Developed by Susan McCampbell under NIC Cooperative Agreement 06S20GJJ1 Training Investigators to Work in a Correctional Setting Investigating Allegations

Developed by Susan McCampbell under NIC Cooperative Agreement 06S20GJJ1

Training Investigators to Work in a Correctional Setting

Investigating Allegations ofStaff Sexual Misconduct with Offenders

July 2006


Training Objectives: Debunk myths - the criticality of training

investigators Agency investigators Non-agency investigators

Identify investigative competencies “Hard” and “soft” competencies Overview training techniques Idaho

Examine the need to “demystifying” the investigative process for employees and offenders

Review the impact of improved investigations


Why Train Investigators? De-bunking myths:

Criminal allegations not a priority Corrections employees know how to

investigate Investigators from non-corrections

agencies are more competent Cases lack “jury appeal” so why

bother Use institutional rules to “punish”


Criminal allegations not a priority

Perpetrators are already serving time Minimal impact on the community Apathy of the public, outside investigators,

prosecutors Resources are finite


Corrections employees know how to investigate

Decline in pre-service and in-service training

Criminal vs. rule violations Skills

First responder Report writing Testimony

Equipment Experience


Investigators from non-corrections agencies are more competent

Expose to correctional environments Dynamics of correctional

environments Skills

Interviewing offenders Knowledge

Where is the evidence? Attitude


Cases lack “jury appeal” so why bother

Impact on facility safety Impact on employees Impact on offenders Impact on the community Legal obligations of the correctional

organization To offenders To employees


Use institutional rules to “punish”

Competent and fair application of rules and sanctioning

Facility security Deterrent impact

Prevention – employees and offenders Patterns of indifference Beyond public scrutiny


Memoranda of Agreements Establish responsibilities under statute

Time lines, notifications Authority to request investigations Triggers for investigations Criminal vs. administrative

Define administrative control Techniques to be used Chain of command, need to know

Coverage Employees, contractors, vendors, etc.


Memoranda of Agreements, cont.

Identify and define critical relationships EMS SATC Crime Lab Prosecutor

Specify treatment of victims, witnesses, perpetrators


Memoranda of Agreements, cont. Defines outcomes

Referrals for prosecution Referrals for administrative actions

(employees and offenders) Defines responsibilities for media, public

disclosure Addresses aftermath management

Release of information Addresses costs


Investigative Competencies Flow from memoranda of agreements

Agency investigators Other investigating agencies (if not the

corrections agency) Impact of how complaints/allegations are

received Investigative Protocols

Checklists Report formats


Investigative Competencies:First Responders

Identify a crime may have been committed

First aid Separate Notify Secure the scene


Investigative Competencies

Statutes and Directives: PREA MOAs CBAs Agency policies/procedures/protocols Format of reports

Findings vs. conclusions Prosecution linked

How complaints received The criminal justice system


Investigative Competencies Dynamics of a correctional environment

Offender/offender interactions – “job description”

Employee/offender interactions Ability to see offender as a victim Dynamics of sexual assault in a

correctional environment “Consensual” Same sex dynamics Profile of offenders PTSD, Survivor


Investigative Competencies Evidence in a correctional environment

Phone records, commissary, logs, cameras, housing records, medical/mh records, requests for changes, classification file, disciplinary records, grievances, inmate file, visitor lists . .

Checklist


Investigative Competencies Facility operations

Classification of offenders Programming Physical plant Staffing History of allegations Commissary, etc. Offender movement


Investigative Competencies Responding

Checklists Resources, SART, SANE Collection of DNA or other perishable evidence

Use of equipment Digital cameras, specialized equipment

Chain of custody Safeguarding victim, witnesses, etc.


Investigative Competencies Investigations 101 Interviews and Interrogations

Victims and vulnerable populations Sexual assault victims

Witnesses, perpetrators Options:

Polygraph, voice stress analyzer, etc. Mental health involvement Removal from facility Other


Investigative Competencies Ability to manage the victim,

witnesses and perpetrator(s) Timing and sequencing

Employees or offenders


Investigative Competencies Investigation Management

Investigative records and notes Files Formats Logs Sequencing Use of teams Gender of investigators Supervision of the investigation Use of Garrity and Miranda Link analysis


Investigative Competencies Reporting writing


Investigative Competencies Dress


Investigative Competencies Depositions Court testimony


Investigative Competencies Aftermath

Recognizing crisis Offenders Employees In themselves


Training Techniques Academy –

Investigations 101 Also report writing

Shadowing Mock trials, mock

crime scenes Victim advocates

Sexual assault treatment responders


Demystifying the Investigative Process

Clarity, transparency Prevention/deterrence Cooperation

Code of silence – offenders and employees Why things happen Rights and responsibilities False reports Accountability WIFM


Idaho

Selection Process Application References Skills test Background check Check references Psych screening


Idaho, continued

Skills Written communication Interpersonal skills/verbal communication

Connect with employees Connect with offenders

Computer knowledge (keyboarding, use of Internet, etc.)

Organizational skills Leadership skills Teamwork (ability to work with a team)


Idaho, continued

Knowledge College Correctional knowledge (years of

experience) POST credits Speak Spanish (a plus) Investigative background/experience


Idaho, continuedAbilities To travel To handle high stress situations To be on call To be unbiased/open minded; ability to see

inmates as victims To conceptualize investigative work To maintain confidentiality Insightful To multi-task To handle large workload


Impact of Improved Investigations

Safer facilities Deterrent/prevention Understanding = improved morale Begins culture change and staff buy-in Increases likelihood for prosecution Gives agency claim of qualified immunity from

civil suit Transparency Safer communities


Training Investigators Opportunities for

collaboration between prosecutors and corrections

Documents

Developed by Susan McCampbell under NIC Cooperative Agreement 06S20GJJ1 Training Investigators to Work in a Correctional Setting Investigating Allegations