procedure 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 at the DRC Operation Support Center.

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.

Use of Force – 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.

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

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

Franklin Medical Center .......................................... FMC

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

toledo correctional institutionciic.state.oh.us/docs/toledo_correctional_institution_2012.pdf ·...

Documents