CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION INSPECTION COMMITTEE

EVALUATION AND INSPECTION REPORT

LONDON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY CIIC STAFF

August 28, 2006

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………… 6 INSPECTION PROFILE………………………………………………………… 6 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF INSPECTION ………………….……… 7 Attendance at General Meal Period ……………………………………… 7 Attendance at Programming ……………………………………………… 7 FINDINGS SUMMARY ………………………………………………………… 7 INSTITUTIONAL OVERVIEW ………………………………………………….. 8 Mission Statement ………………………………………………………… 8 Physical Property ……………………………………………………….… 8 Farm ………………………………………………………………………. 9 Significant Improvements In Recent Years……………………………… 9

Powerhouse, Water Treatment, Sewage Plants …………………………… 9 Business Office ………………………………………………………… 10 Accreditation ……………………………………………………………… 10 Staff Distribution………………………………………………………… 10 TABLE 1. Staff Distribution: Race and Gender…………………. 10 Deputy Warden of Special Services………………………………………. 11

Deputy Warden of Operations……………………………………………. 11 Deputy Warden of Administration………………………………………… 11 INMATE PROGRAM SERVICES: EDUCATION, SPECIFIC PROGRAMS, WORK OPPORTUNITIES ……………………………………………………..… 11 Inmate Program Services ………………………………………….……… 11 Jobs and Programming …………………………………………………… 12 Other Programs …………………………………………………………… 12 Program Directory ………………………………………………………… 13 TABLE 2. London Correctional Institution Program Directory … 14 Mental Health and Recovery Program …………………………………… 15 Educational Programming. ……………………………………………… 16 Dog Program ……………………………………………………………… 16 Release Preparation…………………………………………………………17

Faith-Based Resource Workshop and Programming ……………………… 17 Ohio Penal Industries (OPI) …………………….………………………… 17 Children of Incarcerated Parents: Breaking the Cycle …………………… 17 Community Justice Program ……………………………………………… 18

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE STATISTICAL PROFILE ……….. …………………….………………………… 18 Correspondence from Inmates, Families, and Staff ……………………… 18 Contacts to CIIC…………….. …………………………………… 18 TABLE 3. Contacts to CIIC Per Institution………………. 19 TABLE 4. Concerns Reported to CIIC Per Institution …… 20

Types of Concerns ………………………………………………… 21 TABLE 5. Types and Distribution of Concerns to CIIC … 21 Data from Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction …………… 22 Inmate Population Fluctuations – Statewide ……………………… 22 Inmate Population at London Correctional Institution …………… 22 TABLE 6. Total Inmate Population by Institution………. 23 TABLE 7. Monthly Average Inmate Population Per

Institution…………………………………….... 24

Changes in Inmate Population – Statewide ……………………… 25 Crowding ………………………………………………………… 25

TABLE 8. Changes in Total Inmate Population by Institution………………………… ………… 25

Crowding and Rated Capacity …………………………………… 26 TABLE 9. Percent of Crowding and Rated Capacity

By Institution………………………… …… 26 Average Daily Cost Per Inmate …………………………………… 27 TABLE 10. Average Daily Cost Per Inmate by

Institution……………………..…………… 27 Food Costs Per Inmate …………………………………………… 28 TABLE 11. Average Cost Per Inmate Meal by

Institution……………………………. …… 28 INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE: INMATE POPULATION, ASSAULT

ACTIVITY, USE OF FORCE, GRIEVANCE ACTIVITY………. ……… 29 Inmate Population ………………………………………………… 29 TABLE 12. Institution Inmate Count with Age and Race…. 29

Assaults …………………………………………………………… 29 Inmate on Staff Assaults…………………………………………… 30 TABLE 13. Inmate on Staff Assault Investigations

By Institution………………………..……… 30 Inmate on Inmate Assaults ………………………………………… 31 TABLE 14. Inmate on Inmate Assaults by Institution…… 31 Other ………………………………………… ………………… 31 TABLE 15. Suicide Attempts by Institution……………… 32

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

Deaths Due to Natural Causes ……………………………………. 32

Use of Force ………………………………………………………. 33 TABLE 16. Use of Force Incidents ……………………… 33 Use of Force Committee Investigations ……………………………33 TABLE 17. Incidents Determined for “No Further Action

Required”…………………………………… 34

Inmate Grievance Procedure ………………………………….…… 34 TABLE 18. Summary of Grievance Activity …………… 35 TABLE 19. IIS Self- Inspections ………………………… 36 TABLE 20. IIS Communications ………………………… 36 TABLE 21. IIS Inmate Grievance Procedure Orientations.. 36 TABLE 22. IIS Special Assignments, Meetings, Seminars. 36 TABLE 23. Subject of Grievances………………………… 37 TABLE 24. Grievances Filed with Subject and Outcome… 38 Informal Complaint Resolution …………………………………… 39 TABLE 25. Informal Complaints Filed and Handled Per Institution ……………………………… 39 TABLE 26. Untimely Responses to 2005 Informal

Complaint Resolutions by Institution……… 40 Notification of Grievance ………………………………………… 41 TABLE 27. Grievances, Appeals, and Original Grievances

By Institution…………………….. ………… 41 TABLE 28. Original Grievances – Ranked by Institution .. 42 Appeals …………………………………………………………… 43 TABLE 29. Appeals to Dispositions of Grievances by Institution…………………………..……… 43 Chief Inspector Report and Investigator Report ………………… 44 TABLE 30. Summary of Inmate Grievance Procedure

Data ……………………………………….… 44 TABLE 31. Investigator Caseloads -Type of Investigation 44 TABLE 32. Investigator Searches, Shakedowns,

Drugs, Alcohol Confiscated 2005 ………… 45 INSTITUTION INSPECTION – BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS……………… 45 Institutional Entry ………………………………………………………… 45 Main Compound ……………………………………………………………45

Security System and Safety of Institution ………………………………… 45 Administrative Offices …………………………………………………… 46

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Visitation Area …………………………………………………………… 46

Medical Services Unit ……………………………………………………. 46 Medical and Dental Services …………………………………..… 46 TABLE 33. Health Care Services ………………………… 47 Mental Health Services …………………………………………………… 48 TABLE 34. Percent of Monthly Average Psychiatric

Caseload by Institution……………………… 50 TABLE 35. Percent of Institutional Population on Mental Health Caseload by Institution……………… 51 TABLE 36. Monthly Average of Mental Health Caseload In Segregation by Institution ……………... 52 Food Services …………………………………………………………….. 53 Dining Hall …………………………………………………………53 Kitchen …………………………………………………………… 53

Ohio Penal Industries (OPI) ……………………………………………… 55

Garment Factory …………………………………………….…… 55 “Old Soaphouse” ……………………………………………….. 56 Brush Factory ……………………………………………………… 56 Dental Laboratory ………………………………………………… 57 Yard and Recreation ……………………………………………………… 58 Educational Services ……………………………………………………… 59 TABLE 37. Educational Performance …………………………… 60 Housing Units …………………………………………………………….. 61 Oak A and B ……………………………………………………… 61 Spruce E Unit ……………………………………………………. 62 Segregation Unit ………………………………………………..… 62 Religious Services ……………………………………………………..… 63 TABLE 38. Religious Program Schedule ………………………… 64 Library …………………………………………………………………… 64 INMATE COMMENTS AND COMPLAINTS …………………………………... 65 ENTRY CONFERENCE……….………………………………………………… 66 EXIT CONFERENCE…………………………………………………………… 67

6

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION INSPECTION COMMITTEE EVALUATION AND INSPECTION REPORT OF THE

LONDON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

INTRODUCTION This report provides information regarding London Correctional Institution, including the inspection on April 4, 2006, in compliance with the Committee’s requirement to evaluate operations, conditions, and grievance procedure, and to complete an inspection biennially. For evaluative purposes, the report includes data gathered at the inspection as well as information collected from DRC reports and from the CIIC database of communication received from or regarding the prisons.

INSPECTION PROFILE

INSPECTION DATE: Monday, April 24, 2006 TYPE: Unannounced Inspection CIIC MEMBERS AND STAFF PRESENT: Senator Stephen Austria

Adam Jackson, CIIC Inspector Carol Robison, CIIC Inspector Joanna Saul, CIIC Inspector Richard Spence, CIIC Inspector

INSTITUTION STAFF PRESENT: Communication with staff on-site included, but was not limited to the following individuals: Deb Timmerman-Cooper, Warden; Brian Cook, Deputy Warden of Operations; Bill Kelley, Major/Chief of Security; Hugh Daley, Assistant Chief Inspector; Karen Smith, Health Care Administrator; Gary Schmitt, Supervisor – Water Treatment Plant; Russ Parish, Unit Management Admin. (Oak Unit); Jeff McDonald, Psychologist; Dwight Presler, Food Services Manager; Robin Jago, Penal Workshop Manager; Jim Simpson, Penal Workshop Manager; Steve Howard, Recreation Manager; Kay Grimes, Unit Secretary and Dog Program Administrator; Ernest Mack, Jr., School Administrator. AREAS/ACTIVITIES INCLUDED ON THE INSPECTION Administrative Offices Dining Hall and Kitchen Educational Services Visitation Area OPI Garment Factory Housing Units Medical Services OPI Brush Laboratory Segregation Dental Services OPI Dental Laboratory Library Mental Health Services Yard and Indoor Recreation

7

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS of INSPECTION Attendance at General Meal Period. The inmate meal during the lunch period consisted of two hot dogs, two slices of bread, a serving of baked beans, coleslaw, a fresh orange, and orange flavored beverage. The quantity and flavor of food was adequate and food temperatures were appropriate. As published in the Self-Audit Report of 2005, the Food Service Department operates a cook’s apprenticeship program through the staff dining room with approximately seven inmates enrolled. Participants gain a ServSave Certification by the National Restaurant Association upon completion of 750 hours. The apprenticeship program currently prepares meals served in the staff dining room. The program has reportedly earned an excellent reputation for its quality, which has created a demand for its services for institutional meetings, functions, and the Ohio Institute of Best Practices. Attendance at Educational and Rehabilitative Programming. Numerous programs are offered at London Correctional Institution, and are discussed in the sections on Programming and Educational Services. The examples of programming that were observed during the inspection were a re-entry class and a parenting class. In the re-entry class, inmates were verbally responding to situational scenarios that they might encounter in trying to obtain employment. The instructor was dynamic, knowledgeable, motivating, encouraging, and reality-oriented in her delivery of information. She effectively drew the inmates into the dialogue. In the parenting class in progress during the inspection, the inmates were participating in the creation of a free-verse ‘poem’ in which all the inmates made contributions. Two instructors were directing the group and the inmates were all positively engaged in the activity. The class was developing a ‘round-robin’ poem by virtue of each inmate making a single contribution to the entire poem.

FINDINGS SUMMARY Overall, the inspection of London Correctional Institution was very positive. The institutional administration was courteous, knowledgeable, and forthcoming with much information and printed material to assist in the Committee’s efforts to conduct the inspection. The staff was credited for smooth daily operations. The institution’s agricultural history brings it a measure of unique stature. The Administration was open to suggestions on possible improvements. Budget cuts were cited as the primary hurdle in making improvements. Inmates did not appear to be overly stressed or anxious within the confines of their environment. Verbal complaints were minimal and were not related to security or safety issues. The participation of inmates in the indoor recreation facility was perhaps the largest observed since the beginning of the biennial inspections.

8

In particular, education administrators and OPI supervisors were obliging in providing generous information to the Committee. The orderliness and focused attention of the workers in the various OPI industries at London Correctional Institution was equally impressive. Several inmates relayed comments indicative of hope and anticipation of eventual release, reconnection, and employment within their local communities. The CIIC could sense a level of pride from the staff in the programs that are provided to inmates and the value of the skills that may be developed through the OPI industries and re-entry programs. Statistical data reveals that operationally, London Correctional Institution falls near or below mid-point in a variety of rankings, generally presenting an efficient profile. One exception to that profile during 2005 was found in the percentage of untimely responses to Informal Complaints. During 2005, the institution ranked third highest in untimely responses to Informal Complaints with 48.5% of ICRs receiving an untimely response (see Table 25. Informal Complaints Filed and Handled Per Institution–2005). As the report narrative shows, during that year, there were approximately two ICRs filed per inmate at the London Correctional Institution, whereas there were 1.4 ICRs filed per inmate statewide. Recent data supplied from the London Correctional Institution to the Correctional Institution Inspection Committee for the five-month period January through May 2006 shows there were approximately 533 Informal Complaints filed, and approximately 103 Informal Complaint Responses were untimely (see Table 20. IIS Communications). Data shows a significant improvement to an approximate 19.3% untimely ICR responses in 2006. Overall, London Correctional Institution presents as a safe institution with no inmate-on-staff assaults to date in 2006. For the period November 2004 through October 2005, there were only six inmate-on- inmate assaults, ranking the institution near the lowest across the state. The inspection concluded with a positive tone, with much attentiveness to comments and suggestions, and assurances of follow-up in any area that the Committee requested.

INSTITUTIONAL OVERVIEW

MISSION STATEMENT As stated in the Self-Audit Report of 2005, it is the mission of the London Correctional Institution to supervise adult offenders in a safe, humane, and secure manner, operated by well-trained and professional staff. London Correctional Institution encourages rehabilitation and inmate re-entry by providing programs, family, and community contacts in a safe and secure manner. PHYSICAL PROPERTY The London Correctional Institution opened in 1924. The institution is a medium security facility housing inmates at classification levels of 1 and 2 in the main compound

9

and level 1 in the camp. The institution went under renovation during 2001 at a cost of approximately 60 million dollars. As published in the institution’s Self-Audit Report of 2005, the institution is designed using a ‘telephone’ configuration with 10 buildings inside the fence and 51 buildings outside the fence. There is also a correctional camp adjacent to the facility. The institution is located on approximately 3,000 acres of land, with inmates engaged in farming on a majority of the property. As a result of litigation, in 1995 the institution underwent renovations to improve the quality of life and environment. The renovations, which were referenced during the inspection, reached the final phase and completion stages in 2005. FARM As published in the Self-Audit Report, the London Correctional Institution is steeped in agricultural history. Beginning with the acquisition of the land in 1914, and continuing through the decades, the land and the inmates that developed and farmed it, provided food and other agriculture-related services to the former Ohio Penitentiary located in Columbus, Ohio. In the earliest years, most of the labor was completed by hand, without modern machinery. Today, the London Prison Farm continues to produce beef, pork, milk, corn, wheat, soybeans, and hay. The farm continues to provide food to the inmate population as well as teach numerous skills and work ethics to adult offenders before their re-entry to society. Today, there are ten state prison farms with a processing and packaging plant at the Pickaway Correctional Institution. SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS IN RECENT YEARS As published in the Self-Audit Report, several relatively recent changes or improvements are noteworthy. Noted in the report is the conversion to the MARCS radio system and Spider System in 2003, which allows for a safer atmosphere for staff, and the installation of cameras located in numerous areas, such as the Special Management Housing Unit, Visiting Room, Sallyports, #6 Yard, #3 Yard, Elm Unit, Hickory Unit, Front Lobby, Parking Lot, Arsenal, and Lockshop. Also, noted as improvements is the completion of a $2 million renovation to the Water Treatment Plant and the ins tallation of a new boiler to the Powerhouse. POWERHOUSE, WATER TREATMENT, SEWAGE PLANTS The Powerhouse provides steam, hot water, and electricity to the institution, Ohio Penal Industry Shops, and the London Correctional Camp. The Self-Audit Report of 2005 reported that 14 adult offenders were assigned to the Powerhouse. Upgrades have reportedly been made to an old boiler and a low-pressure system and two gas-fueled hot water heaters were installed.

10

Water Treatment and Sewage Treatment Plants treat 679,000 gallons of water daily for approximately 6,000 people at the London institution, Madison Correctional Institution, Ohio Peace Officers Training Academy, and the Bureau of Criminal Investigation. BUSINESS OFFICE It was reported that the Business Office at London Correctional Institution effectively manages an annual budget of approximately $42 million. The office has reportedly received recognition for performance in meeting or exceeding standards related to the Internal Audit Program, Internal Accounting Program (IACP), and the American Correctional Association (ACA) mandates. The Business Office also manages inmate accounts and the cashier’s office, and takes measures to evaluate cost savings.

ACCREDITATION London Correctional Institution is up to date in accreditation, having undergone its last accreditation in July 2004, as published in the self Audit Report of 2005. STAFF DISTRIBUTION As of April 1, 2006, there were 475 staff employed at London Correctional Institution, of which 233 were Corrections Officers. The London Correctional Institution Quarterly Report for the First Quarter of 2006 showed that 30 new staff were hired during the quarter, while 70 staff vacancies remained at that time. The staff gender and racial breakdown, as published in the institution’s Monthly Fact Sheet for April 2006 and provided to CIIC at the inspection, is shown in the following table.

TABLE 1. STAFF DISTRIBUTION: RACE AND GENDER STAFF DISTRIBUTI0N - April 2006 - London Correctional Institution

Total Staff (excludes Interim Employees, includes COs): 475

Total Correctional Officers (excludes Interim COs): 233 or 49.1% of Total Staff

Male Staff: 373 or 79% of Total Staff Male Correctional Officers: 200 or 54% of Male Staff

Male Staff Racial Distribution

Male Correctional Officers Racial Distribution

Caucasian 312 Caucasian 169 African American 56 African American 29 Other 5 Other 2 TOTAL 373 TOTAL 200

Female Staff: 102 or 21% of Total Staff Female Correctional Officers: 33 or 32% of Female Staff

Female Staff Racial Distribution

Female Correctional Officers Racial Distribution

Caucasian 87 Caucasian 25 African American 15 African American 8 Other 0 Other 0 TOTAL 102 Total 33

11

Deputy Warden of Special Services. As noted in the Self-Audit Report for 2005, the Deputy Warden of Special Services provides oversight over Offender Re-entry Assessments and Planning, which gives consideration to seven areas of the inmate’s personal development and abilities: Community functioning Personal and emotional controls Substance abuse Marital and family life Associations with society and citizens Attitude toward a law-abiding life Employment skills and values. Also under the Deputy Warden of Special Services are: Religious Services, Release Preparation, Education Services, and Mental Health Services. Further, the oversight of the Deputy Warden of Special Services at London Correctional Institution includes several ‘stand-out’ programs:

• Inmate Health Services, which engages in the use of the state’s telemedicine system to connect the London institution with doctors through an interactive computer program.

• Videoconferences that assist inmates in completing job interviews with prospective employers prior to release.

• Renaissance Residential Treatment Program: a “State-Best” award-winning substance treatment program.

• Children of Incarcerated Parents : Breaking the Cycle, which is designed to help families break the cycle of incarceration through skills and communication.

Deputy Warden of Operations. Under the Deputy Warden of Operations falls responsibility for institutional security, unit management, and recreation services. Also under the Deputy Warden’s oversight are Ohio Penal Industries shops, Food Services, Powerhouse, sewage/water treatment plants, the MARCS radio system, the Spider Alert System, Critical Incident Management (CIM), and the business office. Deputy Warden of Administration. The Deputy Warden of Administration, as noted in the Self-Audit Report of 2005, has oversight over the many and somewhat unique details pertaining to the farm, a maintenance department that services the farm, the camp, the water treatment plant, and the Ohio Institute of Correctional Best practices, as well as the main compound.

INMATE PROGRAM SERVICES EDUCATION, SPECIFIC PROGRAMS, WORK OPPORTUNITIES

INMATE PROGRAM SERVICES The provisions for inmate services at London Correctional Institution were reflected in the comments during the Entrance Conference prior to the physical inspection of the institution. Staff relayed that inmates seek education through completion of a high school diploma over the GED, and that vocational programs are the most desired educational

12

tracks. According to the Quarterly Report for First quarter 2006, there were 1,277 total students enrolled in academic or vocational programming. JOBS AND PROGRAMMING Staff relayed that inmates are kept busy with jobs and programming, leaving little idle time. Staff relayed that the appearance of idleness occurs only when inmates have periods of down time due to irregular working hours associated with their jobs. Food service staff, for example, work on alternate days, but work for a 13-hour shift each time they work. Staff relayed that there are many effective work-related opportunities and programs available to inmates. It is basic to the Warden’s philosophy to show the same degree of commitment to all of the programs offered at the institution. Among the variety of programs that are useful to inmates are several that focus on one or more mental health issues and recovery services. It was relayed that a strong piece of the programming at London Correctional Institution consists of programs designed to cultivate a successful re-entry. The re-entry process is, in that regard, started from the moment that inmates enter London Correctional Institution. Also, through the OPI work experience, inmates have an opportunity to develop work ethics. Inmates begin working in jobs as soon as possible after arriving at London Correctional Institution and every inmate has a job unless they have a medical clearance or waiver. Some of the programming is oriented to the “theme” represented by the mission of each housing unit. For example, one of the dorms houses older inmates over 35 years old, so the programming may reflect themes that are applicable to older inmates. The Birch Unit houses the inmates participating in the canine program, Circle Tail, which included six dogs and six inmates at the time of the inspection. The dog program has expanded to include dog grooming; thus, offering an additional option in job training. There is a faith-based dorm at London Correctional Institution, which offers programs that align with the faith-based inmate population housed in that dorm. Programs mentioned during the conference include the OPI Industries (such as the dental lab and broom plant) and programs in the trades (such as the electrician program, the power plant, water treatment plant, barber school, the HVAC or heating, ventilation, and air conditioning program, and the auto mechanics program). Staff relayed that a focus has been on training inmates for jobs that pay more than minimum wage in the community. The staff also have taken the step of bringing job fairs into the institution to enlighten and motivate inmates. At the conference, it was noted that there have been no failures among inmates taking the State Barber Examination for licensure, which speaks favorably for the quality of the training offered to inmates in this vocation. OTHER PROGRAMS The institutional website identifies several other programs especially directed toward helping inmates establish more meaningful relationships with family: Children of Incarcerated Parents (CIP): Breaking the Cycle, Family Life Centers (dormitories to house inmates in the Children of Incarcerated Parents program), and the Reading Room,

13

which is a program that focuses on family literacy. Information pertaining to these specific programs is provided under the Programming and Educational Services sections of this report. The institutional website categorized inmate programs under the headings of Industries, Community Service, Career/Technical, Academic, and the Reading Room. The Reading Room is a program established in 2000 by First Lady, Hope Taft, and operates throughout the ODRC system. PROGRAM DIRECTORY As noted from the institution’s Program Directory, there were 68 inmate programs offered in nine categories as of January 27, 2006. In addition, there are four programs, which can only be referred by Mental Health staff. The following table displays inmate programs.

14

TABLE 2. LONDON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION PROGRAM DIRECTORY AS OF JANUARY 27, 2006 London Correctional Institution Program Directory as of January 27, 2006

ATTITUDE Think Straight PROVE (Personal Responsibility for Violence) Victim Awareness

ASSOCIATES/SOCIAL INTERACTION From the Inside Out

COMMUNITY FUNCTIONING Financial Planning Pets Uniting People (PUPP) Pilot Dog Release Preparation Service Learning

SUBSTANCE ABUSE Alcoholics Anonymous Alcoholics Anonymous (LCC) Continuing Care Drug Education Dual Recovery Anonymous Intensive Out Patient Life Without a Crutch Narcotics Anonymous Renaissance Family Program Renaissance Residential Treatment Stopping for Life (smoking0 The Steps We Took – 12 Step

MARITAL/FAMILY RELATIONS Children of Incarcerated Parents Keys to Loving Relationships Responsible Family Life Skills Win-Win Parenting

EMPLOYMENT/EDUCATION Adult Basic Literacy Education (ABLE) Advanced Job Training (CSCC) Advanced Job Training (Urbana) Apprenticeship Programs Auto Mechanics Barbering HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning) GED Instruction GED Fast Track High School Literacy Residential – Hickory Maple Unit Education Pre-GED Instruction Special Education Web Based Design (LCC)

INMATE HEALTH SERVICES Ancillary Clinics: Dental/Vision/Podiatry Chronic Infectious Diseases Heat Precautions with Psych Meds Chronic Care Clinic Medical Reentry for over 50 Medication Education Medication Non-Compliance Telemedicine

RELIGIOUS SERVICES Bible Study Workshop Catholic Doctrinal Class Catholic Instruction Chapel Choir Christian Seminars EID Celebration Gospel Musical Group Practice Heritage Memorial Prison Ministry Islamic Seminar Jehovah Witness Study Jumah Prayer Native American Ceremony Project Angel Tree Promise Keepers Twelve Step Spirituality Study Wiccs Instruction Yoke Fellowship

PERSONAL/EMOTIONAL ORIENTATION Beyond Anger Cage Your Rage

PROGRAMS THAT MUST BE REFERRED BY MENTAL HEALTH STAFF ASSOCIATES/SOCIAL MARITAL FAMILY Effective Communication Anger Management SUBSTANCE ABUSE Stress Management Substance Abuse/Mental Illness SAMI As published in the institution’s Self-Audit Report for 2005, the administration of inmate programs begins with an assessment in several dynamic needs areas (domains), which include the offender’s orientation toward community functioning, personal/emotional values, substance abuse, marital/family values, non-criminal associates and positive social interaction, attitude, and employment. In addition, inmates’ needs for health services are taken into account. The assessment is designed to determine appropriate programs or interventions to affect change in the offender’s behavior. Toward the re-entry period, institutional employment videoconferences are carried out using

15

teleconferencing technology. Inmate are provided with workshops on interviewing skills, resume writing, dressing appropriately for work life, and establishing job retention skills. MENTAL HEALTH AND RECOVERY PROGRAM Staff relayed that approximately 12% of the London Correctional Institution inmates are on the mental health caseload. Further, the RTU available to London Correctional Institution inmates is located at Allen Correctional Institution. Additional information on Mental Health Services is provided in the Mental Health section in this report. The institution’s Quarterly Report for the First Quarter of 2006 shows that during that quarter there were 323 inmates on the mental health caseload, 113 inmates considered seriously mentally ill (SMI status), four suicide watches, but no suicide attempts, and one inmate was transferred to a Residential Treatment Unit (RTU). The Self-Audit report identified Mental Health and Recovery Services as components to both long and short-term reentry and earned-credit treatment programs. The Mental Health Department offers inmates psychiatric, general outpatient, and crisis intervention services. For the seriously mentally ill, the department provides group therapy sessions that specifically focus on psychiatric symptoms and behavioral dysfunction related to schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, and major depressive disorder. Mental health nurses routinely conduct psycho-educational classes like medication education in order to help inmates better understand how various medications can help them manage the symptoms of their illnesses. London Correctional Institution offers a six-month, 67-bed, three-phase Renaissance Residential Treatment Program, which was the 2002 State-Best Award-winning Residential Treatment Program. The program was designed specifically for inmates who have a documented history of alcohol and/or other drug dependency. Incorporated within the current residential program is the 2004 State Best Renaissance Family Program, which offers family members the opportunity to participate in a seven-week program of communications, family problem-solving, and creation of a “going home to stay” support plan for the inmate. Recovery Services also offers a seven-week program, a ten-week educational program, and a three-month intensive outpatient program. Within the ten-week educational programming sequence, the following educational courses and sessions are offered:

• Drug Education • Keys to a Loving Relationship • 12-steps • Smoking Cessation • Two self-help fellowship meetings • Alcoholics Anonymous, and • Narcotic Anonymous.

16

The three-month treatment model is an intensive outpatient program known as “First Steps.” This cognitive behavioral program is designed for inmates who have short sentences and who are prone to relapse and recidivism. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING Educational programming includes multiple tracks and courses. Included among the specific academic tracks, are numerous courses that constitute the high school curriculum, pre-GED courses, GED courses, and ABLE courses. The Self Audit Report for 2005 also identified a Fast Track program for acquiring computer skills, a Literacy Residential Program, Advanced Job Training program with Urbana University or Columbus State Community College, and other career/technical educational courses. The courses through Urbana University are directed toward acquisition of a Business Management Certificate, while Columbus State Community College offers a one-year dental lab program. Career-technical programs include Automotive Repair and Web Base Design. Apprenticeship programs are designed for on-the-job training in Quality Assurance Inspection, Food Service, Animal Training, and Barbering. Journeyman certificates are granted through the Federal Department of Labor and enable participants to gain employment upon release. Beyond educational or rehabilitative programming, there are opportunities for inmates to participate in other programs, such as the dog training program or jobs with Ohio Penal Industries (OPI). During the inspection, CIIC learned much about the dog program. DOG PROGRAM One engaging community service program that was highlighted during the inspection is the dog program. London Correctional Institution is one of the 31 correctional institutions that participate in Inmate Community Service Dog Programs under the Bureau of Quality and Community Service within the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. The dog programs may vary. Some are designed to train and work with specific breeds, and train dogs for specific purposes, and for specific types of owners, such as disabled children and adults. Nearly all of the programs are designed to foster and train dogs for family adoptions. At London, qualified and selected inmates run two programs: one for Circle Tail, Inc. and one for Pure Bred Rescue (P.R.O.). The Circle Tail program trains dogs for service work such as aiding the handicapped and assisting nursing home residents, and also trains dogs in basic obedience for adoption to private homes. The Pure Bred Rescue program trains dogs in obedience for family adoptions. During the inspection, an inmate dog handler in Birch Unit demonstrated how he had trained his assigned dog to recognize a ringing alarm clock and awaken his master until the person was awake and shut off the alarm. This dog was specifically being trained for assignment to a deaf person and was to be delivered to his new owner within a few weeks

17

of the inspection date. Another dog was being ‘reconditioned’ to remove antisocial behaviors toward other animals to become socially compatible. RELEASE PREPARATION The Self Audit Report identified that services are made available to assist offenders in obtaining and retaining employment. Programming is designed to teach skills in accessing community resources, obtaining documents needed for employment, and encouraging employers to hire them, among others. Descriptive information in the Self Audit Report indicates that release preparation serves as a dominant theme in much of the programming that is offered to inmates. FAITH-BASED RESOURCE WORKSHOP AND PROGRAMMING Chaplains provide an ongoing workshop designed to assist formation of linkages between the offender and faith-based groups. Numerous faiths and fellowships are represented among the more than 400 volunteers from the faith-based communities. Among the faith-based opportunities cited in the Self Audit Report are a summer camp sign-up for inmates’ children, Discipleship class, Angel Tree, and marriage seminars, to name a few. The institution is reportedly planning to expand the Chapel area and Religious Services Department to create a larger space for programming and for Gospel Music or Choir practices. OHIO PENAL INDUSTRIES (OPI) Prison industries that operate within the institutions offer programmatic opportunities to inmates at London Correctional Institution to work in the manufacture of brushes, institutional clothing, or dental appliances. The purpose of the industries is to make OPI shops function as much like the private sector as possible, yet within the confines of the institution. Collectively, goals of the industries include the encouragement of proper inmate attitudes and responsibilities toward work, development of marketable skill sets, enhancement of the time of incarceration with productive activity, and to make a favorable contribution toward an inmate’s future re-entry process. CHILDREN OF INCARCERATED PARENTS: BREAKING THE CYCLE The London Correctional Institution Self-Audit Report for 2005 identified the Children of Incarcerated Parents program as one that takes a holistic approach to the health of the family by addressing reentry needs of the incarcerated father and the needs of his family including employment, education, substance abuse, and family communication. Components of the curriculum are incorporated from other programs such as Reclaiming Parenthood, EQUIP Cognitive Behavioral Program, and Strengthening Families.

18

COMMUNITY JUSTICE PROGRAM As described in the Self Audit Report, a Community Justice Program is designed to promote understanding, accountability, and healing to the inmate. Offenders are held personally responsible to their victim(s) and/or the community for making amends to the extent possible, helping to repair the damage and injuries inmate actions have caused.

STATISTICAL PROFILE

Institutions may be viewed statistically as individual entities and as one among the statewide system. Inmates, families, and staff correspond directly to CIIC continuously. The contacts from inmates, families, and staff relay various concerns, which are logged in the CIIC database. In addition, institutions supply data to the CIIC on a monthly basis. The monthly reports provide data that primarily represents operations under four categories: Institutional Inspector activity, educational and vocational or rehabilitative programming activity, medical activity, and use of force activity. From this data, the Committee is able to monitor, evaluate and compare institutions. The following section of this report provides a view of the London Correctional Institution statistically from individual correspondence and from institutional monthly reports. CORRESPONDENCE FROM INMATES, FAMILIES, AND STAFF The Correctional Institution Inspection Committee database captures the details of all correspondence to the office from inmates, their families, and staff within the institutions as contacts, as well as all concerns that are relayed within those contacts. A single contact may relay only a single concern or it may relay several concerns. Therefore, there will always be a statistically larger number of concerns than there are contacts. The profile, institution-by- institution, of all the concerns and contacts provides one method of monitoring and eva luation. At least, it allows for an awareness of the types of problems, issues, and concerns reported to the CIIC. The CIIC database shows that for the recent 15-month period from January 1, 2005 through March 31, 2006, there were a total of 2,252 contacts made to the CIIC office statewide. For the same fifteen-month period, there were a total of 7,703 concerns relayed by those 2,252 contacts. The succeeding tables display ranking by institutions for contacts and concerns relayed to the CIIC office from inmates, family, and staff. Contacts to CIIC. London Correctional Institution ranked 23rd among all institutions, including ‘other,’ which are contacts from jails, federal institutions, or a source other than one of the state operated adult institutions, in the number of contacts made to the CIIC office with 37 contacts. London Correctional Institution also ranked 23rd for the number of concerns relayed by those contacts, with 109 concerns relayed.

19

TABLE 3. CONTACTS TO CIIC PER INSTITUTION

CONTACTS to CIIC per Institution January 1, 2005 through March 31, 2006

Institution Contacts Southern Ohio Correctional Facility 344 Madison Correctional Institution 153 Warren Correctional Institution 145 Lebanon Correctional Institution 126 Chillicothe Correctional Institution 123 North Central Correctional Institution 115 Marion correctional Institution 109 Mansfield Correctional Institution 105 Pickaway Correctional Institution 101 Trumbull Correctional Institution 76 Toledo Correctional Institution 76 Grafton Correctional Institution 75 Correctional Reception Center 69 Northeast Ohio Correctional Center (private) 60 Ross Correctional Institution 59 Ohio State Penitentiary 56 Other (jails, detention centers, etc.) 56 Allen Correctional Institution 56 Noble Correctional Institution 55 Richland Correctional Institution 53 Lake Erie Correctional Institution 48 Ohio Reformatory for Women 38 London Correctional Institution 37 Hocking Correctional Institution 27 Belmont Correctional Institution 21 Southeastern Correctional Institution 19 Corrections Medical Center 15 North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility 15 Oakwood Correctional Facility 9 Lorain Correctional Institution 7 Dayton Correctional Institution 2 Northeast Pre-Release Center 2 Franklin Pre-release Center 0 Montgomery Education and Pre-Release Center 0 TOTAL 2,252

20

TABLE 4. CONCERNS REPORTED TO CIIC PER INSTITUTION

CONCERNS REPORTED to CIIC per Institution January 1, 2005 through March 31, 2006

Institution Concerns Southern Ohio Correctional Facility 1,312 Warren Correctional Institution 516 Lebanon Correctional Institution 507 Mansfield Correctional Institution 397 Madison Correctional Institution 382 Chillicothe Correctional Institution 367 North Central Correctional Institution 364 Pickaway Correctional Institution 346 Marion Correctional Institution 334 Northeast Ohio Correctional Center 308 Trumbull Correctional Institution 282 Toledo Correctional Institution 273 Ross Correctional Institution 240 Grafton Correctional Institution 213 Allen Correctional Institution 193 Ohio State Penitentiary 180 Correctional Reception Center 172 Noble Correctional Institution 167 Richland Correctional Institution 165 Other (jails, detention centers, etc.) 156 Ohio Reformatory for women 155 Lake Erie Correctional Institution 137 London correctional Institution 109 Hocking Correctional Facility 92 Belmont Correctional Institution 83 Corrections Medical Center 79 Southeastern Correctional Ins titution 60 North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility

48

Lorain Correctional Institution 30 Oakwood Correctional Facility 29 Northeast Pre-Release Center 5 Dayton Correctional Institution 2 Franklin Pre-Release Center 0 Montgomery Education and re-release Center

0

TOTAL 7,703

21

Types of Concerns. The distribution of concerns to CIIC from London Correctional Institution for the period January 1, 2005 through May 31, 2006, which represents nearly 75% of the current 126th General Assembly, is shown in the following table. The categories of concerns are shown in descending order by frequency as they were submitted to the CIIC through letters or phone contacts. For the period, there were 138 concerns reported by 49 contacts, for an average of 2.8 concerns per contact. Among the top five types of concerns from or regarding the London Correctional Institution for the period were non-grievable matters, staff accountability, health services, inmate account, and use of force. Concerns dealing with staff, health, and use of force are often those that are reported most frequently among all institutions statewide.

TABLE 5. TYPES AND DISTRIBUTION OF CONCERNS TO CIIC Types and Distribution of Concerns to CIIC - London Correctional Institution

January 1, 2005 through May 31, 2006 Concern Volume

Non-Grievable Matters 23 Staff Accountability 22 Health Services 19 Inmate Account 11 Use of Force 10 Other 7 Institution Assignment 7 Mail/Package 6 Special Management Housing 6 Job Placement 5 Laundry/Quartermaster 3 Visitation 3 Inmate Groups 2 Education 2 Security Classification 2 Dental 1 Safety 1 Facilities Maintenance 1 Food Service 1 Personal Property 1 Inmate Grievance Procedure 1 Records 1 Legal Services 1 Discrimination 1 Protective Control or Custody 1 TOTAL for the period 138

22

DATA FROM OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION

Data is forwarded from each of the adult institutions to the Correctional Institution Inspection Committee on a monthly basis, which allows for a compilation of statistics in various categories representative of the system and placement or rank of the individual institutions within the system. The following categories are among those that are viewed comparatively: total and monthly average inmate population at London Correctional Institution, changes in inmate population and crowding, crowding and rated capacity, average daily cost per inmate, and the average meal costs per inmate. Inmate Population Fluctuations - Statewide. Population counts may fluctuate over time, but generally have increased throughout the state’s system. In Ohio, there have been both increases and decreases in inmate population from May 2005 to May 2006 within individual institutions. In some cases, the increases have created crowding. The following tables display institutional populations, increases and decreases in population over a recent 12-month period throughout the state system, and rank institutions according to levels of crowding. Inmate Population at London Correctional Institution. The London Correctional Institution is a medium security institution, housing inmates at levels 1 and 2. As of July 2006, the web-published inmate population at London Correctional Institution consisted of 2,229 inmates comprised of 915 or 41% black, 1,275 or 57.2 % white, 29 or 1.3 % Hispanic, and 10 or 0.5 % inmates of other races. The following tables rank the adult institutions in Ohio based on population.

23

TABLE 6. TOTAL INMATE POPULATION BY INSTITUTION Total Inmate Population

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction -- May 1, 2006 Institution Population

Chillicothe Correctional Institution 2,843 Belmont Correctional Institution 2,443 Richland Correctional Institution 2,388 Noble Correctional Institution 2,324 Ross Correctional Institution 2,284 North Central Correctional Institution 2,264 Mansfield Correctional Institution 2,224 London Correctional Institution 2,160 Lebanon Correctional Institution 2,148 Ohio Reformatory for Women 2,005 Madison Correctional Institution 1,968 Pickaway Correctional Institution 1,961 Marion Correctional Institution 1,873 Correctional Reception Center 1,850 Lorain Correctional Institution 1,789 Lake Erie Correctional Institution 1,470 Southeastern Correctional Institution 1,454 Grafton Correctional Institution 1,414 Allen Correctional Institution 1,308 Trumbull Correctional Institution 1,298 Southern Ohio Correctional Facility 1,122 Warren Correctional Institution 1,034 Toledo Correctional Institution 791 North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility 607 Northeast Pre-Release Center 562 Ohio State Penitentiary 538 Hocking Correctional Facility 477 Franklin Pre-/release Center 470 Dayton Correctional Institution 422 Montgomery Education and Pre-Release Center 334 Corrections Medical Center 118 Oakwood Correctional Facility 98 TOTAL 46,032

24

TABLE 7. MONTHLY AVERAGE INMATE POPULATION PER INSTITUTION

Monthly Average Inmate Population per Institution Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

January – May 2006

Institution Monthly Average

Institutional Population

(for the period)

January

2006

February

2006

March 2006

April 2006

May 2006

5-month

Total

Chillicothe CI 2776 2712 2717 2788 2826 2838 13,881 Belmont CI 2404 2160 2466 2470 2453 2470 12,019 Richland CI 2352 2308 2311 2385 2381 2373 11,758 Noble CI 2295 2307 2279 2291 2313 2283 11,473 North Central CI 2272 2271 2296 2249 2269 2274 11,359 Ross CI 2249 2209 2242 2247 2272 2277 11,247 Mansfield CI 2205* 2184 2211 2200 2224 2205* 11,024* Lebanon CI 2163 2125 2153 2182 2174 2179 10,813 London CI 2150 2182 2138 2167 2136 2128 10,751 Pickaway CI 2003 1903 2247 1945 1961 1958 10,014 Madison CI 1985 1989 1970 1941 1958 2067 9925 Ohio Reformatory for Women 1951 1925 1911 1954 1987 1980 9757 Marion CI 1777 1703 1708 1750 1873 1852 8886 Lorain CI 1706 1007 1828 1868 1828 1997 8528 Lake Erie CI 1457 1438 1462 1459 1470 1457 7286 Southeastern CI 1447 1438 1429 1450 1454 1463 7234 Grafton CI 1399* 1401 1399* 1396 1399* 1399* 6994* Allen CI 1321 1320 1315 1326 1326 1318 6,605 Trumbull CI 1314 1523 1248 1248 1262 1291 6572 Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

1122

1091

1123

1128

1122

1146

5610

Warren CI 1043 1065 1046 1052 1034 1020 5217 Correctional Reception Center 832 1744 1830 1878 1870 1858 9180 Toledo CI 800 784 796 804 808 810 4002 North Coast Correctional Treatment Center

625*

628

632

619

620

625*

3124*

Northeast Pre-Release Center 573 564 564 593 562 582 2865 Ohio State Penitentiary 554 555 549 578 545 544 2771 Hocking Correctional Facility 472 468 482 466 477 468 2361 Dayton CI 417 420 409 420 416 422 2087 Montgomery Education and Pre-Release Center

334

328

322

332

352

337

1671

Corrections Medical Center 120 119 121 122 124 115 601 Oakwood Correctional Facility 110* 107 104 118 109 110* 548* TOTAL 45,722*

TOTAL (based on averaged

monthly quantities statewide) 45,727 (variance of 5

due to rounding)

44,469 45,807* 45,924 46,094* 46,340* 228,634*

The * indicates an institutional entry or average total derived by using a calculated average due to incomplete institutional data available at the time of the report.

25

Changes in Inmate Population - Statewide. In the following table, institutions are ranked according to inmate population within each institution as of May 2005. For each institution, the actual number in increase or decrease in inmates is shown. Crowding. As of May 1, 2006, The London Correctional Institution was one of 27 institutions showing an increase in the number of inmates incarcerated compared to their population on May 2, 2005. The increase of 152 inmates, for a May 1, 2006 population of 2,160 inmates, represents a 7.6% increase from the May 2005 population of 2,008.

TABLE 8. CHANGES IN TOTAL INMATE POPULATION FOR MAY 2005 COMPARED TO MAY 2006 BY INTITUTION

Changes in Total Inmate Population May 2005 Compared to May 2006

Institution

May 2, 2005

May 1, 2006

Change in Population

Chillicothe Correctional Institution 2,676 2,843 +167 Mansfield Correctional Institution 2,364 2,244 -120 Richland Correctional Institution 2,281 2,388 +107 North Central Correctional Institution 2,276 2,264 -12 Ross Correctional Institution 2,264 2,284 +20 Belmont Correctional Institution 2,209 2,443 +234 Noble Correctional Institution 2,145 2,324 +179 London Correctional Institution 2,008 2,160 +152 Lebanon Correctional Institution 1,966 2,148 +182 Madison Correctional Institution 1,933 1,968 +35 Correctional Reception Center 1,808 1,850 +42 Marion Correctional Institution 1,826 1,873 +47 Pickaway Correctional Institution 1,877 1,961 +84 Ohio Reformatory for Women 1,800 2,005 +205 Southeastern Correctional Institution 1,594 1,454 -140 Grafton Correctional Institution 1,380 1,414 +34 Lorain Correctional Institution 1,377 1,789 +412 Lake Erie Correctional Institution 1,371 1,470 +99 Allen Correctional Institution 1,271 1,308 +37 Trumbull Correctional Institution 1,239 1,289 +50 Warren Correctional Institution 1,042 1,034 -8 Southern Ohio Correctional Facility 947 1,122 +175 Toledo Correctional Institution 789 791 +2 North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility 531 607 +76 Ohio State Penitentiary 488 538 +50 Northeast Pre-Release Center 478 562 +84 Hocking Correctional Facility 469 477 +8 Franklin Pre-Release Center 465 470 +5 Dayton Correctional Institution 407 422 +15 Montgomery Education and Pre-Release Center 332 334 +2 Corrections Medical Center 114 118 +4 Oakwood Correctional Facility 122 98 -14 TOTAL 43,845 46,046 +2,201

26

Crowding and Rated Capacity. In the following table, institutions are ranked by percent of crowding by comparing the rated capacity to the number of inmates. The rated capacity, or number of inmates which the institution should house, is based upon the types of housing (single or double cells, dorms, etc.) and number of beds for which housing was designed to accommodate. A rated capacity is the recommended limit or cap on the number of inmates that should be housed in an institution. The difference between the rated capacity and the actual inmate population reveals the percentage of crowding. Percentages over 100% represent overcrowding. London Correctional Institution staff tries to minimize the adverse effects of overcrowding through the use of required programming, job opportunities, and attending to conditions of confinement and quality of life issues. Nine groups are available to inmates: Jaycees, Music Association, Fine Arts, Stamp Club, Toastmasters, Cultural Awareness, Seven Step, and Prisoner Restitution Organization. TABLE 9. PERCENT OF CROWDING AND RATED CAPACITY BY INSTITUTION

Percent of Crowding and Rated Capacity Based on Population Count as of May 1, 2006

General Beds Institution Cells Dorms

Hospital Beds

Local Control

Levels 4A/4B

All Beds (all types)

5/1/06 Pop.

Count

% Crowding

Lorain CI 746 0 0 10 0 756 1,789 236.64 Correctional Reception Center 888 0 0 12 0 900 1,850 205.56 Warren CI 538 0 0 13 0 551 1,034 187.66 Chillicothe CI 606 997 0 70 0 1,673 2,843 169.93 Ross CI 1,008 375 0 20 0 1,403 2,284 162.79 Ohio Reformatory for Women 530 685 17 14 0 1,246 2,005 160.91 Hocking Correctional Facility 0 298 0 0 0 298 477 160.07 Mansfield CI 1,010 369 0 39 0 1,418 2,224 156.84 Allen CI 500 312 0 32 0 844 1,308 154.98 Grafton CI 496 425 0 18 0 939 1,414 150.59 Lebanon CI 1,188 180 0 113 0 1,481 2,148 145.04 Trumbull CI 496 369 6 31 0 902 1,289 142.90 Belmont CI 0 1,845 0 10 0 1,855 2,443 131.70 Franklin Pre-Release 45 316 0 0 0 361 470 130.19 Richland CI 0 1,845 0 10 0 1,855 2,388 128.73 Noble CI 0 1,845 0 10 0 1,855 2,324 125.28 North Central CI 0 1,845 0 10 0 1,855 2,264 122.05 Marion CI 310 1,232 0 48 0 1,590 1,873 117.80 London CI 65 1,760 0 65 0 1,890 2,160 114.29 North Coast Correct. Facility 0 552 8 0 0 560 607 108.39 Southeastern CI 355 978 0 25 0 1,358 1,454 107.07 Lake Erie CI 0 1,380 0 0 0 1,380 1,470 106.52 Madison CI 496 1,409 0 10 0 1,915 1,968 102.77 Pickaway CI 12 1,931 102 20 0 2,065 1,961 94.96 Montgomery Ed& Pre-Release 64 288 0 0 0 352 334 94.89 Southern OH Correct Facility 1,198 0 0 0 0 1,198 1,122 93.66 Northeast Pre-Release Center 64 576 0 0 0 640 562 87.81 Dayton CI 480 0 0 2 0 482 422 87.55 Toledo CI 616 186 7 95 0 904 791 87.50 Ohio State Penitentiary 504 180 0 0 0 684 538 78.65 Corrections Medical Center 0 0 210 0 0 210 118 56.19 Oakwood Correct. Facility 163 28 0 0 0 191 98 51.31 TOTAL 12,378 22,206 350 677 0 35,611 46,032 129.26

27

Average Daily Cost Per Inmate. The current average daily cost per inmate at the London Correctional Institution is $48.67, according to the institution’s website for July 2006. Economics plays a pivotal role in determining costs. Goods and services such as security, medical care, food, clothing, and utilities must be factored into calculating costs per inmate. The following table shows data as of March 28, 2006, with adult institutions ranked by GRF expenditures. Because the GRF budget per institution is subject to monthly review and adjustments, as published on the institutional web sites, there may be monthly adjustments in the average daily cost per inmate. For example, the average daily cost per inmate was shown to be $50.62 as of March 28, 2006, yet declined to $48.67 per inmate as of July 2006. The expense per inmate is a function of each institution’s General Revenue Fund line items related to operational expenditures.

TABLE 10. AVERAGE DAILY COST PER INMATE PER INSTITUTION

Average Daily Cost Per Inmate ---- as of March 28, 2006 INSTITUTION GENERAL REVENUE FUND AVERAGE DAILY COST/INMATE

Mansfield Correctional Institution 52,052,457 62.75 Southern Ohio Correctional Facility 50,165,701 129.43 Pickaway Correctional Institution 47,895,974 67.97 Chillicothe Correctional Institution 44,906,818 45.26 Ohio Reformatory for Women 42,608,371 62.49 Ross Correctional Institution 41,146,080 50.65 Lebanon Correctional Institution 40,966,970 53.69 Madison Correctional Institution 39,947,791 55.84 Correctional Reception Center 39,606,866 59.47 London Correctional Institution 37,956,749 50.62 Belmont Correctional Institution 37,408,183 44.72 Marion Correctional Institution 37,001,380 58.25 Lorain Correctional Institution 36,387,264 58.81 Noble Correctional Institution 36,137,200 44.16 Corrections Medical Center 35,904,924 * North Central Correctional Institution 35,165,105 42.04 Richland Correctional Institution 32,984,636 39.47 Trumbull Correctional Institution 32,389,615 71.95 Southeastern Correctional Institution 32,331,802 59.70 Grafton Correctional Institution 29,305,894* 57.01 Allen Correctional Institution 29,097,320 61.06 Ohio State Penitentiary 28,942,096 161.13 Warren Correctional Institution 28,161,124 74.50 Toledo Correctional Institution 25,317,670 89.67 Oakwood Correctional Facility 25,039,298 * Lake Erie Correctional Institution 22,846,489 43.23 Dayton Correctional Institution 15,540,451 103.42 Northeast Pre-Release Center 15,223,882 73.68 North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility 14,197,047 66.24 Hocking Correctional Facility 12,639,294 74.29 Franklin Pre-Release Center 11,044,805 65.09 Montgomery Education and Pre-Release Center 10,140,056 84.55 * No data or incomplete data available.

28

Food Costs Per Inmate. According to available web-based data from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction in FY 2005 for meal costs1, the average cost of a meal at London Correctional Institution was $1.15. The cost of meals in two privately operated institutions in Ohio (Lake Erie Correctional Institution and the North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility) are not included in the following table; thus, based on available data the average cost per meal in the state-operated institutions in FY 2005 would be averaged at $1.18. Meal costs are shown in the following table.

TABLE 11. AVERAGE COST PER INMATE MEAL BY INSTITUTION

Average Cost per Inmate Meal by Institution FY 2005

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Institution Average Cost Per meal

Corrections Medical Center $4.71 Ohio State Penitentiary $1.84 Southern Ohio Correctional Facility $1.41 Ohio Reformatory for Women $1.30 Lorain Correctional Institution $1.26 Dayton correctional Institution $1.23 Correctional Reception Center $1.17 London Correctional Institution $1.15 Mansfield Correctional Institution $1.14 Lebanon Correctional Institution $1.13 Warren Correctional Institution $1.11 Trumbull Correctional Institution $1.11 Montgomery Education and Pre-Release Center $1.10 Pickaway Correctional Institution $1.09 Belmont Correctional Institution $1.07 Richland Correctional Institution $1.05 Toledo Correctional Institution $1.02 Ross Correctional Institution $1.01 Allen Correctional Institution $1.00 Franklin Pre-Release Center $1.00 Noble Correctional Institution $0.98 Southeastern Correctional Institution $0.97 Marion correctional Institution $0.97 North Central Correctional Institution $0.97 Northeast Pre-Release Center $0.95 Grafton Correctional Institution $0.94 Chillicothe Correctional Institution $0.92 Hocking Correctional Institution $0.90 Madison Correctional Institution $0.84 Oakwood Correctional Institution $0.17 AVERAGE Cost per Meal Statewide $1.18

1 http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/Reports/costsperinmate/June%202005.pdf

29

INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE: INMATE POPULATION, ASSAULT ACTIVITY, USE OF FORCE, GRIEVANCE ACTIVITY There are four areas of institutional life that play key roles in creating the environment of and within individual institutions. Knowledge of the inmate population, the degree and nature of assault activity and the use of force (relevant to both inmates and staff), and the degree and nature of the use of the grievance procedure may provide information relevant to operations and conditions within an institution. Inmate Population. During the conference there was mention that there is no fence around the camp, so camp inmates must meet certain classification criteria. The number of inmates in residence at the London Correctional Institution has reportedly been rising in both general population and in the camp. While inmates are released each week from London Correctional Institution, the institution receives 40 – 60 new inmates each week. Many of the London inmates are transferred from Lebanon Correctional Institution, originate from the southwest quadrant of Ohio, or come from Dayton, Springfield, or Columbus. The average age of inmates at London Correctional Institution is rising from a previous average of mid-30 to a current average age of 38.5 years old. Inmate age upon entry to the London Correctional Institution, as well as in other adult institutions within the state system, is also increasing, but an explanation for this statistic is not known. The institution’s Quarterly Report for the first quarter of 2006 shows that there were 591 inmates received and 376 inmates released during that quarter. Monthly inmate population at the London Correctional Institution was: January (2202), February (2182), and March (2216). The following table displays inmate population statistics as published in an institutional information packet dated April 24, 2006.

TABLE 12. INSTITUTION INMATE COUNT WITH AGE AND RACE

London Correctional Institution Institution Inmate Count – April 24, 2006

Institution Inmate Count 2,187 Pending Transfers 1 Inmate Age Distribution Youngest Age ………………………………………………………………. 19.30 Oldest Age ………………………………………………………………….. 77.70 Average Age ……………………………………………………………….. 38.50 Inmate Racial Distribution White …………………………………………………………….……………1,224 Black ……………………………………………………………………..…... 928 White Hispanic ……………………………………………………………… 25 Asian/Pacific Islander ………………………………………………………. 7 Native American …………………………………………………………….. 3 Assaults. During the inspection, staff relayed that the number of inmate assaults, either with one another or with staff, is low compared to the prevalence of inmate assaults in other correctional institutions.

30

Inmate on Staff Assaults. London Correctional Institution was reported in the 2005 Annual Report of the Office of the Chief Inspector as having 13 inmate on staff assault investigations. For the period, the London institution was ranked fourth among adult institutions in this category, as shown in the following table. TABLE 13. INMATE ON STAFF ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS BY INSTITUTION

Inmate on Staff Assault Investigations

2005 Office of Chief Inspector -- Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

Institution Inmate on Staff Investigations

Oakwood Correctional Facility 16 Noble Correctional Institution 15 Madison Correctional Institution 14 London Correctional Institution 13 Ohio Reformatory for Women 10 North Central Correctional Institution 10 North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility 10 Lake Erie Correctional Institution 9 Lebanon Correctional Institution 8 Belmont Correctional Institution 7 Warren Correctional Institution 7 Lorain Correctional Institution 6 Southeastern Correctional Institution 6 Richland Correctional Institution 5 Grafton Correctional Institution 5 Ross Correctional Institution 5 Chillicothe Correctional Institution 4 Correctional Reception Center 4 Pickaway Correctional Institution 4 Marion Correctional Institution 4 Ohio State Penitentiary 3 Allen Correctional Institution 3 Mansfield Correctional Institution 2 Toledo Correctional Institution 2 Southern Ohio Correctional Facility 1 Montgomery Education and Pre-Release Center 1 Dayton Correctional Institution 1 Trumbull Correctional Institution 0 Corrections Medical Center 0 Franklin Pre -Release Center 0 Hocking Correctional Facility 0 Northeast Pre-Release Center 0 TOTAL 175

31

Inmate on Inmate Assaults. According to ODRC data for the period November 2004 through October 2005 on inmate-on- inmate assaults, London Correctional Institution reported six assaults of this type for the 12-month period, as shown in the following table.

TABLE 14. INMATE ON INMATE ASSAULTS BY INSTITUTION

Inmate on Inmate Assaults in ODRC Institutions

November 2004 through October 2005

Institution

12-Month Total

Average/Month

Southern Ohio Correctional Facility 109 9.08 North Central Correctional Institution 32 2.67 Noble Correctional Institution 29 2.42 Southeastern Correctional Institution 28 2.33 Mansfield Correctional Institution 27 2.25 Oakwood Correctional Facility 26 2.17 Ross Correctional Institution 23 1.92 Ohio Reformatory for Women 22 1.83 Belmont Correctional Institution 20 1.67 Richland Correctional Institution 19 1.58 Madison Correctional Institution 17 1.42 Chillicothe Correctional Institution 14 1.17 Lake Erie Correctional Institution 13 1.08 Trumbull Correctional Institution 13 1.08 Allen Correctional Institution 12 1.00 Lorain Correctional Institution 11 0.92 North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility 10 0.83 Correctional Reception Center 9 0.75 Warren Correctional Institution 7 0.58 Grafton Correctional Institution 6 0.50 Lebanon Correctional Institution 6 0.50 London Correctional Institution 6 0.50 Ohio State Penitentiary 6 0.50 Pickaway Correctional Institution 5 0.42 Franklin Pre -Release Center 3 0.25 Marion Correctional Institution 3 0.25 Toledo Correctional Institution 3 0.25 Corrections Medical Center 1 0.08 Hocking Correctional Facility 1 0.08 Montgomery Education and Pre-Release Center 1 0.08 Northeast Pre-Release Center 1 0.08 Dayton Correctional Institution 0 0.00 TOTAL for all institutions 483 (one year total

system wide) 40.25 (average per

month system wide) Other Inmate Considerations. Staff relayed that while the institution has little gang activity there were, at the time of the inspection, eight inmates were in Segregation for suspected gang activity involving the Aryan Brotherhood. Reportedly, one inmate was assaulted in a recent AB-suspected incident.

32

One of the various areas monitored by CIIC is the number of inmate suicide attempts. Data submitted by the institutions reveals that London Correctional Institution ranks low among the state institutions in the category of suicide attempts in calendar year 2005 and also for the period January through March 2006, as shown in the following table. At the London Correctional institution, there were no successful suicides during either of the two periods.

TABLE 15. SUICIDE ATTEMPTS BY INSTITUTION

Suicide Attempts

(Institutions Ranked by Number of Attempts)

Institution

Jan – Dec 2005

Institution

Jan – Mar 2006

Correctional Reception Center 26 Lebanon CI 4 Ohio Reformatory for Women 16 Ohio Reformatory for Women 4 Chillicothe CI 14 Lake Erie CI 3 Mansfield CI 9 Mansfield CI 3 Southeastern CI 9 Lorain CI 2 Southern Ohio Correctional Facility 8 Pickaway CI 2 Toledo CI 6 Allen CI 1 Oakwood Correctional Facility 6 Corrections Medical Center 1 Lebanon CI 5 Correctional Reception Center 1 Madison CI 5 Franklin Pre-Release Center 1 Ohio State Penitentiary 4 Marion CI 1 Ross CI 4 North Central CI 1 North Central CI 3 Southern Ohio Correctional Facility 1 Pickaway CI 3 Trumbull CI 1 Richland CI 3 Toledo CI 1 Trumbull CI 3 Belmont CI 0 Allen CI 2 Chillicothe CI 0 Grafton CI 2 Dayton CI 0 London CI 2 Grafton CI 0 Lorain CI 2 Hocking Correctional Facility 0 Belmont CI 1 London CI 0 Dayton CI 1 Madison CI 0 Franklin Pre-Release Center 1 Montgomery Ed & Pre-Release Cntr 0 Lake Erie CI 1 North Coast Corr. & Treatment Fac. 0 Marion CI 1 Noble CI 0 Noble CI 1 Northeast Pre-Release Center 0 Northeast Pre-Release Center 1 Oakwood Correctional Facility 0 Corrections Medical Center 0 Ohio State Penitentiary 0 Hocking Correctional Facility 0 Ross CI 0 Montgomery Ed & Pre-release Center 0 Richland CI 0 North Coast Corr. &Treatment Fac. 0 Southeastern CI 0 Warren CI 0 Warren CI 0 TOTAL 140 TOTAL 27 Deaths Due to Natural Causes. There have been three inmate deaths due to natural causes during January through June 2006 while residing at the London Correctional Institution. CIIC database records show that in each case CPR was administered upon discovery of each of the unresponsive inmates.

33

Use of Force. According to ODRC policy 63-UOF-01, “Use of Force,” it is the policy of the department that,

force, up to and including deadly force, may be used to respond to resistance, protect persons, prevent escapes, protect its institutions, [and] enforce its rules. Force shall never be used as punishment. Only the amount of force necessary to control the situation shall be used.

ODRC Administrative Rule 5120-9-01, “Use of Force,” defines “force” as “the exertion or application of a physical compulsion or restraint.” However, only “greater than minimal force” is considered “reportable”. Monthly reports of data on use of force incidents are shared with the CIIC by the institutions. The following table displays data from four recent months (February through May 2006) submitted from London Correctional Institution relevant to reportable Use of Force incidents.

TABLE 16. USE OF FORCE INCIDENTS

Use of Force Incidents per Month with Racial Breakdown London Correctional Institution

Race Month Black White Other

Total

February 2006 2 1 0 3 March 2006 2 3 0 5 April 2006 2 2 0 4 May 2006 2 7 0 9 TOTAL 8 13 0 21 Use of Force Committee Investigations. Per ODRC policy and administrative rule, certain Use of Force incidents may be referred to a Use of Force Committee for investigation. DRC policy 63-UOF-03, “Use of Force Investigation,” further states,

It is the policy of the [ODRC] to monitor and ensure that responses to resistance and uses of force are appropriate and consistent with applicable administrative rules and DRC policies by documenting and investigating such incidents where appropriate.

According to the ODRC Administrative Rule 5120-9-02, “Use of Force Reports and Investigation,” each incident of “greater than minimal” force must be documented in a report submitted by the corrections staff to the shift supervisor, who collects written statements from the persons involved. All documentation is reviewed by the Deputy Warden of Operations, followed by the Warden, who has the authority to refer the incident to a Use of Force Committee for investigation at any time. The Warden is required to refer the incident to the Use of Force Committee or to the Chief Inspector in the following incidents:

34

• The factual circumstances are not described sufficiently in the record to enable an evaluation of the propriety of the amount of force utilized.

• The incident involved serious physical harm to any person. • The incident constituted a significant disruption to the normal operation of the

institution. • Weapons, PR-24, chemical agents, less- lethal munitions, or a stun shield were

used during the incident, whether by staff or by inmates. For the four-month period, London Correctional Institution reported that only one (1) Use of Force Incident was referred to the Use of Force Committee for Investigation. The remaining 20 incidents were designated as ‘No Further Action Required.’ In addition to referring incidents to a Use of Force Committee for investigation, incident reports may be determined to: Require No Further Action, prompt Referral to the Employee Disciplinary Process, or Referral to the Chief Inspector. It is expected that investigations will be completed within 30 days, but extensions may be given. Data reported from the London Correctional Institution for the period February through May 2006, revealed that no (zero) investigations were extended. The following table displays data taken from the London Correctional Institution monthly reports for the months of February through May 2006.

TABLE 17. INCIDENTS DETERMINED “NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED”

Incidents Determined for “No Further Action Required” with Racial Breakdown

February through May 2006 London Correctional Institution

Race Month Black White Other

Total

February 2006 2 1 0 3 March 2006 2 3 0 5 April 2006 2 2 0 4 May 2006 2 6 0 8 TOTAL 8 12 0 20 Inmate Grievance Procedure. The Inmate Grievance Procedure (IGP) is defined in Administrative Rule 5120-9-31, and is perhaps the rule to which inmates are most frequently referred by the CIIC. Summarily, under the rule, the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction must provide inmates with access to a procedure to grieve complaints related to any aspect of institutional life that directly or personally affects the grievant. Compla ints may include those pertaining to policies, procedures, conditions of confinement, or the actions of institutional staff. There are three consecutive steps that comprise the procedure.

35

• Filing of an Informal Complaint. • Filing a Notification of Grievance. • Filing an Appeal of the Disposition of the Grievance.

The Department of Rehabilitation and Correction uses a detailed form to identify and categorize grievances. The form, Inspector of Institutional Services Monthly Report, is formatted to capture every type of complaint that may be filed. In addition, the form records Dispositions that are granted, denied, withdrawn at the inmate’s request, and those that are pending each month. In addition, data is recorded for the number of dispositions that are extended beyond the 14-day limitation and also beyond a 28-day extension. Monthly totals for various forms of communications are submitted as well: Kites, Court of Claims Investigations, Outside Agencies, Number of Informal Complaints Received, Number of IC Responses Received, and the Number of IC Responses that are Untimely. Dates and attendance at grievance procedure Orientations is documented as well. London Correctional Institution’s Quarterly Report for the First Quarter 2006 shows that there were 42 grievances filed during the first quarter and there were no major quality of life issues among them. Data provided from London Correctional Institution to the CIIC office for the recent five-month period January through May 2006 reveals essential recent information about the use of the Inmate Grievance Procedure at the London Correctional institution. The following table highlights various facets of the use of the procedure within the institution and also the institution’s use and application of the IGP compared to the other institutions in Ohio’s adult correctional system. TABLE 18. SUMMARY OF GRIEVANCE ACTIVITY AND INTERNAL INSTITUTIONAL

INSPECTIONS Summary of Grievance Activity and Internal Institutional Inspections

(January through May 2006) Source: Institutional Inspector Reports - London Correctional Institution

Grievances Received and Completed Total grievances received for the period 66 Total grievances completed for the period 65 Grievance Dispositions Granted and Denied Total dispositions granted for the period 15 Total dispositions denied for the period 49 Grievances Withdrawn at Inmate’s Request 1 Grievances with Pending Disposition 12 Grievances given Extensions 0 Institutional Inspectors (IIS) complete internal inspections and log those areas of inspection on their monthly reports. The following four tables present information pertaining to the internal inspections, communication, inmate orientations, and other meetings that are conducted under the office of the Inspector.

36

TABLE 19. IIS SELF-INSPECTIONS IIS Self-Inspections

Inspection of Institutional Services January February March April May

Segregation, Education, Library, Dorms Education, Recreation, Dorms Dorms, Infirmary, Food Service Dorms Education, Inmate Health Services, Recreation, Library

TABLE 20. IIS COMMUNICATIONS

IIS Communications Kites Court of Claims Investigations Outside Agencies (CIIC, AG, etc.) Informal Complaints Received Informal Complaint Responses Received Informal Complaint Responses Untimely

177 1

10 533 460 103

TABLE 21. IIS ORIENTATIONS TO INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE

IIS Orientations to Inmate Grievance Procedure January: February March April May

166 150 213 161 165

TABLE 22. IIS SPECIAL ASSIGNMENTS, MEETINGS, AND SEMINARS

IIS Special Assignments, Meetings, and Seminars (quantity for the period) Executive Staff Meetings Department Head Meeting In-service training STG Meetings PIT Meetings PACE Meetings Health, Safety, and Fitness Meeting/Training Seminar Serve Safe Class Question and Answer sessions PAM Duty Inspector/Investigator Meeting Public Information Officer Training Auditor meeting WORTH Center ACA Meeting OSU College Tour

7 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

10 1

Inmate complaints through the use of the Inmate Grievance Procedure as found in Administrative Rule 5120-9-31, constitutes an important means of monitoring operations and conditions. In any institution, there should, under normal conditions, be grievances filed. The procedure is designed for inmates to use at will and with confidence that issues

37

will be given some attention and consideration. An extremely low number of grievances over a period of time may actually serve as a cause for concern rather than a positive factor, as it may be an indicator that there is fear of retaliation or lack of confidence in the procedure itself; thus, prompting inmates to avoid using the procedure. The investigation and resolution of grievances is the responsibility of the Institutional Inspector’s office. Historical data received from the adult institutions shows that in 2004, the London Correctional Institution ranked ninth among all adult institutions in the number of grievances filed for the year with a total of 20. The largest number of grievances filed throughout the adult system in 2004 was 60 grievances at Southern Ohio Correctional Facility and the lowest number of grievances filed was zero at four institutions: Correctional Reception Center, Dayton Correctional Institution, North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility, and the Northeast Pre-Release Center. Data provided to CIIC per the Inspector of Institutional Services Complaint Code Lists offers a profile of the types and volume of concerns that were logged as grievances with the Institutional Inspector’s office at London Correctional Institution from January 1, 2005 through May 31, 2006, representing approximately 75% of the 126th General Assembly. This data is shown in the following table.

Table 23. SUBJECT OF GRIEVANCES January 1, 2005 through May 31, 2006

Types and Distribution of Grievances Submitted

To Institutional Inspector at London Correctional Institution Complaint Code Volume

Staff/Inmate Relations – Supervision 43 Personal Property 36 Health Care 32 Inmate Account 17 Staff Accountability 16 Non-Grievable Matters 15 Communications 13 Housing Assignment 7 Safety and Sanitation 6 Job Assignments 4 Laundry/Quartermaster 3 Religious Services 3 Discrimination 3 Food Services 2 Education/Vocational Training 2 Inmate Groups 2 Commissary 2 Library 2 Dental 1 Psychological/Psychiatric Services 1 Recreation 1 Institutional Assignment 1 TOTAL 212 The following table provides the most recent specific grievance activity at London Correctional Institution for the five-month period January 2006 through May 2006.

38

Grievance types are organized under major and minor categories, followed by the specific type of grievance. For each type of grievance, data shows the number filed, followed by the number that were granted and those that were denied. .

TABLE 24. GRIEVANCES FILED WITH SUBJECT AND OUTCOME

January 2006 through May 2006

Category Sub-Category Grievance Grant Deny Total Operations Health Care Access/Delay in receiving medical care 3 3 Operations Health Care Improper/Inadequate medical care 3 3 Operations Health Care Delay/Denial of Medication 1 1 Operations Health Care Medical Co-Pay 1 1 Operations Health Care Medical Aide/Device 1 1 Operations Health Care Other 1 1 Operations Food Service Unsanitary cooking conditions 1 1 Operations Laundry/ Quartermaster Denied Item 2 2 Operations Inmate Account Funds lost/ not posted 5 1 6 Operations Inmate Account Court Order Collection (AR 5120-5-03) 1 1 Operations Inmate Account Improper Charge 1 1 Operations Inmate Account Other 1 1 Operations Personal Property Lost, damaged, confiscated by staff 4 2 6 Operations Personal Property Lost or damaged during transfer 1 1 Operations Personal Property Other 1 1 Programs Education/Vocational Training Other 1 1 Programs Job Assignments Job Removal 1 1 Programs Job Assignments Preferential Treatment 1 1 Programs Religious Services Prevented from worship 1 1 Communications Mail/Packages Delay/Failed delivery 2 2 Communications Mail/Packages Publication Screening 1 1 Communications Mail/Packages Handling of legal mail 1 1 Communications Mail/Packages Denial 1 1 Staff/Inmate Relations Supervision Unprofessional Conduct 1 3 4 Staff/Inmate Relations Supervision Abusive Language 1 2 3 Staff/Inmate Relations Supervision Racial/Ethnic Slurs 1 2 3 Staff/Inmate Relations Supervision Intimidation/Threats 2 2 Staff/Inmate Relations Supervision Retaliation- filing grievance 2 2 Staff/Inmate Relations Supervision Harassment 1 1 2 Staff/Inmate Relations Supervision Other 1 1 Staff/Inmate Relations Staff Accountability Failure to perform job duties 1 1 Custody/Housing Status Inst. Assign. Transfer or Denial 1 1 Custody/Housing Status Housing Assign. Unit Assignment 1 1 Non-Grievable Matters RIB/Hearing Officer NA 4 4 TOTAL 16 48 64 Collectively, institutions report Inmate Grievance Procedure data on a monthly basis as part of the Institutional Inspector’s report. The report includes data relevant to the use of the Informal Complaint Resolution, the number of Notification of Grievances filed, and the Appeals that have been submitted. The profile of an institution’s grievance activity for any given month will reflect the continuous or ongoing nature of the procedure, so there are always some issues that have reached a state of closure and others that are pending. For example, activity associated with the first step of the IGP, the use of the Informal Complaint Resolution (ICR), is reported on a monthly basis and will reflect that part of the ICRs filed that have received responses, while the remainder are still pending, having not yet received a response.

39

Informal Complaint Resolution. The following table displays institutions, ranked in descending order by the volume of the Informal Complaint Resolutions filed for 2005. The statewide average for ICRs filed for the period was 995 per institution. Within each institutional record, the increase or decrease in ICR filings was noted, and the percentage of ICR responses that fell into an untimely response category was also revealed. For the period, London Correctional Institution received a near-average volume of Informal Complaint Resolutions filings, with 1,011, yet recorded the third highest rate of untimely responses to informal complaints with 48% of the responses receiving an untimely reply.

TABLE 25. INFORMAL COMPLAINTS FILED AND HANDLED PER INSTITUTION - 2005

Informal Complaints Filed and Handled per Institution – 2005

Untimely Reponses 2005 Institution

(Ranked by total ICRs filed)

Total ICRs Filed 2005

ICR Filing Increase

or Decrease from 2004

Total ICR

Responses 2005

Total Untimely Responses

% ICR Responses Untimely

Southern Ohio Correctional Facility 3,211 -221 3,777 123 3.3 Ohio Reformatory for Women 2,215 -228 1,301 914 70.0 Ohio State Penitentiary 2,203 +265 1,854 241 13.0 North Central Correctional Institution 2,119 +582 2,119 196 9.2 Marion Correctional Institution 1,919 +794 1,944 309 15.9 Mansfield Correctional Institution 1,813 +120 2,046 134 6.5 Chillicothe Correctional Institution 1,632 +426 787 100 12.7 Lebanon Correctional Institution 1,392 +340 1,447 81 5.6 Madison Correctional Institution 1,316 -55 1,316 68 5.2 Trumbull Correctional Institution 1,084 +44 861 211 25.0 Lake Erie Correctional Institution 1,054 -117 1,183 220 18.6 London Correctional Institution 1,011 -122 808 392 48.5 Grafton Correctional Institution 978 -163 943 35 3.7 Toledo Correctional Institution 942 -211 982 255 26.0 Richland Correctional Institution 899 -79 861 119 13.8 Lorain Correctional Institution 840 -52 672 242 36.0 Ross Correctional Institution 782 +168 641 141 22.0 Noble Correctional Institution 703 -185 703 5 .7 Pickaway Correctional Institution 685 -143 451 137 30.4 Southeastern Correctional Institution 673 +78 536 90 16.8 Warren Correctional Institution 619 -60 619 12 2.0 Allen Correctional Institution 603 +84 603 42 7.0 North Coast Corr. Treatment Facility 581 -164 599 72 12.0 Belmont Correctional Institution 515 -94 482 51 10.6 Correctional Reception Center 457 +240 366 70 19.1 Corrections Medical Center 396 +144 223 119 53.4 Franklin Pre-Release Center 314 -119 247 86 34.8 Northeast Pre-Release Center 278 +21 277 30 10.8 Oakwood Correctional Facility 234 +57 234 29 12.4 Hocking Correctional Facility 142 +80 143 7 4.9 Dayton Correctional Institution 134 +15 109 25 23.0 Montgomery Ed & Pre-Release Center 81 -112 81 6 7.4 TOTAL 31,825 Net +1,333* 29,215 4,562 15.6 In the following table, institutions are ranked according to the percentage of responses to ICRs that are handled in an untimely manner.

40

TABLE 26. UNTIMELY RESPONSES TO 2005 INFORMAL COMPLAINT RESOLUTIONS (ICRs) BY INSTITUTION

Untimely Responses to 2005 Informal Complaint Resolutions (ICR)

(Ranked by % of responses that are untimely) Untimely Responses 2005

Institution % Untimely Responses

Total Untimely Responses

Total ICR Responses

Ohio Reformatory for Women 70.0 914 3,777 Corrections Medical Center 53.4 119 223 London Correctional Institution 48.5 392 808 Lorain Correctional Institution 36.0 242 672 Franklin Pre-Release Center 34.8 86 247 Pickaway Correctional Institution 30.4 137 451 Toledo Correctional Institution 26.0 255 982 Trumbull Correctional Institution 25.0 211 861 Dayton Correctional Institution 23.0 25 109 Ross Correctional Institution 22.0 141 641 Correctional Reception Center 19.1 70 366 Lake Erie Correctional Institution 18.6 220 1,183 Southeastern Correctional Institution 16.8 90 536 Marion Correctional Institution 15.9 309 1,944 Richland Correctional Institution 13.8 119 861 Ohio State Penitentiary 13.0 241 1,854 Chillicothe Correctional Institution 12.7 100 787 Oakwood Correctional Facility 12.4 29 234 North Coast Corr. Treatment Facility 12.0 72 599 Northeast Pre-Release Center 10.8 30 277 Belmont Correctional Institution 10.6 51 482 North Central Correctional Institution 9.2 196 2,119 Montgomery Ed & Pre-Release Center 7.4 6 81 Allen Correctional Institution 7.0 42 603 Mansfield Correctional Institution 6.5 134 2,046 Lebanon Correctional Institution 5.6 81 1,447 Madison Correctional Institution 5.2 68 1,316 Hocking Correctional Facility 4.9 7 143 Grafton Correctional Institution 3.7 35 943 Southern Ohio Correctional Facility 3.3 123 3,777 Warren Correctional Institution 2.0 12 619 Noble Correctional Institution .7 5 703 TOTAL (state average) 15.6 4,562 29,215 As a side note, comparing the approximate number of inmates per institution to the approximate number of Informal Complaint Resolutions filed, data shows that there were approximately two ICRs filed per inmate at the London Correctional Institution in 2005, whereas there were approximately 1.4 ICRs filed per inmate statewide. The institutional average in this case is based on an inmate population of 2,008 as of May 2, 2005 (a mid-point for the year) and a reported volume of 1,011 ICRs for 2005. The state average is based on a statewide population of 43,845 as of May 2, 2005 (the same mid-point) and 31,825 ICRs reported as filed for 2005. The number of Informal Complaint Resolutions that are filed is not necessarily an indication of a greater degree or volume of problems, but may serve as an indicator that the inmates have confidence in the inmate grievance procedure as the proper and effective way to address a problem or issue.

41

Notification of Grievance. Data submitted to CIIC for 2005 reveals that London Correctional Institution ranks eighth in the number of grievances that inmates filed to their respective Institutional Inspectors. The first of the following tables displays statewide distribution of total grievances of all types filed, the number of appeals filed following the dispositions to those grievances, and a subcategory, ‘original’ grievances. Specifically, original grievances are those that register a grievance or complaint against the Warden or the Institutional Inspector and are filed directly to the Chief Inspector, skipping the Informal Complaint Resolution step. The number of original grievances filed within each institution is shown in the second of the following tables for 2005. For 2005, London Correctional Institution ranked 17th in the actual number of original grievances, with 12 original grievances, which represents 4.4% of the total number of grievances filed at the institution that year. The grievances filed at LoCI regarding the Warden or Institutional Inspector was under the state 2005 average of 7.9%.

TABLE 27. GRIEVANCES, APPEALS, AND ORIGINAL GRIEVANCES BY INSTITUTION

2005

Institutional Grievances and Appeals – Institutional Original Grievances --- 2005 Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

Institution

Total

Grievances

Increase or Decrease from 2004

Appeals to Dispositions

of Grievances

Original

Grievances

Inst Population

2005 Southern Ohio Correctional Facility 639 -17 346 84 1,087 Ohio state Penitentiary 519 +76 174 18 559 Lebanon correctional Institution 485 +134 244 21 2,113 Marion Correctional Institution 467 +237 150 59 1,730 Mansfield Correctional Institution 420 -27 153 17 2,197 North Central Correctional Institution 291 -55 112 28 2,303 Warren Correctional Institution 274 -21 108 19 1,057 London Correctional institution 272 +108 59 12 2,077 Allen Correctional Institution 268 -3 119 24 1,298 Pickaway Correctional Institution 264 -27 81 12 1,913 Madison Correctional Institution 253 -54 129 28 2,013 Ohio Reformatory for Women 246 -47 66 7 1,849 Grafton Correctional Institution 246 -35 98 11 1,414 Chillicothe Correctional Institution 234 -44 113 34 2,717 Ross Correctional Institution 211 +83 105 8 2,220 Toledo Correctional Institution 205 -60 90 21 750 Richland Correctional Institution 192 -13 51 11 2,306 Noble Correctional Institution 179 -68 48 6 2,303 Trumbull Correctional Institution 146 -60 57 28 1,234 Southeastern Correctional Institution 91 +14 22 12 1,437 Correctional Reception Center 89 +46 19 2 1,787 Lake Erie Correctional Institution 88 -45 40 7 1,473 Lorain Correctional Institution 82 -7 13 6 1,704 Belmont Correctional Institution 77 -11 24 15 2,495 Corrections Medical Center 74 +30 40 12 118 Hocking Correctional Facility 49 +36 31 0 463 North Coast Correctional Treatment Fac. 48 +2 17 3 602 Oakwood Correctional Facility 23 +10 4 0 114 Dayton Correctional Institution 16 +7 3 0 420 Northeast Pre-Release Center 15 +4 4 0 565 Franklin Pre-Release Center 13 +1 5 0 474 Montgomery Educ & Pre-Release Center 8 -13 0 0 337 TOTAL 6,484 +181 2,525 510 45,129

42

TABLE 28. ORIGINAL GRIEVANCES – RANKED BY INSTITUTION - 2005

Original Grievances – Ranked by Institution - 2005 Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

Institution Original Grievances in 2005 Southern Ohio Correctional Facility 84 Marion Correctional Institution 59 Chillicothe Correctional Institution 34 North Central Correctiona l Institution 28 Madison Correctional Institution 28 Trumbull Correctional Institution 28 Allen Correctional Institution 24 Lebanon Correctional Institution 21 Toledo Correctional Institution 21 Warren Correctional Institution 19 Ohio State Penitentiary 18 Mansfield Correctional Institution 17 Pickaway Correctional Institution 17 Belmont Correctional Institution 15 Corrections Medical Center 12 Southeastern Correctional Institution 12 London Correctional Institution 12 Grafton Correctional Institution 11 Richland Correctional Institution 11 Ross Correctional Institution 8 Lake Erie Correctional Institution 7 Ohio Reformatory for Women 7 Noble Correctional Institution 6 Lorain Correctional Institution 6 North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility 3 Correctional Reception Center 2 Hocking Correctional Facility 0 Montgomery Education and Pre-Release Center 0 Oakwood Correctional Facility 0 Franklin Pre-Release Center 0 Northeast Pre-Release Center 0 Dayton Correctional Institution 0 TOTAL 510

43

Appeals. The grievance procedure incorporates an opportunity for inmates to appeal the Inspector’s ‘disposition’ of a grievance as the third step that they can take in the procedure. The appeal is submitted to the Chief Inspector at the ODRC Central Office. Upon considering the appeal, the Chief Inspector makes a ‘decision,’ which is final. The following table provides a ranking of institutions according to the volume of appeals that were submitted to the Chief Inspector’s office in Columbus, followed by the percentage of grievance dispositions that were appealed. London Correctional Institution ranked 16th in 2005 in volume of appeals submitted with 59, which represents 21.7% of the 272 grievance dispositions rendered. The volume of appeals at the London institution in 2005 was approximately 8.3% lower than the statewide average of 39% of grievance dispositions being appealed by inmates in that year. The following table displays statewide activity in 2005 in the area of appeals to dispositions. TABLE 29. APPEALS TO DISPOSITIONS OF GRIEVANCES – RANKED BY VOLUME PER INSTITUTION - 2005

Appeals to Dispositions of Grievances – 2005

Institution

Appeals

% of Dispositions of Appealed Grievances

Total Grievances

Southern Ohio Correctional Facility 346 54.1 639 Lebanon Correctional Institution 244 50.3 485 Ohio State Penitentiary 174 33.5 519 Mansfield Correction Institution 153 36.4 420 Marion Correctional Institution 150 32.1 467 Madison Correctional Institution 129 51.0 253 Allen Correctional Institution 119 44.4 268 Chillicothe Correctional Institution 113 48.3 234 North Central Correctional Institution 112 38.5 291 Warren Correctional Institution 108 39.4 274 Ross Correctional Institution 105 49.8 211 Grafton Correctional Institution 98 39.8 246 Toledo Correctional Institution 90 44.0 205 Pickaway Correctional Institution 81 30.7 264 Ohio Reformatory for Women 66 26.8 246 London Correctional Institution 59 21.7 272 Trumbull Correctional Institution 57 39.0 146 Richland Correctional Institution 51 26.6 192 Noble Correctional Institution 48 26.8 179 Lake Erie Correctional Institution 40 45.5 88 Corrections Medical Center 40 54.1 74 Hocking Correctional Facility 31 63.2 49 Belmont Correctional Institution 24 31.2 77 Southeastern Correctional Institution 22 24.2 91 Correctional Reception Center 19 21.3 89 North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility

17 35.4 48

Lorain Correctional Institution 13 15.9 82 Franklin Pre-Release Center 5 38.5 13 Oakwood Correctional Facility 4 17.4 23 Northeast Pre-Release Center 4 26.7 15 Dayton Correctional Institution 3 18.8 16 Montgomery Education and Pre-Release Center

0 0.0 8

TOTAL 2,525 39.0 average 6,4840

44

Chief Inspector Report and Investigator Report. Separate from the data submitted to the CIIC office from the Institutional Inspector’s office within each institution, institutional data is also contained in the Annual Report of the Office of the Chief Inspector. The following tables offer a summary or profile of the inmate grievance procedure and types of investigations that were conducted for 2005. This information reflects the types of issues and concerns that were brought to administrative attention, the pace with which the se concerns received attention, the presence of internal self- inspection, the forms and frequency of internal communications, and the number of inmates who received orientation to the Inmate Grievance Procedure. TABLE 30. SUMMARY OF INMATE GRIEVANCE P ROCEDURE – LONDON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION - 2005

Summary of Inmate Grievance Procedure Data – 2005 – London Correctional Institution

Office of the Chief Inspector – Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections Number and Rate of Grievances, Appeals, and Original Grievances

Population (1/3/06) 2,077 Total Grievances 272 Total Inmates Who Filed Grievances 204 Rate of Inmates Filing Grievances 9.8 Appeals 59 Rate of Appeals 21.7 Original Grievances 12

Informal Complaint Numbers and Compliance Rates Total Informal Complaint Resolutions Filed 1,011 ICR Responses 808 Untimely Responses 392 Compliance Rate 51.5 Institutional Investigators work as counterparts to the Institutional Inspectors. Rather than the institutional facilities and procedures, which are the province of the Inspectors, Investigators are generally focused on investigating illegal substances, assaults, or professional misconduct. Investigators may also monitor Security Threat Group (STG, aka “gang”) activity. The following table ranks the types of investigations by the volume initiated by the Investigator during 2005 at London Correctional Institution.

TABLE 31. INVESTIGATOR CASELOADS BY TYPE OF INVESTIGATION - 2005

Investigator Caseloads by Type of Investigation - 2005 - London Correctional Institution

Type of Investigation Begin Initiate Closed End Positive Urinalysis 0 18 18 0 Other Investigations (i.e. background checks) 0 16 16 0 Assault (inmate on inmate) 0 12 12 0 Drugs (other) 0 10 10 0 Staff Misconduct 0 5 4 1 Drugs (mail/packages) 1 4 5 0 Staff/Inmate relationship 0 4 4 0 Drugs (staff/inmate) O 3 2 1 Drugs (inmate/visitor) 1 1 1 1 Assault (inmate on staff) 0 1 1 0 Sexual Assault 0 1 1 0

45

Drugs (staff) 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 2 87 86 3 Other miscellaneous London Correctional Institution Investigator functions and activities for 2005 are shown in the following table. TABLE 32. INVESTIGATOR SEARCHES, SHAKEDOWNS, DRUGS, AND ALCOHOL CONFISCATED - 2005

Investigator Searches, Shakedowns, Drugs, and Alcohol Confi scated --- 2005 London Correctional Institution

Type of Action or Substance Quantity or Frequency Marijuana (Grams) 185.5 Illicit Pills 3.5 Major Shakedown 3 Heroin (Grams) 2.3 Canine Search 2 Employee Strip/Pat Down 1 Visitor Strip/Pat Down 0 Crack/Cocaine (Grams) 0 Hooch* (Gallons) 0

INSTITUTIONAL INSPECTION – BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS INSTITUTIONAL ENTRY The entry at the inspection was quick and brief through the main entrance, with routine sign-in, badge-check, and passage through the metal detector. The Warden met CIIC staff and escorted staff to the Warden’s conference room. The inspection at London Correctional Institution included the main compound within the fenced stockade. The grounds comprising the farm operation were not included in the inspection. MAIN COMPOUND The inspection of the institution began with a walk through the hallway connecting the entrance building to the main compound. The hallway, known as the ‘great hall,’ is where administrative offices are located. Beyond the administrative area and hallway is a large open 2-story area from which there are entrances to Oak A and B inmate dorms and also an ‘air door’ (like an air curtain) leading onto the yard. Occasionally, birds fly into the area and create a sanitation problem. The ceiling in this area is in great need of repair for peeling paint. The Warden indicated that capital money is being sought through the Controlling Board to fund these repairs. CIIC proceeded through a Courtyard toward the Medical Services Unit and to other areas of operation and the housing units. The Courtyard was well-maintained by 20 yard workers on staff. Outgoing mail and kite mailboxes are located in the middle of the walkway between the housing unit and the dining hall. SECURITY SYSTEM AND INSTITUTION SAFETY The security system in place at London Correctional Institution is the spider system that requires each staff person to wear a security device that sends a signal to the Control Room if or when there is a ‘man down.’ The signal emitted from the spider devices is picked up by sensors/cameras that are installed on the ceilings in central locations.

46

Sensors can pick up signals within a 30-foot radius. There are reportedly 32 cameras in the public areas throughout the institution and additional cameras in the housing units, food services, educational unit, and segregation. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES The administrative offices line both sides of the ‘great hall,’ an area between the entrance complex and Warden’s office and the large complex of buildings and grounds that comprise the remainder of the institution. The hallways of the area were painted with original inmate artwork. It was relayed that this ‘gallery’ represents a space of personal pride for the inmates who have contributed to it. VISITATION AREA The visitor’s area includes vending machines, some semi-private spaces, some tables and groups of chairs, and separate restrooms. In addition to visitation privileges, inmates have the opportunity to communicate with their families and friends by telephone. Currently, the state of Ohio is researching possible options to provide phone service to inmates at a lower cost compared to the current and previous telephone arrangement. MEDICAL SERVICES UNIT Medical and Dental Services. The Medical Services Unit employs one full-time Physician, one full- time Medical/Nurse Practitioner, and currently, two part-time Dentists. The unit is budgeted for one full- time Dentist. The medical physician is on-call during the week and on weekends. There are currently seven vacancies on the medical staff; and it is reportedly difficult to get nurses to accept employment. Reportedly, one inmate was being kept in the infirmary at the time of the inspection, having been the victim of a minor gang-related assault. Another inmate had been kept in the infirmary for several months awaiting transfer to Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, following an assault in August 2005, which was fatal to inmate Larry Warwick. The assailant was tried and convicted of involuntary manslaughter. It has long been CIIC’s understanding that infirmary cells are not to be used for non-medical purposes except for brief emergency situations. It is therefore not understood why the assailant was held in the infirmary for many months, rather than transferred to a higher security institution or maintained elsewhere in segregation pending court proceedings. At the inspection, the medical unit was very clean. Staff reported that there is a low incidence of infections, which they attribute to the overall cleanliness of the institution. The area is large compared to some other institutions, having six examination/infirmary rooms with solid walls and private doors, two crisis rooms, and a chronic care room (office) for conferences and counseling. Two of the infirmary cells have reverse airflow.

47

Recent data provided to CIIC from London Correctional Institution’s Health Care Services for a representative three-month period of March through May 2006 reveals activity as shown in the following table. TABLE 33. HEALTH CARE SERVICES – MARCH THROUGH MAY 2006

Health Care Services – March through May 2006

London Correctional Institution March April May 3-mo Average

Deaths - expected 0 0 0 0 Deaths – unexpected 1 0 0 0 Suicides 0 0 0 0 Homicides 0 0 0 0 At Local Hospital 0 0 0 0 At OSU 0 0 0 0 At CMC 0 0 0 0 Injuries – by fire (i.e. kitchen injury) 0 0 1 0 Injuries – by other means 16 14 16 15 Used Bed Days - Medical 46 24 16 29 Used Bed Days – Mental 3 0 0 1 Used Bed Days – Security 4 0 0 1 Air Flights 0 0 0 0 Mortality Review Cases 0 0 0 0 Kites 64 40 66 57 Informal Complaints 36 18 21 25 Infirmary Admissions 7 11 4 7 Total AMA (against medical advice/inmate refuses treatment) 0 0 0 0 Total Beds 10 10 10 10 Total Bed Days 310 300 310 310 Recruiting Activities NA NA NA NA The two crisis rooms or safe cells in the medical unit have full-view doors and a soft bed. The crisis rooms are monitored continuously when an inmate is placed in them, with a Corrections Officer posted with the inmate. Inmates placed in a crisis room in the Medical Services Unit are not cuffed, but dependent upon the decision of the mental health professional, they may be issued suicide gowns. Otherwise, the inmate remains in his regular clothing issue. The crisis cells in the infirmary are in addition to the crisis cells that exist in the segregation unit. Inmates taking medications are given a pass to Pill Call. Medications are issued through the pill call window, except in segregation, where medications are delivered to inmates in their cells. Of the total population, approximately 300-350 inmates go to pill call to receive medications. It was relayed that some inmates manipulate medical services for medical attention. One of the most common medical complaints is reportedly back pain. The unit has two dental chairs in a separate dental clinic (room set aside for only dental work), a locked medical records office, and a large poster in the central area of the unit that displays the specific Administrative Rule pertaining to inmate co-pays on services rendered. Staff relayed that there may be a wait list of several weeks for dental care.

48

Mental Health Services. At the inspection, CIIC met the Mental Health Administrator. Mental Health Services operates within the Medical Services department. Reportedly, there are no current vacancies among mental health staff. The section that is dedicated to mental health services consists of four group rooms, two treatment rooms, two screening rooms, three psychologist/psychiatrist/administrative offices, and a Recovery Services room. The group rooms have schedules posted on each door. Groups like Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous meet on certain evenings each week, for example. At the time of the inspection, there were approximately 318 inmates on the mental health caseload, with approximately 105 identified as C1, approximately 145 identified as C2, and approximately 65+ identified as C3. Approximately 250 inmates on the caseload were receiving medications on an outpatient basis. The ODRC Policies that effectively define the essential and initial mental health services to the inmate may be found in 67-MNH-03 on Mental Health Evaluation, 67-MNH-06 on Mental Health Screening, 67-MNH—08 on Mental Health Services Orientation, 67-MNH-11 on Mental Health Classification, and 67-MNH-15 on Treatment Planning. A comparison of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s various policies on mental health and available information regarding mental health services at London Correctional Institution reveals that the institution appears to be compliant with policies. The above policies include provisions for inmate evaluation, screening, orientation, classification, and treatment planning. When these policies are appropriately carried out, the inmate receives screening initially at intake and also subsequent to intake through a more comprehensive screening from only certain qualified mental health staff within specific time frames. The inmate also receives a mental health evaluation by only qualified mental health professionals. In addition, inmates receive an orientation to all the mental health services that are available to them during their confinement and the means of accessing these services. Further, inmates receive a treatment plan that documents (outlines) a course of treatment, which must include a Five-Axes diagnosis, specific problems, goals, measurable objectives, staff identified as responsible for interventions, target dates, and outcomes. In addition to the previously mentioned policies, other policies provide for more specific forms of mental health services. The Total Mental Health Caseload within the institutions is comprised of mental health classifications termed C1, C2 and C3. An inmate classified as C1 is on the psychiatric caseload and has serious mental illness or SMI. Those classified as C2 are also on the psychiatric caseload, but they are not SMI. The criteria used to designate SMI includes a substantial disorder of thought or mood, which significantly impairs judgment, behavior, the capacity to recognize reality or cope with the ordinary demands of life within the prison environment, and has manifested by the presence of substantial pain or disability. A SMI designation requires a mental health diagnosis, prognosis, and appropriate treatment by the mental health staff, including psychiatric care.

49

An inmate classified as C2 is on the psychiatric caseload, but does not meet the criteria for the most severe or deemed to have a serious mental illness, thus is considered to be non-SMI. The C2 inmate receives mental health care and supportive services, which include the prescription and monitoring of medication, individual and group counseling and therapy, crisis intervention, and behavior management. Last, an inmate classified as C3 receives no psychiatric treatment, but receives group or individual counseling, therapy, and skill building services. The C3 inmate has a mental health diagnosis and treatment plan and is treated by the mental health staff other than the psychiatrist. Total Mental Health Caseload is, therefore, the sum of C1s, C2s, and C3s. According to data reflecting the months of January through May 2006 for the adult institutions and submitted to CIIC from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, London Correctional Institution ranks 22nd among adult correctional institutions for the percent of institutional inmate population who are on the Mental Health Caseload. The London institution’s monthly average for the period was 326 inmates or 15.2% of the total institution population on the Mental Health Caseload. For the same five-month period, London Correctional Institution ranked 13th among the adult institutions for the number of inmates housed in segregation, taken from those inmates on the Mental Health Caseload. London Correctional Institution averaged 13 inmates per month or 4% of Mental Health Caseload being placed in segregation per month during the five-month period. The following tables display the percent of the monthly average institutional population who were on the psychiatric caseload, the percent of the institutional population who were on the mental health caseload, and the monthly average of the mental health caseload who were housed in segregation. Data reflects inmate status for the recent five-month period of January 2006 through May 2006 at London Correctional Institution. The following sequence of tables allows for a statewide view of mental health services delivered to inmates in the adult system over the recent period of January through May 2006.

50

TABLE 34. PERCENT OF MONTHLY AVERAGE ON PSYCHIATRIC CASELOAD BY INSTITUTION PERCENT of MONTHLY AVERAGE INSTITUTIONAL POPULATION on PSYCHIATRIC CASELO AD -- January – May 2006

Institution

Percent of Monthly

Average Institutional

Population on Psychiatric Caseload (C1 + C2)

Jan 2006

Feb 2006

Mar 2006

Apr 2006

May 2006

5 Month Total on

Psychiatric Caseload

Monthly Average

on Psychiatric Caseload

Monthly Average

Institutional Population

Oakwood Correctional Facility

47.7

51

49

59

50

0

209

42

110*

Ohio Reformatory for Women

44.0

692

697

711

749

747

4288

858

1951

Franklin Pre-Release Center

42.1

208

216

211

203

204

1042

208

494

Northeast Pre-Release Center

39.4

214

214

237

231

234

1130

226

573

Corrections Medical Center

30.8

35

39

39

38

33

184

37

120

Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

27.9

314

320

311

308

314

1567

313

1122

Hocking Correctional Facility

22.7

107

107

107

108

104

533

107

472

Warren CI 21.7 227 224 227 229 223 1130 226 1043 Allen CI 21.3 284 278 281 280 286 1409 282 1321 Trumbull CI 20.5 268 264 269 264 278 1343 269 1314 Southeastern CI 18.1 257 269 265 258 260 1309 262 1447 Chillicothe CI 18.1 364 512 528 560 550 2514 503 2776 Belmont CI 16.5 406 397 399 383 395 1980 396 2404 Pickaway CI 16.0 325 314 315 337 314 1605 321 2003 Mansfield CI 15.6 339 342 348 344 343* 1716* 343* 2205* Richland CI 14.6 336 322 336 357 366 1717 343 2352 Correctional Reception Center

14.2

238

267

286

252

257

1300

260

1832

North Central CI 13.5 298 297 303 312 322 1532 306 2272 Madison CI 13.4 280 275 258 244 272 1329 266 1985 Marion CI 12.8 210 219 226 245 240 1140 228 1777 Lebanon CI 12.6 260 275 270 274 281 1360 272 2163 Noble CI 12.2 292 286 280 270 272 1400 280 2295 Grafton CI 12.1 166 169* 171 169* 169* 337* 169* 1399 London CI 11.8 273 259 247 247 247 1273 255 2150 Toledo CI 11.6 86 86 94 94 104 464 93 800 Lake Erie CI 11.4 163 168 170 169 161 831 166 1457 Ross CI 10.6 231 242 228 241 248 1190 238 2249 North Coast Correctional Treatment Center

8.0

52

53

48

47

0

200

40

625*

Lorain CI 7.8 48 136 167 158 158 667 133 1706 Ohio State Penitentiary

3.6

17

20

23

20

21

101

20

554

Dayton CI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 417 Montgomery Education and Pre-Release Center

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

334

TOTAL

16.3

7041

7316*

7414

7441*

7403*

36,615*

7462*

45,722*

The * indicates an inst itutional entry or average total derived by using a calculated average due to incomplete institutional data available at the time of the report.

51

TABLE 35. PERCENT OF INSTITUTIONAL POPULATION ON MENTAL HEALTH CASELOAD BY INSTITUTION

PERCENT of INSTITUTIONAL POPULATION on MENTAL HEALTH CASELOAD January – May 2006

Institution

Percent

of Institutional Population on Mental

Health Caseload

(C1+C2+C3)

Jan 2006

Feb 2006

Mar 2006

Apr 2006

May 2006

5-Month Total of

Inmates on Mental Health

Caseload

Monthly

Average of Inmates on

Mental Health

Caseload

Monthly Average Inmate

Population

Oakwood Correctional Facility

48.2*

52

50

60

51

53*

266

53*

110*

Northeast Pre-Release Center 47.3 264 264 279 269 278 1354 271 573 Franklin Pre-Release Center 44.7 221 226 221 217 218 1103 221 494 Ohio Reformatory for Women

43.0

803

812

831

872

872

4190

838

1951

Corrections Medical Center 30.8 35 39 39 38 33 184 37 120 Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

29.2

331

338

326

322

322

1639

328

1122

Allen CI 23.8 320 313 313 311 315 1572 314 1321 Warren CI 22.9 243 237 239 241 236 1196 239 1043 Hocking Correctional Facility 22.7 107 107 108 109 105 536 107 472 Trumbull CI 22.6 288 290 301 292 315 1486 297 1314 Mansfield CI 20.5* 461 456 452 439 450 2258 452 2205* Belmont CI 19.9 482 463 477 478 496 2396 479 2404 Southeastern CI 19.6 273 293 286 278 288 1418 284 1447 Chillicothe CI 19.3 395 542 559 595 590 2681 536 2776 Pickaway CI 16.7 343 326 333 346 323 1671 334 2003 Richland CI 16.4 378 362 379 395 410 1924 385 2352 Lebanon CI 16.4 342 356 355 356 365 1774 355 2163 Madison CI 16.4 334 333 319 312 331 1629 326 1985 North Coast Correctional Treatment Center

16.0*

108

109

91

92

100*

500

100*

625*

Marion CI 15.8 256 269 278 300 300 1403 281 1777 Noble CI 15.2 364 354 353 341 333 1745 349 2295 London CI 15.2 335 315 317 332 330 1629 326 2150 North Central CI 15.0 336 335 333 341 358 1703 341 2272 Correctional Reception Center

14.9

251

281

299

267

269

1367

273

1832

Ross CI 14.8 314 337 328 341 346 1666 333 2249 Toledo CI 14.8 107 112 121 122 130 592 118 800 Grafton CI 13.8* 189 193* 197 193* 193* 965 193* 1399 Lake Erie CI 12.8 182 186 189 188 183 928 186 1457 Lorain CI 11.2 60 169 226 223 276 954 191 1706 Ohio State Penitentiary 5.2 25 29 31 28 30 143 29 554 Dayton CI 0 0 0 0 4 4 8 2 417 Montgomery Education and Pre-Release Center

0

0

0

4

4

3

11

2

334

TOTAL 18.8* 8199 8496* 8644 8697* 8855* 42,891* 8580* 45,722* The * indicates an institutional entry or average total derived by using a calculated average due to incomplete institutional data available at the time of the report.

52

TABLE 36. MONTHLY AVERAGE OF MENTAL HEALTH CASELOAD INMATES IN SEGREG ATION BY INSTITUTION

MONTHLY AVERAGE of MENTAL HEALTH CASELOAD INMATES in SEGREGATION January - May 2006

Institution

Monthly Average of Mental Health

Caseload in Segregation

Jan 2006

Feb 2006

Mar 2006

Apr 2006

May 2006

5-Month Total in

Segregation

Monthly Average

Total Mental Health

Caseload

Percent of Monthly Average

Mental Health Caseload in Segregation

Ohio Reformatory for Women 54 42 60 71 47 52 272 838 14.1 Lebanon CI 34 37 30 28 30 44 169 355 9.6 Ross CI 33 29 31 30 35 42 167 333 10.0 Chillicothe CI 26 26 28 23 23 30 130 536 4.9 Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

26

18

22

32

28

29

129

328

7.9

Southeastern CI 24 23 23 24 28 22 120 284 8.5 Warren CI 23 21 20 27 22 23 113 239 9.6 North Central CI 21 17 11 6 71 0 105 341 6.2 Mansfield CI 16 19 21 17 21 0 78 452 3.5 Noble CI 15 23 11 14 16 10 74 349 4.3 Lake Erie CI 14 11 18 18 14 10 71 186 7.5 London CI 13 0 20 11 18 18 67 326 4.0 Allen CI 12 11 19 13 4 11 58 314 3.8 Marion CI 12 13 9 9 18 13 62 281 4.3 Trumbull CI 12 11 14 12 9 13 59 297 4.0 Pickaway CI 11 12 15 9 15 6 57 334 3.3 Richland CI 11 15 9 7 8 16 55 385 2.9 Belmont CI 10 16 14 6 9 7 52 479 2.1 Toledo CI 9 8 9 8 10 11 46 118 7.6 Correctional Reception Center 6 6 4 5 13 4 32 273 2.2 North Coast Correctional Treatment Center

4

4

6

7

3

0

20

100*

4.0

Grafton CI 4 12 0 9 0 0 21 193* 2.1 Lorain CI 4 1 7 2 3 9 22 191 2.1 Northeast Pre-Release Center 4 3 6 4 5 0 18 271 1.5 Madison CI 4 0 0 0 7 14 21 326 1.2 Hocking Correctional Facility 2 2 2 3 1 3 11 107 1.9 Franklin Pre-Release Center 2 5 3 0 0 3 11 221 1.0 Corrections Medical Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 Dayton CI 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 Montgomery Education and Pre-Release Center

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

Oakwood Correctional Facility 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53* 0 Ohio State Penitentiary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0

TOTAL 406 385 412 395 458 391 2,041 8580* 4.7 The * indicates an institutional monthly entry or monthly total derived by using the calculated monthly average for select months in certain institutions due to incomplete institutional data available at the time of the report.

At the time of the inspection, approximately 80-85% of inmates on the mental health caseload were reportedly receiving psychological medications in the form of psychotropic medications, which are most commonly given for anti-anxiety symptoms. According to the staff, a frequently prescribed medication is Altram or Neurotin for mental disturbances and pain or anti-anxiety.

53

The Mental Health department is fully staffed with ten mental health staff available at all times and a psychologist, who is on call throughout weekends and who also serves the mental health needs for Madison Correctional Institution. Mental health staff relayed that the purpose of their unit is to enable inmates to remain stable in general population. When an inmate is transferred to the RTU, it is to stabilize him so that he may return to general population. Staff also relayed that the most common mental problems among the London inmates are bipolar and depression. Also seen with some degree of frequency is schizophrenia, especially as manifested in the hearing of voices. The psychiatrist is in the institution three days per week and sees approximately 22-26 inmates each of the three days. Mental health staff are mandated to make rounds in the Segregation Unit once per week, but staff relayed that they make rounds to Segregation almost daily. The inmates in the Segregation Unit reportedly engage in communication with the mental health staff from their segregation cells. Staff relayed that while there have been some inmates at the London Correctional Institution who were transferred to the Residential Treatment Unit (RTU) at Allen Correctional Institution, it is not common. In cases where there is concern about a suicide or an attempted suicide, the inmate is referred to the mental health staff immediately. The last completed suicide at London Correctional Institution reportedly occurred in December 2004. Prior to 2004, there was a suicide in 2001. Data held in the CIIC database reveal that there were two attempted suicides in calendar year 2005. The Quarterly Report for the First Quarter of 2006 published that there were 323 inmates on the mental health caseload for the quarter, 113 inmates identified with seriously mentally ill (SMI) status, four suicide watches, but no suicide attempts, and one inmate was transferred to a Residential Treatment Unit (RTU). One single mental health services issue or concern was brought to CIIC attention during the inspection, that the psychology staff are reportedly called to do more administrative work than hands-on work, thus time for hands-on care of inmates is reportedly compromised. CIIC staff meet with the DRC Chief of the Bureau of Mental Health Services on a quarterly basis. The issue cited at London Correctional Institution has been relayed by staff at other institutions previously, and has been discussed with the Bureau Chief. FOOD SERVICES Dining Hall. The inmate dining room is arranged with two serving lines in the center of the hall with four-seat steel bolted tables on both sides of the hall, with total seating for 326 inmates. One side can seat up to 178 inmates and the other side can seat up to 148 inmates. There is a steel rail divider in the center of the hall. Inmates enter the dining hall by unit and pick up trays that are fully prepared, except for the drink cup, which is added at the end of the line. Inmates pass through the line and take next-available seating. During meal periods, ten staff, including three assigned Correctional Officers and additional kitchen staff, are usually present. The officers manage seating so that inmates

54

find a seat quickly and the flow is maintained. The employee dining room is in a separate room adjacent to the inmates dining hall. The condition of the dining hall appeared clean, yet there was some orange drink observed on the floor. The kitchen staff including the food servers in the line, were wearing hairnets. At the inspection, CIIC staff members were met by the Food Services Coordinator. Food services include meal menu planning for 8-week periods, with vegetarian menus also available. Staff relayed that the menu that is created in the Central Office is followed in the institution, unless an ordering, shipping, or availability issue causes a substitution to be necessary. One inmate noted during the meal period that the current menus offer much less protein and more carbohydrates than it contained in previous years. He indicated that the portions were adequate, but while the quality was acceptable, it could be better. Kitchen. The kitchen contained five coolers and three freezers. The contents within each unit are kept at quantities so that whenever they have a malfunction, all contents may be relocated into an operating unit. The temperatures in the coolers and freezers are checked three times daily. Temperatures in the coolers are maintained at 32-40 degrees and temperatures in the freezers are held at zero to –10 degrees. There is reportedly no backup generator for the kitchen equipment. At the inspection, ground beef was in the thawing stage in one of the coolers. Frozen quantities of meat are thawed at 32 degrees no longer than 24-32 hours and nothing is kept in the cooler for more than three days. The thawing process requires that meat packages be placed on large steel trays to catch blood that is rendered as it thaws. The use of trays assures that no blood drips onto the floor, which could cause safety and sanitation issues. The cooler also contained rolling carts with multiple shelves containing components of upcoming meals, including breaded fish portions and ‘hot-pocket’ bundles. At the inspection, one corner of the plastic wrap covering one tray of the ‘hot-pockets’ had fallen away from the food, leaving a few of the items exposed to the open air. At the inspection, all equipment was in working order except the patty machine and an industrial sanitizer machine (dishwasher) for kitchen equipment, which were reportedly broken. The sanitizer machine was reportedly scheduled for replacement during the following week. During the interim period, the inmates working in the kitchen were using a manual method of washing and sterilizing the kitchen equipment and racks used in food preparation. A sanitizer solution, Saniclutt, was being used to sanitize equipment. At the inspection, four kitchen porters were continuously maintaining the floor by mopping water spillage, especially near the four 30-gallon kettles that are used for heating large quantities of water in the preparation of large quantities of liquid-based meal components. The current painted concrete kitchen floor appeared clean, albeit damp

55

in certain areas. Staff relayed that the floor is scheduled for renovation through installation of an Epoxy coating that is applied as a semi- liquid and hardens to a durable surface. All kitchen tools are stored in a locked tool room using the chit shadow method. Knives and other sharp or bladed tools are used only with identification badge check- in and check-out. Sign-out sheets are in place. Also stored in four locked rooms are dry ingredients, spices and seasoning components, and records of kitchen operations. Staff relayed that dry ingredients are not kept for more than six months and that anything that could be used to make hooch is kept locked. Boxes are stored up to 18 inches from the ceiling, allowing for air circulation. The kitchen records are kept for a period of three years and include the daily logs that show temperature checks of coolers and freezers and copies of the menus and meals served. Reportedly, there was an incident approximately six months ago when a field mouse got into one of the dry storage rooms when winter weather set in, but it was caught and the situation has not reoccurred. The staff that is in place during meal preparation periods includes three Corrections Officers, six food Preparation Coordinators, one Manager I of Food Services, and the Director of Food Services. OHIO PENAL INDUSTRIES (OPI) London Correctional Institution operates three shops under the Ohio Penal Industries (OPI). The three OPI shops include a garment factory, a brush factory, and a dental laboratory. Garment Factory. The garment plant is operated in one of the older separate-standing brick buildings on the institution’s campus. The area consists of a large open room containing sewing machines that are powered electrically from drop cords. The Operations Manager reported that 90 – 100 inmates are employed in the daily operations, with most of them operating the sewing machines. At the inspection, there were 56 white inmates and 35 black inmates employed in the plant. Inmates may begin work in the plant with no experience and gain skills through their employment. Behind a fenced area on the floor, there are bolts of fabric held in storage and cut as needed. Tools are kept in a locked tool cage using the chit shadow method. The Manager has a locked office at one end of the floor. Corrections Officers also staff the area during the daily shift. There is only a single day shift and no other shifts in operation. The single shift produces nearly all basic garments worn by inmates across the state in the adult system and in the youth facilities. According to the Self-Audit Report of 2005, the garment factory established a goal of expanding operations into the production of all patches, hats, and badges for the Ohio

56

Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections through the use of a new embroidery system. The workday for the garment plant begins at 7:30 am, breaks for lunch from 10:30 to 12:00, and ends at 2:30 pm. Inmate employees must have a high school diploma or a GED. Inmate pay ranges from 27 cents per hour at grade five to 42 cents per hour at grade one, or $40 to $85 per month, dependent upon the pay grade of their work in the plant. One inmate relayed at the inspection that the pay was inadequate. The only reported issue of concern in the garment plant pertained to staff resentment over an appointment that created stress among the staff and had an impact on the overall operations. The inmates were reportedly aware of the strife among staff. It was noted that a mediation team was brought in to deal with the situation, which has been resolved. At the inspection, it was noted that the ceilings in the garment plant were in need of scraping and repainting. The existing paint is peeling. Reportedly, this repair has been noted and the institution is awaiting funds to cover the cost. “Old Soaphouse.” The building known as the ‘Old Soaphouse’ contains the OPI brush plant and the OPI dental lab. This building is an old brick building that was formerly used to make soap. Since the 1980s, soap has been made at SCI. The old building has a history and represents an older architecture with very large paned windows looking onto the institution’s stockade. The environment within the space was very bright and actually inviting on the sunny day of the inspection. There are three floors in the building, with brush operations on the first floor, dental lab on the second floor, and both brush and dental on the third floor. CIIC inspected the first and second floors. The visibility on the first floor of the building appeared to be low. There are very wide ‘pillars’ down the middle of the floor, which cause considerable areas to be out of direct view at certain angles. The absence of mirrors, except for one, adds to the loss of line-of-sight and the creation of blind spots. The “walls” of floor-to-ceiling steel fence, installed with locking gates, somewhat offsets the lack of visibility to some of the open areas, as the fence segments the openness of the floor. In addition to what were regarded as blind spots, the old stairwell, with its three-story open shaft down the center, appeared to present a potential safety concern. The building was acknowledged to be somewhat of a ‘supervision concern’. It was suggested that the addition of some form of grilled column might be given consideration as a means of making the open stairwell shaft more secure. One renovation relevant to the building’s safety is the effective manner in which restrooms have been modified. Simply, the restroom areas are encircled by a tiled outer half-wall that surrounds the stalls. Thus, a version of full privacy is provided without sacrificing the security of the area. Brush Factory. The brush plant is considered to be one of the state’s industrial training programs and produces all of the brushes and mops used by state agencies in Ohio. “Walls” of steel fence with locks enclose the first floor area occupied by the brush

57

factory. The brush factory operations are under the management of an OPI Plant Manager, who has a locked office separate from the production area. Staff relayed that the staff to inmate ratio on a typical day is three staff to 100 inmates. If there is a shortage of staff on a given day, the inmates work only on the first floor so that all inmates in the operation are under direct supervision. Inmates are not permitted to leave the floor without staff supervision. . At the inspection, the brush production factory was engaged in the production of large brushes for use on street cleaner trucks. There are three assembly lines in place on the first floor; and three additional lines reportedly operate on the third floor. Each line engages approximately 10-13 inmates in the production of the brushes. Each inmate has an assigned function in the assembly process. Inmates assume positions of line Foreman, Assistant Foreman and lower level line workers. During the inspection, there appeared to be an effort among many of the inmates work quickly and to produce efficiently. Inmates were observed threading bristles (21-24 sets per brush) through a brush base. Reportedly, on average approximately 800 brushes are currently produced in a day. This is a marked increase over the 100 brushes that were typically produced per day in 1989, when street cleaner brushes were first produced. As noted in the Self-Audit Report of 2005, the brush factory produces approximately 90 different types of wire street brushes for street sweepers, 10 different types of fiber brushes, and eight different types of mops. In a one day period, as many as 1,000 wire brushes, 148 fiber brushes, or 240 mops, may be manufactured. Inmates in the brush plant provide only labor services. A company known as URB in Marysville, Ohio, supplies all of the brush components to OPI. Staff relayed that the OPI brush plant is represented at the annual OPI budget meeting and is given consideration regarding fiscal and production issues among the OPI industries. Dental Lab. The dental lab is located on the second floor of the ‘Old Soaphouse’ building and employs approximately 39 inmates in the production of dentures, bridges, and other dental prosthetics and appliances needed by all ODRC institutions across the state. There are two staff assigned to manage the dental lab operations; thus, there is a 2:39 staff to inmate ratio. Inmates work in the OPI Dental Lab only during the day, adhering to a schedule beginning at 7:30 am and ending at 3:00 pm, with a lunch break at mid-day. Inmates work 6.5 hours per day and are paid at a level 5 pay-grade. Inmates engaged in this work and program may acquire skills that are highly transferable to the private sector at jobs that offer income at well over minimum wage. Inmates must possess either a high school diploma or a GED in order to be hired. In addition, inmates hired in the dental lab must have at least two years remaining of their sentence and remain ticket- free for the last six months of their incarceration. While at London Correctional Institution, inmates may choose to receive their dental training through the

58

OPI training program or through a separate college-credited program offered through Columbus State Community College. Both training programs are provided at London Correctional Institution. The training for the dental lab takes approximately six to eight weeks or 20 man-hours to complete. The program allows inmates to learn and practice a skill that they could use upon release and apply during a five-year period to be eligible to take a Dental Technician’s Certification test. Although certification is not required to work as a Dental Technician, it is a goal they may choose to reach upon release. Each order for a dental appliance begins with the dental impressions that are taken by the dentist in the home institution of the inmate. Small plastic ‘trays’ hold all the components needed to complete each order. The trays move from step to step as the order is completed. Staff reported that there is no backlog in the completion of orders in the lab and that orders are typically completed in approximately 14 days, with repairs being completed in three days or less. Delays in the completion of orders are likely to come from the inmate’s home institution. At the inspection, CIIC staff noted one such order that was written 10 days prior to its receipt at the London Correctional Institution. Inmates sit at work surfaces in rows, each worker having his own set of tools needed for the assigned step in the production process. Approximately seven inmates are seated per row, with another row facing them. The inmates have the advantage of being able to engage in conversation with other inmates at adjacent workstations as they work, although the environment is noisy with grinders generating a level of noise so as to prevent much talking at low voice levels. The acoustics did not provide for noise to be absorbed well. In addition to the noise level, the odors from the compounds and agents used in making dental appliances were strong. As published in the Self-Audit Report of 2005, the OPI Dental Lab may produce annual sales of over $200,000. YARD AND RECREATION Inmates receive recreation time daily, with an outdoor yard and the inside recreation facility available for their recreational use. Inmates may engage in simple open recreation and also participate in organized recreational leagues and sports. Inmates reportedly receive information regarding recreational options in the Inmate Handbook. Inmates may be allowed 12 hours per week for recreation. Available hours of use of both outside and inside recreational options are 8 am until 8 pm, seven days per week throughout the year. The outdoor yard at the institution includes large open, concrete and grass areas, baseball diamond with back fence, concrete walking/running track around the baseball field, concrete area dedicated to handball against a building wall, pull-up/dip bars, and basketball courts. Three watchtowers are present in the outside recreation area; however, two of these towers are scheduled for removal.

59

During the inspection, there were hundreds of inmates outside. Reportedly, there could be as many as 1,000 inmates outside at one time, with a staff of five Correctional Officers and two to three Recreation Staff overseeing the yard area and activities. In the inside recreation center, CIIC observed a large gymnasium and basketball courts equipped with wooden bleachers along one wall, a separate weight room, equipment check-out room, and a large arts and craft room. The Recreation Supervisor reported that there are two adjacent musical instrument rooms, which are also popular with some inmates. Several inmates were working on wooden craft projects (birdhouses) during the inspection and relayed that they really enjoy this activity for its own value and also to make gifts for their families. The recreation equipment check-out system uses a chit-shadow method for storage and an identification card (ID) check-out system. Equipment may be checked-out only with a valid ID tag. The weight equipment in the weight room consists of 28 Universal machines and a variety of other equipment and apparatus, making it the largest among the adult institutions. As in other institutions, there are no free-weights available to inmates. Reportedly, there are no cross-trainers or treadmills. Staff reported that funds to add recreational equipment are becoming increasingly sparse due to a new phone calling system that has reduced the amount of money from phone calls that go into Industry and Entertainment (I and E) funds for use toward recreational expenses. In the past, phone contracts generated the money for recreation, but that system is no longer in place. The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction has recently undergone a revision in phone service such that inmates and their families may potentially save money through a pre-paid calling system. It was noted that the inmates use all recreational equipment at their own risk. CIIC offered a suggestion that the institution provide an initial orientation, written instructions, cautions, and explanations of each of the machines and apparatus to each inmate upon entry. Each inmate could then be required to sign a liability release in order to be allowed to use the equipment. It was also noted during the inspection that the ceilings in the indoor recreation center were peeling from old paint in a similar manner as in some other parts of the institutional buildings. EDUCATIONAL SERVICES The high school and vocational training wing of the institution is spacious with a wide central hallway, high ceilings, and multiple classrooms on each side of the hallway. The classrooms are large, light and bright. Full academic programming is offered, consisting of 21 credits to earn a diploma. The proficiency tests are being eliminated and replaced with the Ohio Graduation Test, which is required by the Ohio State Board of Education. At the inspection, inmates were waiting in the visitation room to be fitted for their caps and gowns for their high school graduation ceremony. Inmates’ families are invited to attend the graduation ceremony.

60

Institutional data from the Ohio Central School System Monthly Enrollment Forms reveals educational performance at London Correctional Institution. Educational data is recorded and held according to fiscal years, which begins July 1 and ends June 30 of any year. The data in the following table, taken from the May 2006 submission from London Correctional Institution, is an indication of educational service and performance for 11 months, or almost a full year.

TABLE 37. EDUCATIONAL PERFORMANCE

Educational Performance

London Correctional Institution – Main Compound and Camp -- JULY 2005 – MAY 2006 MAIN COMPOUND CAMP

Academic Program

Enrollees Year to date

Waiting List

Completers Year to Date

Academic Program

Enrollees Year to date

Waiting List

Completers Year to Date

Literacy 151 0 45 Literacy 0 0 0 ABLE 135 68 46 ABLE 27 0 0 Pre-GED 179 106 40 Pre-GED 26 0 0 GED 151 148 27 GED 23 36 4 GED Evening - - - GED Evening - - - HS/HS Options 65 30 12 HS/HS Options - - - Academic Total

681

352

170

Academic Total

76

36

4

Career-Tech Programs Career-Tech Programs Barbering 59 46 11 Auto Tech 17 28 9 HVAC 12 182 0 Web Design 16 31 1 Career-Tech Total

71

228

11

Career-Tech Total

33

59

11

Other: For the period, five inmates received Special Education services, 115 inmates received Advanced Job Training through Distance Learning, and 32 inmates were in Apprenticeships.

Other: No reports

GED Commentary: For the same period, 152 GED tests were given and 53 GED tests were passed, for a passing rate of 35%.

Reading Room Commentary: For the period, 2,081 children were served in the Reading Room program. *Available data from institutions to the CIIC indicates that London Correctional Institution falls within the top 20% for the number of children served through the Reading Room.

At the inspection, CIIC observed portions of two non-academic classes. First, a re-entry class covering volunteering within the community offered engaging lecture and enthusiastic dialogue, including some brainstorming on getting connected with the community, networking, how to share skills and abilities, and identifying personal perceptions of community concerns and interpersonal relationships in that regard. The dialogue in the class specifically dealt with changing the perception of oneself and changing one’s stereotype of themselves to being “not all bad.” Also, the class discussed recognizing forms of acceptance and how to take ‘no’ for an answer and keep on trying. Further, the group identified some statewide programs that could benefit from participation from released offenders.

61

Second, CIIC observed part of a class called Children of Incarcerated Parents, which is a class designed to help incarcerated parents understand their children and the specific issues and concerns that their children are likely to be experiencing. During the time that CIIC observed, the class was developing a “Round Robin Poem” in which each inmate wrote a line on a sheet of paper and then passed it to the next inmate to repeat the exercise. Each inmate folded back their writing before passing it on, so that their contribution was not seen or known by succeeding inmates. Inmates were directed to write what they were thinking, feeling, or other random thoughts they were having on that day. The collaboratively produced poem would be read to the group at the close of class. The exercise is reportedly one that came from an individual associated with Alvis House, which is a re-entry facility or halfway house. Inmates reported that they feel the class makes them better people and helps them develop a positive lifestyle. Inmates also reported that they are enthusiastic about taking the class, which extends until the inmates’ release. HOUSING UNITS

There are six housing units containing dorm housing at London Correctional Institution. Each unit contains two dorms, so that there are a total of 12 dorms. In addition, there is a former segregation unit used for housing. Oak A and B. CIIC inspected a dorm unit, Oak A and B, within the institution. The unit is outfitted with cubicles rather than cells. The dorm consists of 75 cubicles per side for a total of 150 cubicles. Each cubicle is currently equipped to accommodate up to four inmates by providing two sets of bunk beds (four beds) and two sets of stacked vertical metal lockers (four individual lockers), but only two inmates share each cubicle. Each inmate in the cubicle has his own wastebasket, 2.4 metal foot locker for storage, and a television. The ceilings in the dorm are high and covered with stucco. The general condition of these ceilings is good, except that considerable dust and dirt clinging to the surface was observed. The few inmates who are in the canine program live within the Oak dorm. There are currently six inmates training six dogs as part of the Circle Tails program. Prior to participation in Circle Tails, inmates trained dogs for use by disabled individuals through Pilot Dogs Inc. The Circle Tails program requires specific training of each dog, which is the assigned job of inmate participants. The trained dogs are adopted or given to specific groups who place them with disabled individuals. One of the dogs had been trained to serve as the ears for a deaf person. The inmate/dog handler provided a demonstration of how the dog would respond to a ringing alarm clock by constantly licking the inmate’s face and then tapping the alarm clock with his nose to awaken the deaf person and tell them that the alarm clock was ringing. The dorm had a ‘break room’ area, where inmates were engaged in a card game (Spades) during the inspection. The break area has a mounted television, a microwave oven, and three pay phones.

62

Spruce E Unit. The Spruce E Unit, formerly the segregation unit for the institution, consists of double-occupancy cells that resemble the look of ‘jail cells’ in appearance, with a floor-to-ceiling steel grate front wall and door. Reportedly, Spruce Unit may hold 80 double-bunked inmates. To earn placement in the Unit, inmates must be free of conduct reports for a period of two years. Staff relayed that inmates prefer this unit to the dorms because they believe that they have more privacy and space. Each cell has a steel double bunk bed bolted to the wall, its own shower, toilet, sink, a steel writing surface, attached stool in a corner, and additional square footage. Televisions are mounted on wall arms, can be rotated, and do not require surface space within the cell. The light in these cells was poor, quite dark in some cases Staff reported that inmates like it that way. Plus, as noted above, the cells in Spruce E are reportedly highly desirable, partly due to increased privacy than what is found in cubicles in dormitory housing. The outside recreation areas adjacent to the cell hallways in the unit are actually those formerly used for segregation unit inmates. There are four such outdoor ‘cages’ with steel fence mesh across the tops of the approximately 20 foot-tall concrete areas. Each area appeared to be approximately 20’ x 20’ in square footage. The outdoor areas may be used as additional recreation locations for those inmates who are housed in the unit. Segregation Unit. The current segregation unit, Special Management Housing, contains cells with a solid steel door with a food drop slot, cuff port with lock, and a square, barred window in the door. There are 72 total cells in the unit, 25 are single cells in Pod A, and the remaining cells are outfitted as double cells. The unit may hold up to 84 inmates, but was housing 77 inmates on the day of the inspection. The inmate count in segregation on the day of the inspection consisted of: 37 in Disciplinary Control, 33 in Local Control, and seven in Security Control under investigation. Each segregation cell contains its own steel sink, toilet, shower, and a bed constructed as a steel platform/shelf that is bolted to the wall. Each segregation cell has a small square window approximately 20” x 20” and covered with mesh such that the steel bars across the windows are inaccessible to the inmate. This is done as a safety precaution. In the past at another institution, suicides by hanging have occurred by tying a sheet to the bars in the window. Since then, such mesh or screening has been installed at the institution to block access to the bars. Inmates clean their own cells in segregation. There is also a single wall hook in each cell for hanging clothes or towels. The personal property of inmates in segregation is kept on the unit, but not in the locker boxes with the inmates, as in general population. Food Services delivers meals to the segregation unit in “hot carts” and the food is kept warm in the food preparation area of the unit until served to the inmates. During the inspection, one of the segregation cells was not in use because there was no running water in the cell; therefore, it was used for storage. Observation of another

63

segregation cell revealed mildew forming in the shower. Observation of a third segregation cell revealed that an inmate or inmates had apparently spent considerable time forming large paper ‘spit-balls’ or paper wads and had thrown them onto the ceiling air vent. They effectively covered nearly 75 percent of the surface of the vent. No inmate was in the cell at the time of the inspection. Unit staff took mental note of the presence of the ‘spit-balls.’ Within the segregation unit, there are separate areas for inmates who are in security control for investigation purposes, those who are in Local Control for up to six months due to a chronic inability to adjust to population or posing a threat to security, and those who are in Disciplinary Control for up to 15 days due to an RIB conviction of a rule violation. During the inspection, one inmate was in security control under investigation after reportedly making an improper comment to a teacher. There are two suicide or safe-cells within the unit. The cell doors are steel-barred and covered in a heavy clear ‘Plexane’ plate. Beds in the cells are box- like, vinyl-padded beds attached to the floor. Staff relayed that inmates who are placed in the cells on close watch are monitored with documentation by staff every 15 minutes. In addition, there are random cell checks between the 15-minute intervals in cases of suicide-watch. The DRC policy on Close and Constant Watch is posted as a very large poster under Plexiglass on the hallway wall in the Segregation Unit. RELIGIOUS SERVICES It was noted during the exit conference at the inspection that there was no Kairos involvement at London Correctional Institution, as is seen in some of the other adult institutions. However, the Institutional Chaplain explained that there are some local churches that do have presence in the institution approximately three times per week. There is an Imam, a Catholic priest, and a faith-based housing unit known as New Beginnings. The Chaplain noted that there was a conference at the institution from the Chuck Colson ministries and that they almost were able to have Mr. Colson participate in person; however, a representative for Mr. Colson actually made the trip to the institution. There is reportedly at least one religious service provided every day of the week at the London Correctional Institution. The institution’s web site reveals that two Chaplains are on staff offering religious contact beginning at 7 am and extending until 8 pm most weekdays and 7 am to 5 pm on weekends. In addition, there is a contracted Catholic priest available five hours per week, one Islamic Imam in the institution for 11.5 hours per week, two volunteers who are available to inmates for 2.5 hours and 3.5 hours on two afternoons per week, and one Jewish Rabbi, who comes to the institution to consult with inmates as needed. The institution’s web site also shows that a diverse mix of religious classes and services are offered throughout the week. The following religious programs are currently being provided to inmates.

64

TABLE 38. RELIGIOUS PROGRAM SCHEDULE

London Correctional Institution

Religious Program Schedule DAY TIME PROGRAM

Sunday 8 am – 9 am Bible Study -- Stockade 9:30 – 10:45 am Worship Service LCC – Protestant 1 pm – 3 pm Protestant Worship – Stockade Monday 1 – 2 pm Faith=Based Re-Entry Class 5 – 6 pm Majoring in Men @ LCC Tuesday 9 am – 9:30 am Orientation 1 – 3 pm Catholic Worship – Stockade 5:30 – 7 pm Islamic Ta’leem 6 – 8 pm Majoring in Men Class Wednesday 1 – 3pm Ta’leem Class – LCC 1 – 2 pm Catholic Mass @ LCC 6 – 8 pm Christian Discipleship Class @ LCC 6 – 8 pm Protestant Worship Service Thursday 6:15 – 7:45 pm Yoke Fellowship 1st and 3rd Thursdays – Stockade/LCC 6:15 – 7:45 pm Heritage Memorial Church 2nd and 4 th Thursdays – Stockade/LCC Friday 9 – 10 am Devotional Service in Chapel 1 – 2 pm Jumu’ha – LCC/Stockade 5:30 – 7 pm Ta’leem Class - Stockade Saturday 8 – 9 am Discipleship Training – Stockade 9 – 10:30 am Restorative Justice Ministry Accountability Group 1 – 3:30 pm Jehovah Witness Study – LCC/Stockade 1 – 3 pm Protestant Worship Services - Stockade

LIBRARY The library at London Correctional Institution was not open on the date of the inspection due to the absence of the librarian. Although a Correctional Officer was posted at the main desk, no inmates were permitted to access the materials, except in the law library section. The library is located in a large, open, ground level room with windows along one side. Compared to many of the other areas in the institution, the ceiling height in the library was low. Natural light filtered well into one side of the library, but interior lighting was in place to light the majority of the room. Some of the stacks blocked certain areas of the library from full view. Staff relayed that the layout of the stacks had been modified approximately one year ago so that greater line-of-sight and visibility was achieved. During the inspection, it was noted that there are still some blind spots in the library. Staff reported that they keep a close watch on the space when in use by frequently walking around the stacks to monitor the space.

65

During the inspection it was noted that the ceilings in the library are have exposed pipes and architectural rafters or tube- like details. While the network of pipes and other architectural details was clean and in excellent condition, there is some concern about potential safety risks that these pipes might present. Generally, the main library is open every day of the week on the same schedule as the yard hours (8 am to 3:30 pm) and in the evenings. The law library is open to inmates 8:30 am to 10:30 am, 1 pm to 3:30 pm, and also 6 pm to 7:30 pm, two evenings per week when the librarian is present. During the inspection, it was noted that the CIIC memo was posted in the Law Library. Also at the inspection, inmates reported their frustration that four typewriters had reportedly been sitting on a table for months without ribbons, which reportedly had been ordered, but nonetheless rendered the typewriters unusable. The library includes two computers for inmate use in locating books. The computers serve only as an electronic catalog of books and materials. There is no Internet or Intranet access or other software installed on the system. Staff reported that the catalog system does include, however, access to a Metro Library Loan system. Adjacent to the library’s main room is a smaller room under renovation for use as a Re-Entry Resource Center. This resource center is to have a stand-alone personal computer containing information on housing, jobs, and other useful data within each county. The center will be available for inmate use upon its completion. The project looked as though it had only recently been started, and no completion date was given. The room and computers are to be used for job applications, contact with the Social Security Administration, and contact with various employment offices. Information will be downloaded from a disk, so that the system will serve as a closed network. Restroom provisions available to the library consist of stalls and sinks in a separate corner of the library with the same ‘half-wall’ architecture found in the OPI plants. The use of the ceramic-tiled, shoulder-high, half-walls provides privacy, yet enough visibility to assure that staff are able to monitor the safety of the area.

INMATE COMMENTS AND COMPLAINTS During the inspection of the London Correctional Institution, inmates made various comments and relayed complaints or concerns. A brief list of inmate input is provided below:

1. Air duct issues cause compromises and lower air quality. 2. OPI pay is not good. At 57 cents per hour, or $75-$80 per month, the pay is

inadequate to keep pace with rising costs of commissary items. 3. His OPI job is the core and positive thing in his day-to-day life because it fills

time in a positive way. 4. Water quality is not good. Reportedly water has a brown tint to it.

66

5. Inmate relayed that he had multiple medical issues and needed pain medications, but had not been given any meds for pain. He also complained that he has had pre-existing medical concerns requiring returns for medical treatment, and is charged the $3 co-payment each time.

6. One inmate complained that other inmates are permitted to handle “pack-up” for other inmates when an inmate is sent to segregation. The pack-up is reportedly done without supervision.

7. One inmate complained that many policies are reportedly not being enforced. 8. An inmate relayed that some Corrections Officers are reportedly exercising

inappropriate supervision. 9. An inmate relayed that they only get a new pair of socks every 4-5 months.

Entry Conference. Topics that were briefly relayed during the entrance conference included that the addition of an equine rescue program could hypothetically be given consideration because the existing farm would provide a place to operate the program; however, there are no actual plans to address a venture as this. Some information descriptive of the inmate population at London Correctional Institution was relayed during the conference, as well as a brief overview of several of the programs available to inmates. Inmate program details have been incorporated into preceding sections of this report. Materials that were provided to CIIC during the entrance conference or later during the building and grounds inspection include the Inmate Handbook (dated 2004) and the revised Inmate Handbook, the institution’s Self-Audit 2005 report, a Program Directory (revision of January 27, 2006), the Winter 2006 High School Schedule, Recreation Department rules and general information, and sample Mental Health group goals and objectives (Stress Management, Sleep Hygiene, Medication Education, Effective Communication, and Anger Management). Also provided were a sample newsletter (The Circle Tail Times) for the canine program, a monthly calendar of events for the Chapel, and a booklet containing various data about the institution (population count and breakdown, schedules of inmate compensation and benefits, staff total and breakdown, a quarterly report for the first quarter of 2006, Cash Journal for the Auto School Fund, and fiscal summary for Arts and Crafts, Barber, Wash rack, and Shoeshine operations. In addition, a manual containing the Ohio Central School System’s courses of study for Mathematics and Communication Arts was provided to the CIIC staff. The Ohio Central School System, which is a chartered school district under the Ohio Board of Education, provides the Mathematics and Communication Arts Graded Courses of Study in compliance with the Ohio Revised Code. The purpose of the school system, as described in Section 5145.06 (ORC) is to “provide educational programs for prisoners to allow them to complete adult education courses, earn Ohio certificates of high school equivalence, or pursue vocational training.” It was noted that the Mathematics and Communication Arts curriculums, as found in the presentation of Standards outlined in the applicable manual, serve to guide the delivery of instruction designed to enable students to obtain a General Education Diploma by passing

67

the GED tests in these two curriculum subjects. For each of the numerous units of instructional content within the two academic domains, a Standard (performance standard) is provided, followed by Benchmarks (broad demonstrable skills), and numerous Indicators (sub-skills that enable Benchmark skills to be attained). Lesson plans may be developed from the information found in the manual. Administration relayed that staff retention is high and that the staff at London Correctional Institution are the “best” at maintaining a comfortable demeanor between inmates and staff. The healthy attitude of the staff was credited as the key to the good relations that exist within the institution. It was also relayed that the number of grievances is not high and has recently averaged less than 10-12 grievances per month. Recently, there was an incident of some lost money orders, but the situation was investigated, corrective action was taken, and affected inmates were given resolution of the situation. The process required nearly eight weeks to resolve, but resolution did occur. The quality of medical services has reportedly improved with the hiring of the Health Care Administrator. Verbal confirmation of the institution’s effectiveness in delivering health care services came from a visiting Central Office Assistant Chief Inspector, who acknowledged that the volume of medical appeals from the institution has decreased. Any incidents of sexual assault are reportedly actively addressed by Shift Captains and are investigated by the Investigator. Inmates receive information about sexual assaults at orientation, information is posted, and the staff is trained in the subject. When reports are made, correct responses are reportedly provided. As a means of addressing personal responsibility, London Correctional Institution held a Health Fair for the inmates in the recreation unit in 2005. The inmates reportedly liked the fair and it is now an annual event. Administrative staff relayed that in the week prior to the inspection, the institution underwent an inspection by the Fire Marshall and that there were only four violations compared to 222 violations in 2004, which serves as an indicator of significant improvement. Exit Conference. At the exit conference, CIIC summarized observations to the receptive administrative staff, making the following points:

1. There were several places with flaking paint on the ceilings. It was noted that capital funds were being sought through the Controlling Board to address this problem.

2. There were very dirty ceilings in one of the housing dorms. This condition was acknowledged and it was indicated that they would consider a remedy.

3. There were blind spots in the OPI ‘Old Soaphouse” and the old open stairwell seemed to pose a safety risk as well. It was suggested that perhaps more security

68

mirrors could be installed and perhaps consideration should be given to encasing the open stairwell with a steel fence mesh or other barrier to access.

4. There were also blind spots in the library and open pipes exposed in the ceiling of the library. It was relayed that there actually had been some previous re-positioning of the stacks in order to reduce and eliminate as many of the blind spots as possible in the library and that currently, staff frequently roam around the library to keep watch on all parts of the room. Regarding the pipes, it was acknowledged that there had never been any attempts to misuse the structure and that the library was such a public place and under such constant observation, that it is not perceived as any safety risk.

5. It has been permissible for an inmate’s personal property to be ‘packed-up’ by his cellie when the inmate is sent to segregation, thus, giving the cellie an opportunity to go through the inmate’s personal property. It was acknowledged that the practice is per policy. CIIC receives periodic letters regarding the alleged misuse of the practice, which reportedly prompts additional inmate concerns including but not limited to potential conduct reports.

6. The Universal gym equipment in the recreation area is used without the inmate signing a liability waiver. It was suggested that the institution initiate a practice of requiring an orientation/training on each of the types of equipment and require the inmate to sign a liability release in order to use the equipment.