Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 1
Toledo
Correctional
Institution
April 16, 2012
April 19, 2012
April 20, 2012
April 24, 2012
Adam Jackson,
Report Coordinator
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SECTION I. INSTITUTION OVERVIEW ................................................................................3
A. INSPECTION PROFILE ......................................................................................3
B. INSTITUTION DEMOGRAPHICS ....................................................................3
C. FISCAL REVIEW .................................................................................................5
SECTION II. INSPECTION SUMMARY ..................................................................................8
SECTION III. INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE EVALUATION .............................17
SECTION IV. KEY STATISTICS .............................................................................................20
A. USE OF FORCE ..................................................................................................20
B. ASSAULTS ...........................................................................................................21
C. INMATE DEATHS ..............................................................................................21
D. INVESTIGATOR DATA ....................................................................................22
E. SECURITY THREAT GROUPS (STG) ............................................................22
F. INMATE SAFETY RATING .............................................................................23
SECTION V. EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS ..................................................................25
A. MEDICAL SERVICES .......................................................................................25
B. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES .......................................................................26
C. FOOD SERVICES ...............................................................................................27
D. HOUSING UNITS ...............................................................................................29
E. COMMISSARY ...................................................................................................30
SECTION VI. EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS ....................................................................32
A. PROGRAM EVALUATION ..............................................................................32
B. LIBRARY/LAW LIBRARY SERVICES ..........................................................34
SECTION VII. INMATE COMMUNICATION ......................................................................36
SECTION VIII. APPENDIX ......................................................................................................38
A. FULL LIST OF PROGRAMS ............................................................................38
B. SCHEDULES .......................................................................................................40
C. DATA TABLES ...................................................................................................43
D. INSPECTION CHECKLISTS ............................................................................46
SECTION IX. GLOSSARY OF TERMS ....................................................................................91
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 3
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION INSPECTION COMMITTEE REPORT
ON THE INSPECTION AND EVALUATION OF
TOLEDO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
SECTION I. INSTITUTION OVERVIEW
A. INSPECTION PROFILE
Date of Inspection: April 16, 2012
April 19, 2012
April 20, 2012
April 24, 2012
Type of Inspection: Unannounced
CIIC Member and Staff Present: Joanna Saul, Director
Jamie Hooks, Inspector
Darin Furderer, Inspector
Adam Jackson, Inspector
Carol Robison, Inspector
Lanny Sacco, Inspector
Facility Staff Present: Warden Ed Sheldon
CIIC spoke with many additional staff at
their posts throughout the course of the
inspection.
Areas/Activities Included in the Inspection:
Housing Units
Inmate Dining Hall
Kitchen
Medical and Mental Health Services
Segregation
Library
Educational Programs Commissary
B. INSTITUTION DEMOGRAPHICS
Toledo Correctional Institution is a 45.24 acre facility, which opened in 2000.1 The facility is a
Level 3 security (close security) male institution serving Level 3 and Level 4 inmates. The
institution’s budget is $26,394,476 and the daily cost per inmate is $67.39.2
Toledo Correctional Institution formerly housed Level 1 inmates in a minimum security camp
that closed on April 1, 2011. Also in early 2011, the institution began double-celling as part of
the DRC’s larger effort to reorganize and control overcrowding. In late 2011, the institution
1 Toledo Correctional Institution website, available at http://www.drc.state.oh.us/Public/toci.htm.
2 Ibid.
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 4
began receiving Level 4 inmates and Protective Control inmates were moved to Allen Oakwood
Correctional Institution.
The date of the most recent ACA accreditation was June 8-10, 2011.3 The facility was 100
percent compliant on mandatory standards and 99.3 percent compliant on non-mandatory
standards.4 The main areas of non-compliance were due to overcrowding. In addition to
reviewing the ACA accreditation, CIIC also reviewed the internal management audit that was
conducted on April 5-7, 2011.
According to the internal management audit, the facility was found to be 96.5 percent compliant
on ACA mandatory standards, 98.4 percent compliant on ACA non-mandatory standards, and
86.4 percent compliant on Ohio standards.5 Non-compliant issues included the following: failure
to document staff OC certification training; failure to have required staff present during DRC
quarterly meetings; delay in providing employee written performance evaluations; overcrowding
concerns; unit staff performing required cell searches; food items are not maintained at required
storage temperatures; failure to complete employee mid probation evaluations in the required
time; missing inmate property inventory files; outdated incident action plans; unsigned and
inaccurate service contract invoices; cell phone reimbursements not submitted within required 14
days; lack of priority for re-entry programming and a reentry accountability plan.
The rated capacity for Toledo Correctional Institution is 1,306. The inmate count as of April 16,
2012 was 1,433 or approximately 110 percent of the rated capacity.6 The average age of the
inmate population was 33.7 years as of April 2012.7
Of the 343 total staff at Toledo Correctional Institution as of April 1, 2012, 64.1 percent were
male and 35.9 percent were female. Of the total staff, 70.8 percent were classified as white, 23.3
percent as black, and 5.8 percent other.8
The following chart provides a comparison of both staff and inmate race demographics at the
facility and across the DRC.
3 Commission on Accreditation for Corrections, “Standards Compliance Reaccreditation Audit,” June 8-10, 2011.
4 Ibid.
5 Toledo Correctional Institution Full Internal Management Audit Report, April 5-7, 2011.
6 Toledo Correctional Institution, Institutional Counts, April 16, 2012.
7 Ibid.
8 ODRC Workforce Composition-April 1, 2012, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction website,
http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/Reports/staffing/April%202012.pdf
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 5
Chart 1
Staff and Inmate Comparison by Percentage of Race9
April 2012
C. FISCAL REVIEW
CIIC‟s fiscal evaluation focuses on three primary areas: (1) review of most recent fiscal audit;
(2) staffing, including overtime hours; and (3) cost savings initiatives.
Review of Fiscal Audit
Toledo Correctional Institution provided the most recent fiscal audit performed by an external
auditor, dated July 7, 2011. The audit covered the period of August 8, 2009 through April 5,
2011.10
There was one observation and recommendation for corrective action in the previous
audit. The previous concern was reviewed in the current audit and the following deficiency
remained:
The total inventory adjustments exceeded one percent of the total income for two months.
A negative inventory variance was recorded during nine of the seventeen months of the
audit.11
There were three observations found while reviewing the Cashier and Commissary Trust
Accounting System (CACTAS):
Ten (77 percent) of the fifteen Commissary vouchers and thirteen Request to Purchase
forms (RTP) or Purchase Order forms (PO) were dated after the vendor invoice date. The
9 Ibid. DRC Monthly Fact Sheet, April 2012.
10 DRC Bureau of Fiscal Operations and Fiscal Audits, Fiscal Audits and Accounting Control Section, Toledo
Correctional Institution, August 8, 2009-April 5, 2011. 11
Ibid.
Staff White Staff Black Inmate White Inmate Black
Institution 70.8 23.3 38.9 59.1
DRC 80 17.7 51 47
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 6
Commissary Manual requires all purchases for the commissary to be processed through
the Business Office.12
Review of the Balance Sheets found that the following funds had negative Cash on Hand
(COH) balances as of April 5, 2011:13
o Petty Cash Fund ($41.50)
o Industrial and Entertainment Fund ($126,355.13)
o Housing and Cafeteria Fund ($541.69)
o Employee Activity Fund ($42,303.00)
The CACTAS checkbook was found to be out-of-balance by ($3,163.60) as of March 31,
2011.14
Staffing
Adequate staffing has a direct effect on the safety and security of an institution. Of the total
number of allotted positions, 22 are vacant.15
The vacancies consist of the following:
Ten correctional officers
Four food service coordinators
Two registered nurses
One dietetic technician, laundry coordinator, licensed practical nurse, maintenance repair
worker, teacher, and warden’s assistant.
Vacancies and employees on leave result in staff being mandated to work extra shifts; however
mandated shifts may vary from day to day and week to week. Overtime is calculated by hours.
For example, from September 10, 2011 through February 23, 2012, there were 8,380.26 hours
worked as overtime hours.16
Of the total, 69.8 percent (5,847.58 hours) were in the area of
custody staff. A further breakdown of the custody staff overtime indicates that correctional
officers accounted for 75.4 percent (4,409.92 hours) of the custody staff total.
The following chart compares staffing across the DRC by the number of inmates per corrections
officer (based on the total amount of staff on the payroll, including staff on leave).
12
Ibid. 13
Ibid. 14
Ibid. 15
Toledo Correctional Institution, staff vacancies, received April 19, 2012. 16
Toledo Correctional Institution Overtime Breakdown by Department Staff, September 10, 2011-February 23,
2012.
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 7
Chart 2
DRC Institutional Staffing: Number of Inmates per Corrections Officer
January 2012
Cost Savings Initiatives
In the 129th General Assembly biennium, one of CIIC’s goals is to identify cost savings across
the DRC. Staff relayed the following cost savings measures implemented at the Toledo
Correctional Institution:17
Use of energy saving florescent bulbs.
Domestic water heater cleaning exchanger; reduce water use and natural gas.
HVAC cooling tower; lower amount of electric usage.
Upgrading door control; reduces run time which results in savings in electricity and
purchasing parts.
Grease pit cleaning; reduces frequency of sewers that need cleaning.
Boiler pumps repair-reduce run time; reduces natural gas usage.
Florescent bulbs recycling; sent to Mansfield vs. using outside contractor/company.
Work in association with the Kore Company; notifies TOCI during peak power times to
run generators instead of drawing on electrical grid.
Recycling Program Initiative-reinstituted so as to generate funds from our recyclables;
(cardboard, plastic, cans, paper, pallets, metal); reducing number of refuse pulls.
17
Toledo Correctional Institution, “Cost Savings Initiatives for FY2012.”
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
AC
I/O
CF
BeC
I
CC
I
GC
I
HC
F
Lo
CI
MaC
I
MC
I
NC
CI
NC
I
PC
I
RIC
I
SC
I
LeC
I
Man
CI
RC
I
TC
I
To
CI
WC
I
SO
CF
OS
P
CR
C
Lo
rCI
FM
C
OR
W
DC
I
NE
PR
C
6.8
Level
1/2
Level
3
Level
4/5
Reception
Center Female/
Special
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 8
SECTION II. INSPECTION SUMMARY
Overall, the inspection raised some concerns, although there were several positives viewed, particularly in regard to the Warden’s
initiatives. The following is a summary of the inspection findings. The DRC response and action plans in regard to the identified
concerns immediately follow the summary.
KEY STATISTICS
AREA
DE
CR
EA
SE
D
>1
0%
NO
CH
AN
GE
(WIT
HIN
10%
)
INC
RE
AS
ED
>1
0%
COMMENTS
Use of Force X Total uses of force increased by 70 percent from 2009 to 2011. Use of
chemical agents (aka OC spray, mace, etc.) increased by 294 percent in the
same time period.
Assaults X Total inmate-on-inmate assaults increased by 78.9 percent from 2009 to
2011.
Suicide Attempts X Suicide attempts decreased from one reported attempt in 2009 to zero
reported attempts in 2011.
OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT
AREA
EX
CE
LL
EN
T
AC
CE
PT
AB
LE
IN N
EE
D O
F
IMP
RO
VE
ME
NT
COMMENTS
Operations
Medical Services X The CIIC inspection team rated medical services at TOCI as in need of
improvement in all areas. At the time of the inspection, the Health Care
Administrator had been on leave for a month and the doctor resigned during
the inspection period. In addition, there was a sizeable and concerning
backlog for chronic care appointments, with 255 of the 544 inmates (46.9
percent) enrolled in chronic care clinics on the backlog. Both inmates and
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 9
staff reported stoppages in medication.
Mental Health Services X The CIIC inspection team rated mental health services as in need of
improvement, particularly in regard to staffing. It is not clear that the facility
has sufficient staff to treat the high caseload, even if fully staffed according
to the allotted positions.
Food Services X The only concern was the amount of debris under the kitchen prep area.
Housing Units X For the most part, the CIIC inspection team noted an improvement in
housing unit conditions, particularly in regard to the showers, as compared to
prior inspections. However, some of the units varied in terms of security
concerns, such as towels on the floor and inappropriate pictures on the cell
walls.
Commissary X No concerns noted.
Programs
Program Evaluation X Two concerns noted: staffing levels and access to programming. However,
the two observed programs were considered well-managed and engaging.
Library X No concerns noted.
Staff Accountability
Officer Staffing X The institution reported 22 vacancies, including ten corrections officers.
Inmate Grievance Procedure X The institution reported that 20.4 percent of informal complaint responses
were received past the seven day timeframe in administrative rule. However,
staff relayed that Warden Sheldon has been working to address this issue.
Inmate Safety X Of the 115 inmates interviewed by CIIC staff, 95 reported that inmates were
“safe” or “very safe” at Toledo Correctional Institution. However, the large
increase in both inmate-on-inmate assaults and uses of force since 2009 is
concerning.
Executive Staff Rounds X The Warden and the Deputy Warden of Operations should be particularly
commended for dedication to performing executive staff rounds. However,
there was a lack of rounds for both the Inspector and the Deputy Warden of
Special Services, and in some units the Unit Management Administrator (see
the inspection checklists).
Shakedowns (Cell Searches) X There was inconsistency in shakedowns performed on each unit, with staff
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 10
not documenting the correct number (two per shift at this institution). On at
least two units, it appeared that second shift officers were not documenting
the shakedowns (see inspection checklists).
Officer Security Checks X Staff appeared to be adequately documenting security checks (officer
rounds). However, CIIC noticed several issues (foreign material obstructing
locks, inappropriate pictures, etc.) that may indicate a need to retrain on how
to perform adequate rounds.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
AREA COMMENTS
Telephones As has been documented in prior CIIC inspection reports on TOCI, inmates have reported
serious concerns regarding the lack of telephones to accommodate the population. Not only does
this affect inmates’ ability to stay in communication with family members, the lack of telephones
causes tension among inmates, which may lead to additional safety concerns.
Recreation Inmates relayed concerns regarding the reduction in recreational time, reportedly as a result of
the increased population.
Executive Staff Visibility The CIIC inspection team was extremely impressed by the Warden’s commitment to executive
staff access and visibility. As discussed above, the Warden consistently documented even more
than weekly rounds. The Warden has also implemented an initiative to be more visible to
inmates by sitting at the “point”– an area that all inmates cross coming and going to chow. Not
only does he reinforce dress code expectations, he also is immediately accessible on a daily basis
to inmates. Furthermore, he requires executive staff and unit staff to sit with him so that inmates
can have their concerns immediately addressed by the correct personnel. This practice is unusual
in the DRC, making it even more commendable and should be implemented at every institution.
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 11
DRC RESPONSE AND ACTION PLANS
Issue Problem noted by CIIC - Use of Force Total uses of force increased by 70 percent from 2009 to 2011. Use of chemical agents (aka OC spray, mace, etc.) increased by 294
percent in the same time period.
Tasks
1. Increase presence of staff within the housing units/common areas of the
institution.
2. Establish Merit Housing Units
Person Responsible
1. Warden, Executive Staff,
Department Heads
2. Warden
Comments: ToCI double -bunked inmates and its population grew by 60% between 2011 and 2012. In addition, chemical
agents were made available to all staff as a safety measure in 2010. Prior to this, only Supervisors and SRT members used
chemical agents. The period of time level 4B’s were housed also accounted for the increase in chemical agent use. Since the
establishment of merit housing units, uses of force have dropped significantly in those so designated. Please note inmate on
staff assaults has also decreased due to the use of chemical agents.
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 12
Issue Problem noted by CIIC - Assaults Total inmate-on-inmate assaults increased by 78.9 percent from 2009 to 2011.
Tasks
1. Establish merit housing units
2. Increase staff presence and availability
3. Addition of Unit Manager and two Case Manager positions
4. Increase and identify security threat group offenders
Person Responsible
1. UMA, DWO, Unit Managers
2. Executive Staff, Warden, Unit
Staff
3. OSC, Warden
4. STG committee; Major
Comments: ToCI has undergone a mission change during this time frame which has lead to an increase in inmate on inmate
assaults. ToCI has increased its inmate population by 60% in 2011, however, is slowly reducing the inmate double bunked
population in order to house Level 4a offenders. Violence reduction remains a top priority at ToCI. Prior to the CIIC
inspection, ToCI developed incentive criteria for our existing housing units, providing offenders with the opportunity to
participate in merit housing. In line with the ODRC prison reform of security levels 3a and 3b, ToCI is in the process of
identifying inmates to be moved into housing units meant to reward positive behavior (level 3a offenders) while providing
additional staff resources to housing meant for 3b offenders. A part of increasing staff resources is to ensure staff is available
to inmates to address their needs. Staff presence has been increased within the institution by ensuring the Warden, Executive
Staff, and Unit Staff are available daily at “The Point”, a common area of the institution for inmates to have their needs
addressed. Finally, OSC evaluated the need for additional unit staff to be provided within the institution to address inmate
concerns. A new unit manager was hired and begins his position effective 5/6/2012. Two case managers were also hired and
are scheduled to begin their positions 5/21/12 and 6/3/12 respectively. Through combined efforts with investigation of
Security Threat Groups, it should also be noted that the inmate culture since the double-bunking of TOCI’s population has
significantly been effected. TOCI is now receiving inmates from various geographical locations outside of Northwest Ohio.
This has caused tension within the facility between STG profiled inmates. Increased monitoring of these security threat
groups will also allow the institution to better classify offender’s privilege levels and attempt to prevent assaults from
occurring.
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 13
Issue Problem noted by CIIC - Medical Services The CIIC inspection team rated medical services at TOCI as in need of improvement in all areas. At the time of the inspection, the
Health Care Administrator had been on leave for a month and the doctor resigned during the inspection period. In addition, there
was a sizeable and concerning backlog for chronic care appointments, with 255 of the 544 inmates (46.9 percent) enrolled in
chronic care clinics on the backlog. Both inmates and staff reported stoppages in medication.
Tasks
1. Train more staff on data entry in to MOSS database for CCC
2. BOMS-OSC providing contract physician to address CCC and DSC.
3. BOMS-OSC approval for temporary HCA
4. Medication Stoppage
Complaint to Vendor filed against Central Pharmacy
Implementation of detailed inventory checks of received mediation
from pharmacy.
Collaboration with BOMS regarding pharmacy training of LPNs to
cross reference medication manifest with new medication orders.
Person Responsible
1. DWSS
2. BOMS-OSC
3. BOMS-OSC
4. BOMS-OSC, DWSS & HCA
Comments: Prior to the CIIC inspection TOCI identified issues with Chronic Care backlogs. Additional medical staff has
been trained to ensure the CCC visits are correctly inputted into MOSS database in a consistent basis. BOMS-OSC has
agreed to provide a contract physician’s to assist with Doctor Sick Call and Chronic Care appointments; this is in addition to
ToCI’s full time Nurse Practitioner. BOMS-OSC has approved an experienced contract HCA is assist with overall
management of the medical area and specifically correct issues with chronic care, nurse/doctor sick call, medications and
staff scheduling. ToCI is also exploring bringing another Nurse Practitioner until the Doctor position is filled. The contract
HCA started on 5/10/12.
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 14
Issue Problem noted by CIIC - Mental Health Services The CIIC inspection team rated mental health services as in need of improvement, particularly in regard to staffing. It is not clear
that the facility has sufficient staff to treat the high caseload, even if fully staffed according to the allotted positions.
Tasks
1. Posting of Social Work 3 position
2. BOMHS-OSC evaluating the need for an Activity Therapist
Person Responsible
1. Warden/Personnel
2. BOMHS-OSC
Comments: Upon review of the inspection report prepared by CIIC, it should be noted as of 5/7/12 there are 290 inmates are
on the mental health caseload. At the time of the inspection there was a total of 303 not 397, which is 19% of ToCI’s inmate
population. Prior to the CIIC inspection BOMHS-OSC approved for additional Social Work 3 position and is still evaluating
the need for an Activity Therapist.
Issue Problem noted by CIIC - Officer Staffing The institution reported 22 vacancies, including ten corrections officers.
Tasks
1. Evaluate the need to increase Officer positions based upon increase in
inmate population
Person Responsible
1. Warden, Personnel
Comments: ToCI maintains a 4.5% -5% vacancy rates per institutional budget requirements.18
18
The DRC Assistant Director relayed that he approved the filling of additional positions to bring the institutional vacancy rate to 4%.
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 15
Issue Problem noted by CIIC – Grievance Procedure The institution reported that 20.4 percent of informal complaint responses were received past the seven day timeframe in
administrative rule. However, staff relayed that Warden Sheldon has been working to address this issue.
Tasks
1. IIS submits monthly report to LRO identifying what staff members are
untimely.
2. Staff is being recommended for discipline for untimely ICR responses
1.
Person Responsible
1. Warden
2. IIS, LRO
Comments: Prior to CIIC inspection the untimely responses of ICRS was identified and a plan of action put in place.
Warden has initiated discipline on any staff member with untimely responses. To date 4 staff members have received
discipline.
Issue Problem noted by CIIC - Shakedowns There was inconsistency in shakedowns performed on each unit, with staff not documenting the correct number (two per shift at
this institution). On at least two units, it appeared that second shift officers were not documenting the shakedowns.
Tasks
2. Weekly rounds will include check of shakedown logs to ensure
compliance
3. Officers non complaint in shakedowns will be verbally instructed to
complete shakedowns at the time of inspection
4. Recommend discipline for officers who continue non-compliance
Person Responsible
1. DWO, Major, UMA, Unit
Managers, Shift Commanders
2. DWO, Major, UMA, Unit
Managers, Shift Commanders
3. DWO, Major, LRO
Comments: The addition of an entire set of unit management staff will assist in the accountability of staff shakedowns.
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 16
Issue Comment noted by CIIC - Telephones As has been documented in prior CIIC inspection reports on ToCI, inmates have reported serious concerns regarding the lack of
telephones to accommodate the population. Not only does this effect inmates ability to stay in communication with family
members, the lack of telephones cause tension among inmates, which may lead to additional safety concerns.
Response: ToCI maintenance department completed the proper wiring needed for
additional phones (CIIC was informed of this during the December 2011
inspection), installation was scheduled with GTL and completed during CIIC’s
current inspection.
Issue Comment noted by CIIC - Recreation Inmates relayed concerns regarding the reduction in recreational time, reportedly as a result of increased inmate population
Response: ToCI inmates are receiving the amount of recreation required by ACA/
DRC policies and procedures
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 17
SECTION III. INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE EVALUATION
Pursuant to Section 103.73 of the Ohio Revised Code, the CIIC is required to evaluate the inmate
grievance procedure19
at each state correctional institution. This evaluation generally includes a
review of grievance data, individual inmate interviews conducted by the CIIC inspection team
on-site during the inspection process, and shadowing the Institutional
Inspector by a member of the CIIC inspection team.
In 2011, there were 475 grievances filed and 2,546 informal complaints received by the Inspector
at the facility.20
Of the 439 grievances completed, 88.8 percent were denied, 8.7 percent were
granted, and 2.5 percent were withdrawn by the inmate. The top three categories with the most
grievances were Health Care with 119, Personal Property with 84, and Supervision with 41.21
The Inspector’s Activity Report for January 2011 through December 2011 is provided in Table 1
of the Appendix.
Timely staff responses to informal complaints have a large impact on inmates’ perception of the
effectiveness of the grievance procedure. While the DRC only requires an action plan for
untimely response rates above 15 percent, CIIC believes that an untimely response rate above 10
percent is unacceptable and five percent is both achievable and preferred. Of the total number of
informal complaints received in 2011, 20.4 percent were answered untimely at Toledo
Correctional Institution. Staff relayed that the new Warden has taken steps to ensure that staff
are responding to informal complaints with the appropriate timeframe.
The following chart provides a comparison of untimely response rates across the DRC in 2011.
19
Please see the Glossary for an explanation of the inmate grievance procedure. 20
Institution Grievance Statistics for 2011, Toledo Correctional Institution, April 16, 2012. 21
Ibid.
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 18
Chart 3
Untimely Response Rates to Informal Complaints by DRC Institution
CY 2011
Chart 4
Percent of Grievance Dispositions Requiring Extensions by Institution
CY 2011
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
AC
I B
eC
I C
CI
DC
I/M
EP…
F
PR
C
GC
I H
CF
L
AE
CI
Lo
CI
MaC
I M
CI
NC
CI
NC
CT
F
NC
I N
EP
RC
P
CI
RIC
I S
CI
LeC
I M
an
CI
RC
I T
CI
To
CI
WC
I
SO
CF
O
SP
CR
C
Lo
rCI
CM
C
OC
F
OR
W
20.4
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
AC
I B
eC
I C
CI
DC
I/M
EP
RC
F
PR
C
GC
I H
CF
L
AE
CI
Lo
CI
MaC
I M
CI
NC
CI
NC
CT
F
NC
I N
EP
RC
P
CI
RIC
I S
CI
LeC
I M
an
CI
RC
I T
CI
To
CI
WC
I
SO
CF
O
SP
CR
C
Lo
rCI
CM
C
OC
F
OR
W
21.2
Level
1/2
Level
3
Level
4/5
Reception
Center Special
Level
1/2
Level
3
Level
4/5
Reception
Center Special
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 19
During the inspection, the CIIC inspection team interviewed 115 inmates. The following
responses were collected:
54.8 percent of inmates said they knew who the Inspector was
79.1 percent of inmates said that the grievance procedure was explained to them
82.6 percent of inmates said that they know how to use the grievance procedure
32.7 percent of the inmates who said that they had filed an informal complaint at the
institution reported that the informal complaint was resolved fairly
14.3 percent of the inmates who said that they had filed a grievance at the institution
reported that the grievance was resolved fairly
20 percent of the inmates who said that they had filed an appeal with the Chief Inspector
reported that the appeal was resolved fairly
A CIIC staff member observed the Inspector investigate a grievance and conduct rounds. The
Inspector was professional in her interactions with both staff and inmates and was thorough in
her security checks of inmates’ cells.
Further information regarding inmates’ perception of the inmate grievance procedure, obtained
during a 2007 CIIC survey of inmates across the DRC, can be found in the CIIC Biennial Report
to the 129th
General Assembly: Inmate Grievance Procedure, which is available on the CIIC
website (www.ciic.state.oh.us).
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 20
SECTION IV. KEY STATISTICS
A. USE OF FORCE
In 2011, the facility reported 391 use of force22
incidents.23
Of the total, 68 percent of the
incidents involved black inmates, 28.9 percent involved white inmates, and 3.1 percent involved
an inmate of another race. Compared to 2009, in which 230 uses of force were reported, total
uses of force increased by 70 percent in two years.24
In the six months prior to the inspection
date, the institution reported 200 uses of force.25
Tables 2 and 3 of the Appendix provide a
breakdown of the use of force incidents in 2011.
In 2011, chemical agents (mace) were used 205 times.26
This is 294 percent more than chemical
agents were used in 2009, in which chemical agents were used 52 times.27
In the six months
prior to the inspection date (October 2011 – March 2012), chemical agents were used 80 times,
which is more than the number of times chemical agents were used in both 2009 and 2010.28
Chart 5
Use of Force by Institution
CY 2011
22
Further information regarding use of force incidents can be found in the Glossary. 23
Use of Force Monthly Reports, Toledo Correctional Institution, January – December 2011. 24
Use of Force Monthly Reports, Toledo Correctional Institution, January – December 2009. 25
Use of Force Monthly Reports, Toledo Correctional Institution, October 2011 – March 2012. 26
Significant Incident Summary reports provided by Toledo Correctional Institution for January 2011- December
2011. 27
Significant Incident Summary reports provided by Toledo Correctional Institution for January 2009- December
2009. 28
Significant Incident Summary reports provided by Toledo Correctional Institution for October 2011- March 2012.
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
AC
I B
eC
I C
CI
DC
I F
PR
C
GC
I H
CF
L
aE
CI
Lo
CI
MaC
I M
CI
NC
CI
NC
I N
CC
TF
N
EP
RC
P
CI
RIC
I S
CI
LeC
I M
an
CI
RC
I T
CI
To
CI
WC
I
SO
CF
O
SP
CR
C
Lo
rCI
FM
C
OC
F
OR
W
391
Level
1/2
Level
3
Level
4/5
Reception
Center Special
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 21
B. ASSAULTS
In 2011, there were 34 reported inmate on inmate assaults.29
Of the total, 91.2 percent were
physical assaults, 5.9 percent were sexual assaults, and 2.9 percent were harassment assaults.30
Total inmate on inmate assaults increased by 78.9 percent from 2009 to 2011.
The institution also reported 25 inmate on staff assaults.31
Of the total, 48 percent were physical
assaults, 44 percent were harassment assaults, and 8.0 percent were physical assaults.32
Total
inmate on staff assaults decreased by 26.5 percent from 2009 to 2011. Tables 4 and 5 provide a
snapshot of the assault data at Toledo Correctional Institution from 2009 to the date of
inspection. The following chart provides a comparison of the number of assaults at the institution
over time.
Chart 6
Total Assaults
CY 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 YTD
C. INMATE DEATHS
The institution experienced zero deaths in CY 2011.
The DRC shares data on suicide attempts with CIIC. In 2011, the DRC reported 57 attempted
suicides.33
Of those, zero were reported as occurring at Toledo Correctional Institution.
Compared to 2009, in which one suicide attempt was reported, this is a decrease. The following
chart provides a breakdown of the suicide attempts by institution in 2011.
29
Significant Incident Summary reports provided by Toledo Correctional Institution for January 2011- December
2011. 30
Ibid. 31
Ibid. 32
Ibid. 33
Monthly Reports on Attempted Suicides, Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. January-December 2011.
CIIC Annual Report, January 2012.
2009 2010 2011 2012 YTD
Inmate on Staff 34 17 25 3
Inmate on Inmate 19 29 34 9
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Nu
mb
er
of
Ass
ault
s
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 22
Chart 7
Suicide Attempts by Institution34
CY 2011
D. INVESTIGATOR DATA
The role of the Institutional Investigator is an essential component to ensuring the safety and
security of the institution. Investigators are generally focused on investigating illegal substances,
assaults, or issues regarding the professional misconduct of staff members. Investigator-initiated
investigations do not constitute the total number of investigations conducted regarding
contraband or any other matter in the institution, which may be initiated by other staff persons.
In the 12 months prior to the inspection date,35
the Investigator initiated 72 investigations. The
majority of the activity involved staff misconduct (27) and inmate-on-inmate sexual assaults
(17).36
Table 6 in the Appendix provides a breakdown of cases by type.
E. SECURITY THREAT GROUPS (STG)
As of December 2011, there were 615 STG-affiliated inmates, which was 39 percent of the
institutional population.37
In comparison, 18 percent of the total DRC population was identified
34
Ibid. 35
Investigator’s Monthly Caseload, Toledo Correctional Institution, April 2011- March 2012. 36
Ibid. 37
Correctional Institution Inspection Committee, Security Threat Group Brief, January 2012. Total population from
the DRC website North Central Correctional Institution, accessible at http://www.drc.state.oh.us/public/ncci.htm.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
AC
I
BeC
I
CC
I
DC
I/M
EP
RC
FP
RC
GC
I
HC
F
LA
EC
I
Lo
CI
MaC
I
MC
I
NC
CI
NC
CT
F
NC
I
NE
PR
C
PC
I
RIC
I
SC
I
LeC
I
Man
CI
RC
I
TC
I
To
CI
WC
I
SO
CF
OS
P
CR
C
Lo
rCI
CM
C
OC
F
OR
W
Level
1/2
Level
3
Level
4/5
Reception
Center Special
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 23
as having some form of STG affiliation in 2011.38
The following chart provides a breakdown of
DRC institutions by percentage of the inmate population identified as having STG affiliation.
Chart 8
STG Members by Percent of Inmate Population
2011
STG-affiliated inmates are broken up into three groups based on their participation level.39
There were 233 inmates listed as disruptive (level 3), 33 inmates listed as active (level 2), and
349 inmates listed as passive (level 1).
F. INMATE SAFETY RATING
CIIC uses three factors to determine inmate safety: (1) inmate safety ratings, collected by the
CIIC inspection team as part of inspection procedures; (2) the number of medical referrals as a
result of injuries sustained by inmates based on an assault, forced move, disturbance, or other
incident; and (3) the number of reported disturbances. Overall, inmate safety at Toledo
Correctional Institution is rated by the CIIC inspection team as average.
Inmate Safety Ratings. Inmates were asked to rate the safety level of inmates at the facility by
choosing “very safe,” “safe,” “unsafe,” or “very unsafe.” Of the 115 inmates interviewed in the
institution’s general population housing units, 95 inmates said they believe inmates are “safe” or
“very safe.” However, inmates have reported safety concerns to CIIC through letters,
particularly after the double-celling of the facility, and the institution was in the process of
increasing its Level 4 population at the time of the inspection.
38
Ibid. 39
Types of participation that determine STG classification levels range from having STG-affiliated tattoos or
paraphernalia, to actively inciting a riot.
39
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
AC
I
BeC
I
CC
I
DC
I
FP
RC
GC
I
HC
F
LA
EC
I
Lo
CI
MaC
I
MC
I
NC
CI
NC
CT
F
NC
I
NE
PR
C
PC
I
RIC
I
SC
I
LeC
I
Man
CI
RC
I
TC
I
To
CI
WC
I
SO
CF
OS
P
CR
C
Lo
rCI
CM
C
OC
F
OR
W
Level
1/2
Level
3
Level
4/5
Reception
Center Special
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 24
Medical Referrals.40
The institution reported three medical referrals for inmate injuries
sustained as a result of an incident at the institution from January 2011 through December
2011.41
In addition, there was one medical referral for 2012 YTD (March 2012).42
Disturbances.43
The institution reported four disturbances from January 2011 through
December 2011 which is one more than what was reported in CY 2009.44
There were two
reported disturbances for 2012 YTD.45
40
A medical referral is defined as an inmate receiving treatment at an outside medical facility due to an incident that
occurred at the institution, including assaults, forced cell moves, restraints, officer use of OC spray, and
disturbances. 41
Significant Incident Summary reports provided by Toledo Correctional Institution for January 2011- December
2011 and January 2011 – December 2011. 42
Significant Incident Summary reports provided by Toledo Correctional Institution for January 2012- March 2012. 43
A disturbance is defined as a violent incident involving four or more inmates. 44
Significant Incident Summary reports provided by Toledo Correctional Institution for January 2011- December
2011 and January 2009 – December 2009. 45
Significant Incident Summary reports provided by Toledo Correctional Institution for January 2012- March 2012.
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 25
SECTION V. EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS
A. MEDICAL SERVICES
CIIC’s inspection of medical services in a correctional facility focuses on four primary areas:
cleanliness of facilities, staffing, access to medical staff, and staff/inmate communication. CIIC
staff, as non-medical laypersons with corrections experience, cannot make determinations
regarding the quality of medical care at a facility. The inspection includes information collected
from interviews with the Healthcare Administrator (HCA), observations of the facilities and
focus group discussions.46
Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated medical services at the Toledo
Correctional Institution as IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT in all areas.
Facilities
Medical facilities at the Toledo Correctional Institution include three exam rooms, seven offices,
six infirmary beds, one waiting area, and a records area. Although facilities are improving under
the guidance of the acting HCA, the medical supply room and at least one office was in a state of
disorganization. There were also some additional areas that required cleaning and a hole in the
ceiling due to the roof leaking.
Staffing
Adequate staffing has a clear and direct connection to patient care. At the time of the inspection,
the HCA had been out on leave for a month. During the inspection period, the physician
resigned. Staff also reported vacancies in one Licensed Practical Nurse position and three
Registered Nurse positions. It should be noted that the Warden relayed an initiative to
aggressively recruit among local medical colleges to build healthcare staffing.
Access to Medical Staff
Access to medical staff is evaluated based on several factors: (1) time period between inmate
submission of a health service request form and appointment with medical staff; (2) time period
between referral to the doctor and appointment with the doctor; (3) response times to kites and
informal complaint forms; and (4) current backlogs for nurse sick call, doctor sick call, and
chronic care clinic.
Based on a review of data provided by institutional staff, the average time period between
submission of a health service request form and appointment with nursing staff was within two
days. The average time period between referral to the doctor and appointment with the doctor
was within 48 hours (however, the resignation of the physician will quickly impact the
turnaround). The average response time to kites was within one day, with 81 kites answered in
the last three months. A total of 273 informal complaints were received in the last six months,
with response times varying greatly and some responses occurring two weeks or more after the
due date.
46
One focus group is comprised of staff and two, of inmates (one group of chronic care and one group of general
medicine patients).
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 26
There was no current backlog for Nurse or Doctor Sick Call. However, there was a sizeable and
concerning backlog for chronic care appointments, with 255 of the 544 inmates (46.9 percent)
enrolled in chronic care clinics on the backlog.
Staff/Inmate Communication.
A focus group of staff was conducted and staff relayed several positive comments, including that
TOCI staff do an excellent job of triaging medical complaints.
During the inspection, CIIC also conducted two focus groups of inmates (both chronic care and
general medicine patients). Both groups relayed that it takes one to two weeks to see the doctor
and relayed that there is negative interactions with inmates by some nurses on staff. Inmates also
relayed concerns regarding reported stoppages in medications – i.e. failure of staff to reorder
medication in a timely manner.
In addition, staff separately relayed concerns regarding the appropriate completion of screening
forms (DRC form 7150). Administrative staff relayed that they were aware of the issue and that
it would be rectified.
More information on the medical services at Toledo Correctional Institution can be found in the
inspection checklist in the Appendix.
B. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
CIIC’s inspection of mental health services in a correctional facility focuses on four primary
areas: cleanliness of facilities, staffing, access to mental health staff, and inmate communication.
CIIC staff, as laypersons with corrections experience, cannot make determinations regarding the
quality of mental health care at a facility. The inspection includes information gathered from
interviewing the Mental Health Manager and observation of the facilities. Overall, the CIIC
inspection team rated mental health services as IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT, with
improvement needed in staffing.
According to staff, Toledo Correctional Institution had 397 inmates on the caseload at the time of
the inspection, or over a quarter of the total inmate population.47
Facilities
Mental health facilities at the Toledo Correctional Institution include four crisis cells (two
located in medical services and two in segregation), seven offices, one classroom, one
conference area, and a records room. Two of the crisis cells were in use at the time of the
inspection. The CIIC inspection team relayed concerns regarding the crisis cells in segregation.
These cells were built as segregation cells, not cells intended for observing inmates on suicide
watch, and they had very poor visibility for officers engaged in constant or close suicide watch.
In addition, there was a toothbrush in the toilet in one of the segregation crisis cells, which could
47
This number was reported to CIIC staff at the time of the inspection. However, ToCI’s response/action plans
indicate that the total mental health caseload was 303 at the time of the inspection, or 19 percent of the population.
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 27
present a security concern, and also indicates that staff are not performing the per-policy
cleaning of crisis cells after use.
Staffing
Adequate staffing has a clear and direct connection to patient care. At the time of the inspection,
the facility employed only two independently licensed non-psychiatry staff, including the Health
Care Administrator. Staff relayed that they were in need of a Social Worker 3 and an Activity
Therapist. Even if fully staffed per the table of organization, it is not clear that there are
sufficient staff to care for the caseload of inmates.
Access to Mental Health Staff
Access to mental health staff is evaluated based on several factors: (1) time period between
inmate submission of a mental health service request form and appointment with mental health
staff, (2) time period between referral and appointment with the psychologist or psychiatrist, (3)
response time to kites and informal complaint forms, and (4) current backlogs.
Based on a review of data provided by institutional staff, kites were generally responded to
within three days, with approximately 220 received within the past six months. Staff relayed that
they had received only 16 informal complaints within the last six months, all of which were
reportedly responded to within the requisite seven day timeframe. Staff reported no backlog in
responding to kites or informal complaints.
Staff reported that they performed weekly rounds in segregation and that the wait time for the
initial psychiatry appointment was within a week.
One concern raised by staff was the wait time to transfer inmates to the Residential Treatment
Unit (RTU), which was reportedly two and a half weeks in one instance, due to the lack of bed
space at the only RTU in the state that accepts Level 3 inmates – the Correctional Reception
Center.
Inmate Communication
Many inmates write to CIIC in regards to their mental health needs. Since January 2011, CIIC
received 13 concerns from inmates reporting denial of treatment or inadequate treatment in the
area of mental health.
Further information regarding mental health services can be found in the inspection checklist in
the Appendix
C. FOOD SERVICES
The overall inspection of the Toledo Correctional Institution food services consisted of two
dining halls, the kitchen preparation area, the loading dock, and attending the general meal. CIIC
also attended the general meal period and spoke with staff regarding the inmate workforce.
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 28
Overall, the Toledo Correctional Institution food service was considered ACCEPTABLE. The
dining hall and loading dock areas were clean and the meal was easy to consume. However, there
were some concerns regarding the amount of debris under the serving line. Food service workers
prepared the trays in the kitchen and handed them to inmates through a serving window.
In 2011, CIIC received 24 concerns regarding food services from inmates at the Toledo
Correctional Institution.48
The top concern reported to CIIC regarding Toledo Correctional
Institution was in regard to food portions (seven). Five inmates reported issues to CIIC that were
categorized as “other.” As of 2012 year-to-date,49
12 inmates relayed concerns to CIIC regarding
food service. The largest number of concerns reported in the first four months of 2012 were
regarding portion size (four).
Meal
Pursuant to Section 103.73 of the Ohio Revised Code, a general meal period was attended on the
day of the inspection. The menu consisted of meatloaf patty, two pieces of bread, potatoes, wax
beans, a sliced apple, and two cookies. CIIC rated the meal as acceptable based on the quality of
taste. The meat was cooked at the appropriate temperatures and appeared to provide ample
portion sizes for CIIC and inmates. However, most of the inmates rated this meal as in need of
improvement. The inmate relayed concerns regarding the portion size and the number of calories
contained in each meal. According to staff, the caloric intake of each meal is based on the
requirements established by the DRC Operation Support Center.
As of 2011, the cost per inmate meal at Toledo Correctional Institution was $1.05.50
In
comparison, the average DRC cost per inmate meal was $1.07.51
Dining Hall
Toledo Correctional Institution has two inmate dining halls. The cleanliness of the dining halls
were considered excellent as there were no visible signs of leftover food particles on the tables or
floor. Inmate porters maintained a clean area by wiping off the tables after each use. On the day
of the inspection, the atmosphere in each dining hall was calm. There was one officer assigned
to each dining hall during each meal period. In addition to the assigned officers, up to three
recreation officers may also provide additional assistance during each meal period. Inmates were
racially integrated at most tables.
Kitchen Prep Area
The conditions of the kitchen prep area were considered acceptable. The rating was based on the
efforts of the inmates food service staff to maintain a clean environment as they continued to
serve the lunch meal. Most of the counters and the floor in the kitchen prep area were clear of
48
CIIC Database of Contacts and Concerns, Toledo Correctional Institution, January 1, 2011- December 31, 2011. 49
CIIC Database of Contacts and Concerns, Toledo Correctional Institution, January 1, 2012 – April 24, 2012. 50
Personal communication with Department of Rehabilitation and Correction on January 7, 2011. 51
Ibid.
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 29
any debris. However, there was a significant amount of food under the serving line, which is also
located in the kitchen.
According to staff, Toledo Correctional Institution passed its most recent health inspection in
February 2012.52
The kitchen consisted of five ovens, three kettles, three coolers, two tilt skillets and one freezer.
According to staff, two of the tilt skillets needed to be replaced. Staff reportedly submitted a
request for approval to the DRC Operation Support Center during the week prior to the
inspection date.
Inmate Workers
There were 130 inmates assigned to food service. The inmates are selected by the food service
staff after submitting a request by kite. Inmate monthly wages begin at $18.00 per month for
Porter 1 positions.53
Inmates receive performance evaluations after every 90 days or when
inmates request to be re-classed to another position. Inmates must work in food service for a
minimum of 90 days before they can request a re-classification to another job. Inmates can
receive wage increases starting from $19.00 per month if they are promoted to a higher-level
position such as porter 2.54
Inmates who obtain positions such as Cook 7, Baker 7, Porter 7, and
Dishwasher 7 can earn $24.00 per month.55
Incentive Program
During inspections and in separate correspondence to CIIC, inmates have relayed that working in
food service is considered a punishment.56
As a result, some institutions have developed
incentive programs to make food service more attractive to inmates. Toledo Correctional
Institution did not have an incentive program. However, current staff would like to offer inmates
more incentives. Food service staff relayed that some inmates would do not want to work in food
service despite requesting to be placed there. Staff would like to make food service more
efficient by making it more attractive and available only to inmates who truly want to work in
food service operations.
D. HOUSING UNITS
CIIC inspects every housing unit within each correctional institution, which includes a visual
inspection of all areas, interviews with inmates within those housing units, and a review of
documentation to ensure staff accountability. Toledo Correctional Institution has four pods that
comprise a total of 18 housing units. The units are labeled A, B, C, and D. Overall, the housing
units were rated as ACCEPTABLE.
52
Personal communication with institution staff on the date of the inspection. 53
Ibid. 54
Ibid. 55
Each position title ending in “7,” represents the highest pay grade an inmate can earn. 56
“Evaluation of Correctional Food Services.” http://www.ciic.state.oh.us/food-services/view-category.html.
February 14, 2011
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 30
Housing Unit Conditions
Of the 18 general population housing units, the average level of cleanliness for cells was rated as
acceptable, based on the overall conditions of the cell. There were no signs of chipped paint or
any complaints regarding sanitation concerns from inmates. Most inmates kept personal items
off the floor and stacked their shoes neatly under their beds. While some inmates maintained a
clean environment in their cells, several inmate cells were messy and appeared unkempt. Some
beds were unmade and some inmates blocked the air passage under the door with a towel to
prevent cold air from coming in. In addition, some inmates hung pictures that appeared to be
inappropriate. Staff was made aware of this issue during the inspection.
Each cell is outfitted with a toilet and sink. According to staff, all of the sinks and toilets were in
working order. Each unit contained three showers on the upper and lower range. Although
showers had some soap scum, the walls and shower floor appeared to be in good condition.
There were no signs of peeling paint or chipped floor tiles that have been present in other
institutions. The showers are cleaned twice daily by inmate porters.
The dayroom areas were very clean and CIIC observed several inmates mopping the units during
the inspection. In addition to maintaining a very clean environment, inmates were also doing
their laundry in the stackable showers and dryers that are located in each unit.
Segregation Unit
The segregation count on the day of the inspection was 138 with 69 inmates under Security
Control (SC) status, 40 inmates in Local Control (LC) and 29 inmates under Disciplinary Control
(DC). The cleanliness of the segregation unit was rated as excellent, based on the cleanliness of
the hallways, showers, and cells which had no major sanitation concerns.
E. COMMISSARY
Each institution maintains and operates a commissary for inmates to purchase food/snacks,
hygiene products, and other small items.57
CIIC’s inspection of the commissary in a correctional
facility focuses on three primary areas: facilities/inventory, inmate access to the commissary, and
financials. Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated the commissary as EXCELLENT with no
areas in need of improvement.
Facilities/Inventory
The commissary facilities at Toledo Correctional Institution were very clean and well
maintained. Staff relayed they have experienced minor problems with ants, but no major issues
57
To order commissary items, the inmates must turn in their commissary sheet, which is a form indicating items
they wish to purchase. From there an inmate worker will fill the order, staff will charge the inmate account, and
items will be given to the inmate. The profits are placed in the institution’s Industrial and Entertainment (I and E)
funds, which are reinvested back into the institution. All inmate property must fit within a 2.4 cubic foot storage
box.
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 31
with pests or rodents and explained that the exterminator visits every other week. The inventory
was neatly organized and stored properly.
Access to Commissary
Access to commissary and inmate spending limits are determined by security classification.
Level 3 inmates are permitted to spend $60 per week at the commissary and Level 4A inmates
may spend $100 every other week.58
Throughout the inspection there were several concerns
about access to commissary, which stemmed primarily from inmates in the D1 and D2 units.
Financials
Staff relayed that the nine inmates who work in the commissary make on average $18 per month.
The Income Statement reflects that the commissary transferred $18,513.89 dollars to the
Industrial and Entertainment (I and E) fund from July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.59
Staff relayed that the commissary could be more efficient/profitable if they had a Commissary
Manager.
Inmate Communication.
Many inmates write to CIIC regarding various concerns. In CY 2011, there were three inmate
concerns regarding the commissary at ToCI.60
Two concerns were related to the denial of
commissary privileges and the other was regarding pricing.
Further information regarding the commissary can be found in the inspection checklist in the
Appendix.
58
Toledo Correctional Institution, personal communication, April 16, 2012. 59
Commissary Institution Income Statement, July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. 60
Information based on CIIC “Contacts and Concerns” for Toledo Correctional Institution relayed from January
2011 – December 2011.
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 32
SECTION VI. EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS
A. PROGRAM EVALUATION
Ohio Revised Code Section 103.73 requires CIIC to evaluate an educational or rehabilitative
program as part of each inspection. CIIC’s evaluation of educational programs in a correctional
facility focuses on four primary areas: facilities, staffing, access to programming, and quality of
programming. Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated academic and vocational programming at
the facility as ACCEPTABLE, with staffing levels and access to programming in need of
improvement, due to the need to increase the volume of classes and instructional textbooks and
materials so that more inmates may participate in educational programs and have more direct
contact with the instructional materials.
Facilities
Educational facilities at Toledo Correctional Institution are housed in a building that was
originally designed for maximum security, so the classrooms and interior hallways are lined with
numerous glass paned windows that allow maximum visibility for safety and security purposes,
and also allow much light to filter throughout the complex. Overall, the extreme cleanliness and
bright atmosphere is positive, inviting, and conducive to learning. Correctional officers in the
school walk around the complex and also maintain a centralized desk/station. Classroom size,
ventilation, and temperature were excellent. Overall, the CIIC inspection team rated the facilities
and plant as excellent. A new Spyder security system is currently installed and soon to be
activated. Teachers are provided with man-down instruments.
Staffing
At the time of the inspection, the academic faculty consisted of only three full-time academic
teachers and one career-technology teacher. There was one career-technology vacancy, but it
reportedly will not be filled due to budget reductions. In addition to DRC teachers, the facility
has one Principal, one Librarian, and one Guidance Counselor. There is no Education Specialist,
no School Administrator, and no Administrative Support Staff. Separate from the full-time DRC
staff, there are eight contracted instructors employed by Owens Community College who
provide post-secondary instruction to qualified inmates through incentive and education (I and E)
funding. The current staffing level is considered to be in need of improvement, due to the small
number of teachers available to approximately 1,500 inmates.
Access to Programming
Access to programming is evaluated based on the current waitlist. As of the March 2012
education monthly report submitted from Toledo Correctional Institution to CIIC, there were 122
inmates enrolled in academic programming and 279 inmates on the academic waitlist, a ratio of
1.0 inmate academic enrollee to 2.3 inmates on academic wait list.61
In comparison, for March
2012, there were 6,294 inmates enrolled in academic programming across the DRC and 7,395
inmates on the academic waitlist, a ratio of 1.0 inmate academic enrollee to 1.2 inmates on the
61
Ohio Central School System Monthly Enrollment Reports, Toledo Correctional Institution, March 2012.
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 33
academic wait list.62
Since the ratio between enrollee and waitlisted inmate at Toledo
Correctional Institution is greater than the state-wide average, access to programming is rated in
need of improvement.
While currently in need of improvement, there are reportedly plans to increase inmate access to
educational content through the introduction of a new education channel on the institution’s
closed network, using inmate televisions. The institution is acquiring multiple collections of
educational DVDs and will broadcast them on a dedicated channel within their internal network.
Even though the project is not the same as taking and completing a defined course of study, the
channel will provide a needed venue for a very large number of inmates to learn by viewing the
channel whenever they are in their housing units. Some of the content will consist of basic
instructional modules that will assist inmates in pre-GED and GED instruction, so that some
students may complete the GED at faster rates. This project is funded using incentive and
education (I and E) funds and is scheduled to roll out by June 2012.
Further, there is discussion underway regarding suggestions to increase the number of Certified
Tutors, inmates who are pre-qualified and trained to assist other inmates during the instruction of
various subjects. The benefit of engaging inmate tutors is that students typically make academic
gains and achievement at a faster rate, completing courses successfully, so that additional
inmates may be removed from the waitlist and placed into classes, taking empty seats created by
completers. In addition, the engagement of Certified Tutors on the living units brings
instructional assistance to more inmates even as they are still on the wait lists, awaiting
admission to courses. With the anticipated upcoming influx of additional inmates with higher
security levels and longer sentences, the increase in Certified Tutors is being considered for the
value it may add to reaching additional inmates educationally. Toledo Correctional Institution
currently engages approximately nine Certified Inmate Tutors.
Quality of Programming
The quality of programming is evaluated based on two factors: (1) outcome measures, including
GED passage rates and program completion rates, and (2) an on-site observation of an academic
or vocational program during the inspection. The Toledo Correctional Institution was rated
excellent for outcome measures and on-site observations.
Outcome Measures: In FY 2011, ending June 2011, there were 15 inmates who received a GED
at the facility, amounting to 6.3 percent of the 238 inmates enrolled year to date in academic
courses. In comparison, at all institutions serving as Security Level 3 institutions during the
same time period, there was an average of 12.1 percent of academically enrolled inmates who
received the GED.63
The percentage of GED completers at Toledo Correctional Institution is
approximately half of the average realized in all Level 3 institutions, which is an indicator for
need of improvement. In addition to GEDs passed, there were 86 inmates at Toledo Correctional
Institution who completed and received a certificate in an academic or vocational program in FY
2011.
62
Ohio Central School System Monthly Enrollment Reports, DRC institutions, March 2012. 63
Ohio Central School System Monthly Enrollment Reports, DRC Institutions, June 2011.
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 34
On-Site Observation: During the inspection, a member of the CIIC inspection team observed the
following programs: GED mathematics and Accounting. Key findings included well-managed
classrooms that engaged multiple inmate tutors, small groups working in teams on projects,
individualized instruction, and a variety of instructional strategies appropriate to the course and
students within the two classes. The GED class was an example of a copyrighted curriculum-
defined program, with the instructor engaging the services of four inmate tutors. The accounting
class was one of the post-secondary programs delivered by a contracted instructor, who
effectively delivered instruction using many current verbal strategies. Students in both
classrooms were very responsive to instruction and engaged in the learning process.
A list of Academic/Vocational, Recovery Service, and Unit programs and related schedules can
be found in Appendix A. Further information regarding the educational program observations
can be found in the program checklists in the Appendix.
B. LIBRARY/LAW LIBRARY SERVICES
Each institution has a library and a law library. The library area at Toledo Correctional
Institution is open, well-lighted, clean, and appealing as a place to read, research, and experience
time within the institution that replicates traits of normal community life. The law library is an
adjacent room, accessible through a lockable door from the main library. The library is
reportedly highly valued by the inmates at the Toledo Correctional Institution. Overall, the
library was considered EXCELLENT, with no concerns noted.
Facilities
The Toledo Correctional Institution library was inspected by CIIC staff and found to be well-
organized. The library was a bright, clean area with stacks of books at full capacity around the
perimeter of the room. The upper half of the library walls is constructed of glass panels,
allowing excellent visibility to security staff. The library staff includes a full-time librarian.
There are approximately seven inmates assigned to work in the library as library aides. There are
six computers (Lexus Nexus equipped) and four typewriters available for inmate use.
Materials
The Toledo Correctional Institution library currently maintains a collection of approximately
9,806 total items.64
During March 2012, inmates frequented the library 1,714 times and
generated 3,041 transactions of materials. The use of library materials was 1.77 items per visit
during March 2012.65
The per capita availability of library materials, based on the institution’s
total inmate population of 1,496 inmates and the total number of 9,806 items in the general
library in March 2012 was 6.6 items per inmate. 66
The library includes approximately 175
ethnic-based publications for African-American and approximately 88 Hispanic items. Ethnic
materials are kept on dedicated shelves for easy retrieval. An inter-library loan system is
64
Library Monthly Report, Toledo Correctional Institution for March 2012. 65
Ibid. This calculation was based on a population of 1,714 inmate visits to the library. 66
Library Monthly Report, Toledo Correctional Institution. March 2012.
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 35
reportedly used every month. In March 2012, inmates made 94 requests through the inter-library
loan system.67
Access to the Library and Law Library
Access to both main library and law library remains a primary issue of concern for CIIC, as
numerous letters have indicated inmates’ dissatisfaction with the number of hours allowed,
particularly when inmates wish to perform legal research. The observation revealed that inmates
from various housing units may have library hours accessible of approximately 17 hours per
week, excluding the hours that inmates are not available due to scheduled job and educational
programming requirements.
According to the Library Monthly Report, the Toledo Correctional Institution library was open
for a total of approximately 108 hours during the month of March 2012.68
There were reportedly
1,714 inmate visits to the library during March 2012. There were reportedly 9,305 inmates
cumulatively served by the library during visits for the six month period from October 2011
through March 2012. Further information regarding the inspection of the library and the library
schedules can be found in the Appendix.
67
Ibid. 68
Ibid.
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 36
SECTION VII. INMATE COMMUNICATION
Inmates interviewed during the inspection were asked what changes they would make at the
Institution. Of the 115 inmates interviewed, the top three suggestions made by inmates fall into
the following categories: (1) Improve the safety and security of inmates in regard to the number
of inmate fights and the presence of security threat groups (13 inmates); (2) Staff supervision
concerns as it relates to unprofessional conduct and disrespect towards inmates (11 inmates); and
(3) Improve the quality of medical care including the amount of time it takes to be seen by the
medical staff (11 inmates). In addition, 15 inmates relayed that they had no concerns or
suggestions regarding changes at the Toledo Correctional Institution.
In CY 2011, CIIC received 175 contacts from or regarding inmates at Toledo Correctional
Institution, from which 670 concerns were reported. The institution ranked second among all
DRC institutions for total number of contacts.69
The top three concerns reported to CIIC
regarding Toledo Correctional Institution were: Health Care (89), Inmate Relations (83), and
Supervision (52).70
Chart 9
2011 CIIC Contacts with Institutional Breakdown (DRC)71
69
CIIC Database of Contacts and Concerns, January-December 2011. 70
Ibid. 71
Ibid.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
AC
I
BeC
I
CC
I
DC
I/M
EP
RC
FP
RC
GC
I
HC
F
LaE
CI
Lo
CI
MaC
I
MC
I
NC
CI
NC
I
NC
CT
F
NE
PR
C
PC
I
RIC
I
SC
I
LeC
I
Man
CI
RC
I
TC
I
To
CI
WC
I
SO
CF
OS
P
CR
C
Lo
rCI
CM
C
OC
F
OR
W
175
Level
1/2 Level
3
Level
4/5
Reception
Center Special
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 37
In comparison, the following chart provides a breakdown of the top three reported concerns
regarding the facility in 2011.
Chart 10
Breakdown of Top Three Reported Concerns (Toledo Correctional Institution)72
CY 2011
72
Ibid.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Health Care Inmate Relations Supervision
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 38
SECTION VIII. APPENDIX
A. FULL LIST OF PROGRAMS
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 39
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 40
B. SCHEDULES
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 41
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 42
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 43
C. DATA TABLES
Table 1.
Inspector’s Report
CY 2011
Grievance Numbers
Total Number of Grievances Filed During Year 475
Total Number of Inmates Who Filed Grievances During Year 239
Highest Number of Grievances Filed by Single Inmate 25
Grievances on Hand at Beginning of This Period 8
Grievances Received during this period 475
Total 483
Grievances Completed During This Period 439
Grievances on Hand at End of This Period 44
Total 483
ICR Summary
Number of Informal Complaints Received 2,546
Number of Informal Complaint Responses Received 2,477
Number of Informal Complaint Responses Untimely 520
Granted W B O Total
Granted – Problem Corrected 20 6 1 27
Granted – Problem Noted, Correction Pending 7 4 0 11
Granted – Problem Noted, Report/Recommendation to the Warden 0 0 0 0
Subtotal Granted 27 10 1 38
Denied
Denied – No Violation of Rule, Policy, or Law 102 81 1 184
Denied – Staff Action Was Valid Exercise of Discretion 1 4 0 5
Denied – Insufficient Evidence to Support Claim 55 69 2 126
Denied – False Claim 4 3 0 7
Denied – Failure to Use Informal Complaint Procedure 0 2 0 2 Denied – Not within the Scope of the Grievance Procedure 29 27 2 58 Denied – Not within Time Limits 1 7 0 8
Subtotal Denied 192 193 5 390
Withdrawn at Inmate’s Request 7 4 0 11
Pending Disposition 16 28 0 44
TOTALS 242 235 6 483 Percent 50.1 48.7 1.2 100.0
Extensions
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 44
14-Day Extensions 89
28-Day Extensions 4
Total 93
Table 2.
Use of Force with Racial Breakdown
CY 2011
Black White Other Total
Use of Force Incidents 266 113 12 391
Percentage 68.0 28.9 3.1 100.0
Action Taken on Use of Force Incidents:
Assigned to Use of Force Committee for Investigation 27 16 0 43
Logged as “No Further Action Required” 239 97 11 347
Referred to the employee disciplinary process 3 0 0 3
Referred to the Chief Inspector 0 0 0 0
Number of investigations not completed within 30 days
and extended 0 0 0 0
Number of extended investigations from previous month that were:
Completed 4 3 0 7
Not Completed 2 6 0 8
Table 3.
Use of Force with Racial and Monthly Breakdown
CY 2011
Black White Other Total
January 27 9 2 38
February 20 8 0 28
March 19 9 0 28
April 11 5 0 16
May 20 5 3 28
June 19 11 1 31
July 15 14 1 30
August 25 13 1 39
September 29 5 3 37
October 17 14 0 31
November 30 11 1 42
December 34 9 0 43
Total 266 113 12 391
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 45
Table 4.
Assaults: Inmate on Inmate
CY 2009 to CY 2012 YTD
Category of Assault 2009 2010 2011 2012 YTD
Physical Assault 19 27 31 9
Harassment Assault 0 2 1 0
Sexual Assault 0 0 2 0
Total 19 29 34 9
Table 5.
Assaults: Inmate on Staff
CY 2009 to CY 2012 YTD
Category of Assault 2009 2010 2011 2012 YTD
Physical Assault 11 5 12 1
Harassment Assault 23 12 11 1
Inappropriate Contact 0 0 2 1
Total 34 17 25 3
Table 6.
Investigator Monthly Report Summary by Type of Investigation
April 2011 to March 2012
Investigations Cases Initiated
Drugs (Staff/Inmate) 0
Drugs (Inmate/Visitor) 3
Drugs (Mail/Package) 0
Drugs (Staff) 0
Drugs (other) 1
Positive Urinalysis 0
Staff/Inmate Relationship 5
Staff Misconduct 27
Assault-(Inmate on Staff) 5
Assault (Inmate on Inmate) 6
Sexual Assault (Inmate on Inmate) 17
Other: 8
Background Investigations 0
Total 72
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 46
D. INSPECTION CHECKLISTS
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 47
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 48
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 49
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 50
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 51
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 52
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 53
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 54
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 55
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 56
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 57
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 58
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 59
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 60
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 61
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 62
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 63
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 64
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 65
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 66
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 67
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 68
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 69
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 70
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 71
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 72
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 73
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 74
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 75
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 76
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 77
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 78
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 79
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 80
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 81
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 82
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 83
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 84
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 85
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 86
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 87
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 88
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 89
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 90
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 91
SECTION IX. GLOSSARY OF TERMS
A
Administrative Assistant (AA) – Staff member who is an assistant to the Warden and
typically responsible for reviewing RIB (Rules Infraction Board) decisions and RIB appeals.
Adult Basic Education (ABE)/Literacy – Literacy classes are for student with reading levels
at 226 and below the CASAS. The ABE/Literacy Unit consist of two afternoon sessions.
Students attend school approximately 1 ½ hours each day on Monday – Thursday. Students
work individually or in small groups with tutors and focus on improving their reading and
math skills. All tutors in the ABE/Literacy Unit are certified through a 10 hour training
course.
B
Brunch – Served on weekends as a cost savings initiative.
Bureau of Classification – Office located at the DRC Operation Support Center responsible
with the ultimate authority for inmate security levels, placement at institutions, as well as
transfers.
Bureau of Medical Services – Office located at the DRC Operation Support Center
responsible for direct oversight of medical services at each institution.
Bureau of Mental Health Services – Office located at the DRC Operation Support Center
responsible for direct oversight of Mental Health Services at each institution.
C
Case Manager – Staff member responsible for assisting inmates assigned to their case load
and conducting designated core and authorized reentry programs.
Cellie/Bunkie – An inmate’s cellmate or roommate.
Chief Inspector – Staff member at the DRC Operation Support Center responsible for
administering all aspects of the grievance procedure for inmates, rendering dispositions on
inmate grievance appeals as well as grievances against the Wardens and/or Inspectors of
Institutional Services.
Classification/Security Level – System by which inmates are classified based on the
following: current age; seriousness of the crime; prior offenses; most recent violence (not
including the current offense); gang activity before going to prison; and present and past
escape attempts.
Close Security – See Level 3
Computer Voice Stress Analysis (CVSA) – A device, which electronically detects, measures,
and charts the stress in a person’s voice following a pre-formatted questionnaire. Used as a
truth seeking device for investigations.
Conduct Report/Ticket – Document issued to inmate for violating a rule.
Contraband – items possessed by an inmate which, by their nature, use, or intended use, pose
a threat to security or safety of inmates, staff or public, or disrupt the orderly operation of the
facility. items possessed by an inmate without permission and the location in which these
items are discovered is improper; or the quantities in which an allowable item is possessed is
prohibited; or the manner or method by which the item is obtained was improper; or an
allowable item is possessed by an inmate in an altered form or condition.
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 92
D
Deputy Warden of Operations (DWO) – Staff member at each institution in charge of
monitoring the Major, custody staff, the Unit Management Administrator, Unit Managers,
Case Managers, and the locksmith. Other areas include count office, mail/visiting, Rules
Infraction Board, segregation unit, and recreation. The Deputy Warden of Operations is also
responsible for reviewing use of force reports and referring them to a Use of Force
Committee when necessary for further investigation.
Deputy Warden of Special Services (DWSS) – Staff member at each institution in charge of
monitoring education, the library, inmate health services, recovery services, mental health
services, religious services, Ohio Penal Industries, and food service.
Disciplinary Control (DC) – The status of an inmate who was found guilty by the Rules
Infraction Board and his or her penalty is to serve DC time. An inmate may serve up to 15
days in DC.
F
Food Service Administrator – An employee within the Office of Administration Services
educated in food service management and preparation, to manage DRC food service
departments.
G
GED/PRE-GED – Pre-GED classes are for those who have a reading score between a 227
through 239 on level C or higher of the CASAS test. GED classes are for those who have a
reading score of 240 on level C or higher on the CASAS test. Students attend class 1 ½
hours each day, Monday – Thursday. Students study the five subjects measured by the GED.
In addition to class work, students are given a homework assignment consisting of a list of
vocabulary words to define and writing prompt each week. All GED and Pre-GED tutors are
certified through a 10-hour training course.
General Population (GP) – Inmates not assigned to a specialized housing unit.
H
Health Care Administrator (HCA) – The health care authority responsible for the
administration of medical services within the institution. This registered nurse assesses,
directs, plans, coordinates, supervises, and evaluates all medical services delivered at the
institutional level. The HCA interfaces with health service providers in the community and
state to provide continuity of care.
Hearing Officer – The person(s) designated by the Managing Officer to conduct an informal
hearing with an inmate who received a conduct report.
Hooch – An alcoholic beverage.
I
Industrial and Entertainment (I and E) Funds – Funds created and maintained for the
entertainment and welfare of the inmates.
Informal Complaint Resolution (ICR) – The first step of the Inmate Grievance Procedure
(IGP). Inmates submit ICRs to the supervisor of the staff member who is the cause of the
complaint. Staff members are to respond within seven calendar days. Timeframe may be
waived for good cause.
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 93
Inmate Grievance Procedure (IGP) – The inmate grievance procedure is a three step
administrative process, established in DRC Administrative Rule 5120-9-31. The grievance
procedure allows for investigation and nonviolent resolution of inmate concerns. The first
step is an informal complaint resolution, which the inmate submits to the supervisor of the
staff person or department responsible for the complaint. The second step is a notification of
grievance, submitted to the Inspector. The final step is an appeal of the Inspector’s
disposition to the Chief Inspector at the DRC Operation Support Center.
Inspector of Institutional Services (IIS) – Staff person at the institution in charge of
facilitating the inmate grievance procedure, investigating and responding to inmate
grievances, conducting regular inspections of institutional services, serving as a liaison
between the inmate population and institutional personnel, reviewing and providing input on
new or revised institutional policies, procedures and post orders, providing training on the
inmate grievance procedure and other relevant topics, and any other duties as assigned by the
Warden or Chief Inspector that does not conflict with facilitating the inmate grievance
procedure or responding to grievances.
Institutional Separation – An order wherein two or more inmates are not assigned to general
population in the same institution due to a concern for the safety and security of the
institution, staff, and/or other inmates.
Intensive Program Prison (IPP) – Refers to several ninety-day programs, for which certain
inmates are eligible, that are characterized by concentrated and rigorous specialized treatment
services. An inmate who successfully completes an IPP will have his/her sentence reduced to
the amount of time already served and will be released on post-release supervision for an
appropriate time period.
Interstate Compact – The agreement codified in ORC 5149.21 governing the transfer and
supervision of adult offenders under the administration of the National Interstate
Commission.
K
Kite – A written form of communication from an inmate to staff.
L
Local Control (LC) – The status of an inmate who was referred to the Local Control
Committee by the Rules Infraction Board. The committee will decide if the inmate has
demonstrated a chronic inability to adjust to the general population or if the inmate's
presence in the general population is likely to seriously disrupt the orderly operation of the
institution. A committee reviews the inmate's status every 30 days for release consideration.
The inmate may serve up to 180 days in LC.
Local Separation – An order wherein two or more inmates are not permitted to be assigned to
the same living and/or work area, and are not permitted simultaneous involvement in the
same recreational or leisure time activities to ensure they are not in close proximity with one
another.
N
Notification of Grievance (NOG) – The second step of the Inmate Grievance Procedure
(IGP). The NOG is filed to the Inspector of Institutional Services and must be responded to
within 14 calendar days. Timeframe may be waived for good cause.
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 94
M
Maximum Security – See Level 4
Medium Security – See Level 2
Mental Health Caseload – Consists of offenders with a mental health diagnosis who receive
treatment by mental health staff and are classified as C-1 (SMI) or C-2 (Non-SMI).
Minimum Security – See Level 1
O
Ohio Central School System (OCSS) – The school district chartered by the Ohio Department
of Education to provide educational programming to inmates incarcerated within the Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.
Ohio Penal Industries (OPI) – A subordinate department of the Department of Rehabilitation
and Correction. OPI manufactures goods and services for ODRC and other state agencies.
P
Parent Institution – The institution where an inmate is assigned to after reception and will be
the main institution where the inmate serves his or her time. The parent institution is subject
to change due to transfers.
Protective Control (PC) – A placement for inmates whose personal safety would be at risk in
the General Population (GP).
R
Reentry Accountability Plan (RAP) – Plan for inmates, which includes the static risk
assessment, dynamic needs assessment, and program recommendations and participation.
Residential Treatment Unit (RTU) – The Residential Treatment Unit is a secure, treatment
environment that has a structured clinical program. All offenders enter at the Crisis and
Assessment Level (Level 1). This level is designed to assess conditions and provide structure
for the purpose of gaining clinical information or containing a crisis. The disposition of the
assessment can be admission to the treatment levels of the RTU, referral to OCF, or referral
back to the parent institution.
Rules Infraction Board (RIB) – A panel of two staff members who determine guilt or
innocence when an inmate receives a conduct report or ticket for disciplinary reasons.
S
Security Control (SC) – The status of an inmate who is pending a hearing by the Rules
Infraction Board for a rule violation, under investigation or pending institutional transfer and
needs to be separated from the general population. Inmates may be placed in SC for up to
seven days. The seven day period can be extended if additional time is needed.
Security Level/Classification – System by which inmates are classified based on the
following: current age; seriousness of the crime; prior offenses; most recent violence (not
including the current offense); gang activity before going to prison; and present and past
escape attempts.
Level 1A Security (Minimum) – The lowest security level in the classification
system. Inmates classed as Level 1 have the most privileges allowed. Inmates in
Level 1 who meet criteria specified in DRC Policy 53-CLS-03, Community Release
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 95
Approval Process, may be eligible to work off the grounds of a correctional
institution. Level 1A inmates may be housed at a correctional camp with or without a
perimeter fence and may work outside the fence under periodic supervision. Level
1A replaces the classification previously known as “Minimum 1 Security.”
Level 1B Security (Minimum) – The second lowest level in the classification system.
Level 1B inmates may be housed at a correctional camp with a perimeter fence and
may work outside of the fence under intermittent supervision. However, Level 1B
inmates who are sex offenders are not permitted to work or house outside of a
perimeter fence. Level 1B inmates may not work off the grounds of the correctional
institution. Level 1B replaces the classification previously known as “Minimum 2
Security.”
Level 2 Security (Medium) – A security level for inmates who are deemed in need of
more supervision than Level 1 inmates, but less than Level 3 inmates. Level 2
replaces the classification previously known as “Medium Security.”
Level 3 Security (Close) – This is the security level that is the next degree higher than
Level 2, and requires more security/supervision than Level 2, but less than Level 4.
Level 3 replaces the classification previously known as “Close Security.”
Level 4 Security (Maximum) – This is the security level that is the next degree higher
than Level 3, and requires more security/supervision than Level 3, but less than Level
5. It is the security level for inmates whose security classification score at the time of
placement indicates a need for very high security. It is also a classification for those
who are involved in, but not leading others to commit violent, disruptive, predatory or
riotous actions, and/or a threat to the security of the. Level 4 replaces the
classification previously known as “Maximum Security.”
Level 4A Security (Maximum) – A less restrictive privilege level, which inmates may
be placed into by the privilege level review committee with the Warden/Designee’s
approval, after a review of the inmate’s status in level 4.
Level 4B Security (Maximum) – The most restrictive privilege level assigned to an
inmate classified into level 4.
Level 5 Security (Supermax) – A security level for inmates who commit or lead
others to commit violent, disruptive, predatory, riotous actions, or who otherwise
pose a serious threat to the security of the institution as set forth in the established
Level 5 criteria. Level 5 replaces the classification previously known as “High
Maximum Security.”
Level 5A Security (Supermax) – A less restrictive privilege level, which inmates may
be placed into by the privilege level review committee with the Warden/Designee’s
approval, after a review of the inmate’s status in level 5.
Level 5B Security (Supermax) – The most restrictive privilege level assigned to an
inmate classified into level 5.
Security Threat Group (STG) – Groups of inmates such as gangs that pose a threat to the
security of the institution.
Separation – See Institutional Separation and Local Separation
Seriously Mentally Ill (SMI) – Inmates who require extensive mental health treatment.
Shank – Sharp object manufactured to be used as a weapon.
Special Management Housing Unit (SMHU)/Segregation – Housing unit for those assigned
to Security Control, Disciplinary Control, Protective Control, and Local Control.
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 96
Supermax Security – See Level 5
T
Telemedicine – A two-way interactive videoconferencing system that allows for visual and
limited physical examination of an inmate by a physician specialist while the inmate remains
at his/her prison setting and the physician specialist remains at the health care facility. It also
includes educational and administrative uses of this technology in the support of health care,
such as distance learning, nutrition counseling and administrative videoconferencing.
Transitional Control – Inmates approved for release up to 180 days prior to the expiration of
their prison sentence or release on parole or post release control supervision under closely
monitored supervision and confinement in the community, such as a stay in a licensed
halfway house or restriction to an approved residence on electronic monitoring in accordance
with section 2967.26 of the Ohio Revised Code.
Transitional Education Program (TEP) – Learn skills to successfully re-enter society.
Release dated within 90-180 days.
U
Unit Management Administrator (UMA) – Staff member responsible for overseeing the
roles, responsibilities and processes of unit management staff in a decentralized or
centralized social services management format. The UMA may develop centralized processes
within unit management, while maintaining the unit based caseload management system for
managing offender needs. The UMA shall ensure that at least one unit staff member visits the
special management areas at least once per week and visits will not exceed seven days in
between visits.
Unit Manager (UM) – Staff member responsible for providing direct supervision to assigned
unit management staff and serving as the chairperson of designated committees. Unit
Managers will conduct rounds of all housing areas occupied by inmates under their
supervision.
Use of Force – Staff is authorized to utilize force per DRC Policy 63-UOF-01 and Administrative
Rule 5120-9-01, which lists six general circumstances when a staff member may use less than deadly
force against an inmate or third person as follows:
1. Self-defense from physical attack or threat of physical harm.
2. Defense of another from physical attack or threat of physical attack.
3. When necessary to control or subdue an inmate who refuses to obey prison rules,
regulations, or orders.
4. When necessary to stop an inmate from destroying property or engaging in a riot or
other disturbance.
5. Prevention of an escape or apprehension of an escapee.
6. Controlling or subduing an inmate in order to stop or prevent self-inflicted harm.
Administrative Rule 5120-9-02 requires the Deputy Warden of Operations to review the
use of force packet prepared on each use of force incident, and to determine if the type
and amount of force was appropriate and reasonable for the circumstances, and if
administrative rules, policies, and post orders were followed. The Warden reviews the
submission and may refer any use of force incident to the two person use of force
committee or to the Chief Inspector. The Warden must refer an incident to a use of force
CIIC Report: Toledo Correctional Institution 97
committee or the Chief Inspector. The Warden must refer an incident to a use of force
committee or the Chief Inspector in the following instances:
Factual circumstances are not described sufficiently.
The incident involved serious physical harm.
The incident was a significant disruption to normal operations.
Weapons, PR-24 strikes or lethal munitions were used.
W
Warden – Top administrator at each correctional institution.
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Institution Acronyms
Allen Correctional Institution .................................. ACI
Belmont Correctional Institution ............................. BeCI
Chillicothe Correctional Institution .........................
CCI
Correctional Reception Center ................................ CRC
Dayton Correctional Institution ............................... DCI
Franklin Medical Center .......................................... FMC
Grafton Correctional Institution .............................. GCI
Hocking Correctional Facility ................................. HCF
Lake Erie Correctional Institution ........................... LaeCI
Lebanon Correctional Institution ............................. LeCI
London Correctional Institution .............................. LoCI
Lorain Correctional Institution ................................
LorCI
Madison Correctional Institution ............................. MaCI
Mansfield Correctional Institution ........................... ManCI
Marion Correctional Institution ............................... MCI
Noble Correctional Institution ................................. NCI
North Central Correctional Institution ..................... NCCI
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility .......... NCCTF
Northeast Pre-Release Center .................................. NEPRC
Oakwood Correctional Facility................................ OCF
Ohio Reformatory for Women................................. ORW
Ohio State Penitentiary ............................................ OSP
Pickaway Correctional Institution ........................... PCI
Richland Correctional Institution ............................ RiCI
Ross Correctional Institution ................................... RCI
Southeastern Correctional Institution ...................... SCI
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility ........................ SOCF
Toledo Correctional Institution................................ ToCI
Trumbull Correctional Institution ............................ TCI
Warren Correctional Institution ............................... WCI