lebanon correctional institution - ciic.state.oh.usciic.state.oh.us › docs ›...

CIIC Report: Lebanon Correctional Institution 1

Lebanon

Correctional

Institution

June 13-16, 2011

Molly Yeager,

Report Coordinator


TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

SECTION I. INSPECTION PROFILE AND INSTITUTION OVERVIEW ..........................4 A. INSPECTION PROFILE ......................................................................................4 B. INSTITUTION OVERVIEW ...............................................................................5 C. COST SAVINGS INITIATIVES ..........................................................................5 D. INMATE POPULATION .....................................................................................5

1. Security Threat Groups .............................................................................6 E. STAFF DEMOGRAPHICS ..................................................................................6

SECTION II. CRITICAL CONCERNS AND POINTS OF PRIDE ........................................9

SECTION III. CIIC STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS .........................................................14 A. ATTEND A GENERAL MEAL PERIOD .........................................................14 B. ATTEND AN EDUCATIONAL OR REHABILITATIVE PROGRAM ........14 C. EVALUATE THE INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ...........................14

SECTION IV. KEY STATISTICS .............................................................................................16 A. USE OF FORCE ..................................................................................................16 B. ASSAULTS ...........................................................................................................16 C. SUICIDES AND SUICIDE ATTEMPTS ..........................................................17 D. INVESTIGATOR DATA ....................................................................................18

SECTION V. OPERATIONS .....................................................................................................19 A. MEDICAL SERVICES .......................................................................................19 B. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES .......................................................................20 C. FOOD SERVICES ...............................................................................................21 D. HOUSING UNITS ...............................................................................................22 E. COMMISSARY ...................................................................................................23 F. RECREATION ....................................................................................................24

SECTION VI. PROGRAMS .......................................................................................................25 A. EDUCATIONAL/VOCATIONAL PROGRAMMING ...................................25 B. REENTRY/UNIT PROGRAMS.........................................................................25 C. RECOVERY SERVICES ....................................................................................26 D. RELIGIOUS PROGRAMS.................................................................................26 E. LIBRARY SERVICES ........................................................................................27

SECTION VII. CIIC CONTACTS AND CONCERNS ...........................................................28 A. INQUIRIES ..........................................................................................................30


TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

SECTION VIII. APPENDIX ......................................................................................................31 A. DATA TABLES ...................................................................................................31 Table 1. DRC Population and Prison Rated Capacity .....................................31

Table 2. Staff Population Breakdown ................................................................32

Table 3. Inspector’s Report .................................................................................32

Table 4. Use of Force with Racial Breakdown ..................................................33

Table 5. Use of Force with Racial and Monthly Breakdown ...........................34

Table 6. Assaults: Inmate on Inmate..................................................................35

Table 7. Assaults: Inmate on Staff......................................................................35

Table 8. Suicide Attempts....................................................................................35

Table 9. Investigator Monthly Report Summary by Type of Investigation ...36

Table 10. Medical Services ..................................................................................36

Table 11. Mental Health Caseload by Institution .............................................39

Table 12. Seriously Mentally Ill by Institution ..................................................40

Table 13. Monthly Academic Enrollment and Academic Waitlist ..................41

Table 14. GEDs Passed and Inmates on Academic Waitlist ............................42

Table 15. Inmate Enrollment in Educational Programs ..................................43

Table 16. Top Ten Reported Concerns to CIIC (Lebanon Correctional

Institution) ............................................................................................................45

Table 17. Breakdown of Top Three Reported Concerns (Lebanon

Correctional Institution) .....................................................................................45

B. INSPECTION CHECKLISTS ............................................................................47

SECTION IX. GLOSSARY OF TERMS ....................................................................................88


CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION INSPECTION COMMITTEE REPORT

ON THE INSPECTION AND EVALUATION OF

LEBANON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

SECTION I. INSPECTION PROFILE AND INSTITUTIONAL OVERVIEW

A. INSPECTION PROFILE

Date of Inspection: June 13-16, 2011

Type of Inspection: Unannounced

CIIC Member and Staff Present: Representative Jim Butler

Joanna Saul, Director

Darin Furderer, Inspector

Jamie Hooks, Inspector

Adam Jackson, Inspector

Carol Robison, Inspector

Molly Yeager, Inspector

Facility Staff Present: Chae Harris, Deputy Warden of Operations

The Warden was not present on the first two

days of inspection. CIIC spoke with many

additional staff at their posts throughout the

course of the inspection.

Areas/Activities Included in the Inspection:

Inmate Dining Hall

Segregation

Kitchen

Housing Units

Correctional Camp

Medical Services

Commissary

Recreation

Ohio Penal Industries (OPI)


B. INSTITUTION OVERVIEW

Lebanon Correctional Institution is a 1,915 acre facility,1 which opened in 1960. The facility

acquired the minimum camp from Warren Correctional Institution in April 1997.2 The facility is

a Level 3 security (close security) male institution serving 2,779 inmates. The institution’s FY

2011 budget is $40,191,743 and the daily cost per inmate is $44.75, as of June 2011.3 The date

of the most recent Internal Management Audit was August 17-19, 2010. The institution was

100% compliant among the ACA mandatory standards for Adult Correctional Institutions, 98.6%

compliant among the non-mandatory standards, and 97.4% compliant with the Ohio Standards.4

The main areas of noncompliance in the last audit included past-due employee evaluations,

inmate population above the rated capacity, and poor treatment of chronic care patients.

C. 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 Lebanon

Correctional Institution:5

Recycling program: Lebanon Correctional Institution has collected $17,100 for the time period of July 2009-April 2011 in recycling revenues and has also saved $8,700 in trash

removal.

Energy Usage/Efficient Light Bulbs: The institution has staff and inmates turning off lights whenever possible (without sacrificing security) and the goal is to reduce utilities

by five percent. Additionally, they are using more efficient light bulbs and having

inmates pay $1.00 per month for use of electrical items.

Video Conferencing/Less Travel Pay: With the rising cost of transportation, the institution is increasing the use of video conferencing, which creates less traveling of

state employees to Columbus for training. All new employees are offered a state vehicle

to attend pre-service training at CTA. Both of these produce less funding for travel

payments.

Over-the-Counter Medications: Inmates must now pay for over-the-counter medications, creating less need for mental health pharmacy funding.

Composting Food Waste: The institution is researching implementing this program, as it would enable buying less trashcan liners and lower trash removal costs.

D. INMATE POPULATION

The rated capacity for Lebanon Correctional Institution is 1,481. The inmate count as of June

13, 2011 was 2,779,6 which is 188% above capacity. This facility is the second highest in

percent of overcrowding of all Ohio prisons. On the date of inspection, the youngest inmate was

1 Information sent to CIIC from the DRC Operation Support Center. The Lebanon Correctional Institution website

lists the total acreage as 1,900. 2 Warden’s Office, Lebanon Correctional Institution, June 21, 2011.

3 Lebanon Correctional Institution website, http://www.drc.ohio.gov/Public/leci.htm.

4 Full Internal Management Audit, Lebanon Correctional Institution, August 17-19, 2010.

5 Personal Communication from Business Manager’s Office, Lebanon Correctional Institution, June 22, 2011.

6 Warden’s Office, Lebanon Correctional Institution, June 13, 2011.


18 and the oldest inmate was 77 years old.7 Table 1 in the Appendix provides information about

the DRC population and prison rated capacity per institution as of May 31, 2011.

Chart 1

Breakdown of Inmate Population by Percentage8

June 13, 2011

1. Security Threat Groups

As of June 14, 2011, there were 180 identified security threat groups at the institution and 691

STG-affiliated inmates (24.9% of the total inmate population).9 The six most prevalent STGs at

Lebanon Correctional Institution were as follows:

Aryan Brotherhood (81)

White Supremacist (56)

Bloods (42)

Folks/Gangster Disciple (39)

Heartless Felons (DYS Marion) (29)

Crip (29)

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

were 90 inmates listed as disruptive (level 3), 141 inmates listed as active (level 2), 458 inmates

listed as passive (level 1), and two were missing a level classification.

E. STAFF DEMOGRAPHICS

Of the 528 total staff at Lebanon Correctional Institution as of June 1, 2011, 419 (79 percent)

were male and 109 (21 percent) were female. Of the total staff, 419 (79 percent) were classified

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 Investigator’s Office, Lebanon Correctional Institution, June 13, 2011.

44.46

54.39

1.15

White Black Other


as white, 99 (19 percent) as black, and 10 (2 percent) as other.10

Table 2 of the Appendix

provides more information about the staff population. There were 45 vacancies at the institution,

as of June 13, 2011.11

The vacancies consist of Interim Correctional Officers (11), Correctional

Officers (16), Physician Administrator 2 (1), Account Clerk 2 (1), Secretary (1), Nurse 1 (7),

Health Information Technologist (2), Chaplain (1), Stationary Engineer 2 (1), Penal Workshop

Quality Control Specialist (1), Human Services Program Administrator 3 (1), Psych/MR Nurse

(1), and LPN (1).

Chart 2

Breakdown of Staff Population12

June 1, 2011

10

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

Composition, June 1, 2011. 11

Warden’s Office, Lebanon Correctional Institution, June 13, 2011. 12

ODRC, DRC Staffing Report, Workforce Composition, June 1, 2011.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

White Black Other

Male Female


Chart 3

Staff and Inmate Comparison by Percentage of Race13

May/June 2011

13

ODRC, Monthly Progress Report (Inmate), May 1, 2011; ODRC Workforce Composition (Staff), June 1, 2011.

*The Institution percentages are as of June 1, 2011

**The DRC staff percentages are as of June 1, 2011 and only include employees working in one of the 29 DRC

institutions, excluding employees working at Lake Erie Correctional Institution and North Coast Correctional

Treatment Facility, which are both privately-operated. The DRC inmate percentages are as of May 1, 2011.

Staff White Staff Black Staff OtherInmate

White

Inmate

Black

Inmate

Other

Institution* 79 19 2 44 54 2

DRC** 80 17 2 51 47 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


SECTION II. CRITICAL CONCERNS AND POINTS OF PRIDE

Overall, the inspection raised concerns, but also revealed true positives, as staff work to serve an

overcrowded population in an aging facility. The following highlights the critical concerns and

the points of pride observed during the inspection:

CRITICAL CONCERNS

PEST AND INSECT INFESTATION

Of the 85 inmates interviewed during the inspection, 15 (17.6%) were documented as stating that

roaches were a primary issue of concern. Inmates also relayed that mice, rats, and ants are a

problem at the institution. The CIIC inspection team personally observed both roaches and gnats

during the inspection of the housing units, particularly in K Block. CIIC acknowledges that the

institution is an older facility and that, according to staff, tremendous gains have been made

against the volume of roaches, as compared to twenty years ago. However, housing inmates in

roach-infested cells is a fundamental conditions of confinement issue and it is unacceptable.

LeCI Response

LeCI agrees that housing inmates in a pest infested environment is not conducive to the

inmate’s rehabilitation. However, in the past year LeCI has spent $18,381.00 on

extermination to address the pest infestation. The contract with the extermination company is

up for renewal and LeCI has requested that it be changed to become more effective. We are

making strides in this area, as stated by several employees, it is getting better but there is

always room for improvement. Warden Brunsman discussed with Joanna Saul the possibility

of selling individual pest control, to the inmates, in the commissary; chemical control may

become an issue.

FACILITY CONDITIONS

Poor facility conditions were a primary issue of concern relayed by both inmates and staff, as

well as directly observed by the CIIC inspection team. For example, the floor of the dining hall

was full of holes, and the tiles were either missing or broken. There was a significant amount of

crumbling of the ceilings, walls, and floors in the shower stalls. Several showers were running

constantly and the shower stalls themselves were grimy. The paint was scratched off the tables

in the main area of the blocks. There was standing water on A, C, and R Blocks. Multiple units

had condemned cells that could not be utilized by inmates until fixed. The two freezers in the

kitchen were wired incorrectly and they could not control the temperature; the freezers were

inspected by a repair company, but still not fixed. One staff relayed that the facility paints over

dirt rather than cleaning. As stated above, CIIC acknowledges that that the institution is an older

facility and that budget constraints have had a negative impact on maintenance staff; however,

the level of disrepair is markedly worse than other facilities in the DRC that are also older.


LeCI Response:

Since 1958 the institution maintenance department and outside contractors have been

maintaining a building that houses inmates and staff, numbering over 3000. With this

amount of use from individuals, maintenance issues will arise. The LeCI maintenance

department is on a continuous rotation when it comes to painting, repairing walls, repairing

plumbing and maintaining other area of the facility. Currently there is an ongoing shower

project, refurbishing the showers. This project has been successful in 2 housing units.

Plumbing has been an ongoing issue and is addressed as quickly as possible. LeCI has

recently received news that the dining hall floor may be able to be replaced after the kitchen

project is completed. Until that time we will continue to repair the kitchen floor as needed to

insure tripping and other hazards will not escalate. AC units/cooler units, in the new kitchen,

were repaired before Ms. Saul left on Thursday. These items are under contract and have to

be repaired by the manufactures maintenance personnel.

USE OF FORCE

Lebanon Correctional Institution routinely reports the highest number of uses of force across the

DRC. From November 2010 through April 2011, the institution reported 508 uses of force to

CIIC, which is 68% higher than the institution reporting the second-highest number of uses of

force, the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, and 2.5 times the number of uses of force at the

next-highest Level 3 institution, Mansfield Correctional Institution.

Multiple staff stated to CIIC that Lebanon Correctional Institution is a ―disciplinary camp.‖

However, this statement also has to be true of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, the state’s

Level 4 facility, which has managed to reduce the number of uses of force in the past few years.

LeCI Response:

As reported from December 15, 2010 – June 15, 2011, LeCI reported 501 Use of Force’s to the

CIIC. In our opinion, the high number of Use of Force’s is partly accredited to the 189%

capacity of the institution. LeCI is the highest capacity institution in the state, barring the two

reception centers. This high density population, of level 3 inmates, tends to lead to a tense

atmosphere. The high number of Use of Force’s has not resulted in a high percentage of staff

or inmate injuries. Over 70% of the Use of Force’s has been deemed “Slight.” LeCI is a

unique design, the entire institution is under one roof therefore, limiting access for outside

movement. DRC is undergoing a departmental change to a three-tiered system that includes:

Control Prisons, General Population Prisons and Reintegration Centers. LeCI is tentatively

slated to be identified as a “Control Prison.” DRC-Office of Prisons is acutely aware of the

density issues at LeCI and other facilities. Significant efforts are being directed toward the

goal and associated objectives of reducing prison violence in DRC.


LACK OF INCENTIVES

In December 2010, the Warden implemented a modified lockdown/restricted movement

schedule in order to increase safety and security and decrease the number of property thefts and

fights. In addition to the modified lockdown, there has been a decrease in the number of merit

blocks and an increase in disciplinary sanctions, such as an automatic Local Control

recommendation for possession of hooch. LECI currently has five segregation blocks. CIIC

supports the Warden and understands the rationale behind his policies; however, in conjunction

with the uses of force and the poor facility conditions, it creates a situation of constantly

hammering the inmates that could result in later problems. For example, one inmate reported

that inmates are planning on rioting this summer if the modified lockdown is not lifted (note:

CIIC heard this from one inmate only; however, the point remains).

To be clear, CIIC is not recommending that the modified lockdown be changed if it is having the

desired results; however, CIIC believes that there needs to be more incentives to balance out the

heavy discipline so as to invest inmates in the institution and to decrease tension, which

assuredly has an impact on fights and the number of uses of force.

LeCI Response:

When talking about the housing unit changes that took place in December 2010 the institution

uses the words “control inmate movement” not modified lockdown. Modified lockdown is an

inflammatory term the inmates use when trying to make this procedure sound harsher and get

it removed. Warden Brunsman has not reduced the merit cells in the institution; this was

done by Warden Ernie Moore, over 4 years ago. Warden Brunsman has discussed with

several staff and inmates the ability and possible need for an additional merit block. However,

we are still waiting to stabilize the institution from the new and upcoming changes to our

mission as being named a control prison. Since the implementation of controlled inmate

movement, the amount of inmates refusing to lock, property thefts and assaults have been

reduced. Thus, making the inmates feel safer in this atmosphere. Recently LeCI issued a full

set of whites to all inmates in general population. Each cell was issued a new trash can, as an

incentive, to help inmates keep their cell clean and not throw trash out of the windows. LeCI

encourages inmates to participate in approved groups such as the Jaycees, VVA, Real Men

Crochet Club, ACO, etc; by participating in these groups inmates can suggest fundraisers and

other activities which increase inmate morale. LeCI sponsors no less than 12 of these

activities a year, which produces special food items for the inmates, in general population, to

purchase along with money to be donated to charity organizations. From July 2010 through

June 2011 the inmate groups donated $35,674.97 to charities. LeCI also allows each inmate

group to recognize their members, once a year, in a banquet style award ceremony. This gave

inmates meaningful work in and out of their cells, in order to achieve this monumental fete.

This included community service work for various organizations such as Crayons 2

Computers, numerous donations to homeless shelters and the Veterans Administration.


POINTS OF PRIDE

STAFF HANDLING OF DECEMBER INCIDENT

In response to the above-mentioned implementation of the modified lockdown schedule, inmates

staged a protest in December 2010. The incident began with two blocks returning from

Recreation before locking for the night. Upon returning to the block, the inmates shut their doors

and refused to lock. They put Vaseline on the cameras to prevent later identification and began

destroying state property. Staff were pulled from the housing units to protect their safety. The

action quickly spread to other blocks, with an estimated 1,000 inmates involved, albeit to varying

degrees.

Staff reacted with exemplary professionalism and training. Staff from neighboring Warren

Correctional Institution reportedly responded to the institution in ten minutes. The combined

Immediate Response Teams rapidly deployed less-than-lethal weapons, such as a stinger grenade

and OC spray, which effectively shut down the situation. Despite the number of inmates

involved, only one staff and one inmate reported injuries. Equally remarkable, only a handful of

people even brought up the December incident to the CIIC inspection team, despite CIIC’s

survey questions on safety.

Overall, Lebanon Correctional Institution’s Warden and staff should be highly commended for

true grace and professionalism under fire. They made quick decisions in the heat of the moment,

they shut down a potentially explosive situation, and everyone was able to walk away. There is

no greater test for an institution and Lebanon Correctional Institution passed with flying colors.

FOOD SERVICES

Food Services has traditionally been an area of concern at Lebanon Correctional Institution.

Major improvements have been made since the last CIIC inspection, including a new kitchen,

which is a major upgrade from the previous kitchen. The floors and kitchen prep areas were

clean and all of the coolers were clean. The loading dock was clean and clear of any debris. The

overall improvement from the previous kitchen was obvious. Also in comparison to prior

inspections, the dining hall was free of bird activity.

COMMISSARY

The Commissary deserves praise for its well-run operations, particularly given its small size and

large inmate population. All areas were very clean and inventory was properly stored in an

organized manner. Staff stated that the size of the Commissary continues to be a challenge, as

they must shelve items immediately due to limited storage space. However, they have done very

well at managing the inventory, keeping items stocked and excelling in product accountability.

Commissary staff recently won the DRC Team of the Month Award and were recognized by the

DRC Director for their excellent management and low theft/loss of inventory.


OHIO PENAL INDUSTRIES

Ohio Penal Industries (OPI) remains a highlight of the institution. Lebanon Correctional

Institution’s license plate shop is the second most profitable shop in the DRC, with reported

revenues of $1,642,645 in FY2011, as of March. According to staff, the shop is a win-win for

both the state and the facility, as it saved the state approximately $2 million in reduced costs

through using inmate labor. The shop employs 120 inmates, providing meaningful work

experience that will assist the inmates in post-release reentry to the community. It also provides

an incentive for inmates’ good behavior, as inmates must maintain clean records to be able to

work in OPI. It appeared to be very well managed, with no reported incidents or injuries

recently.


SECTION III. CIIC STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

A. ATTEND A GENERAL MEAL PERIOD

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 chicken fajitas (chunks of chicken, red peppers and

onions), two pieces of wheat bread, pears, cooked broccoli, white rice, and red kool aid or water

to drink. There were also packets of taco sauce offered. The food’s temperature was

appropriate, and the food appeared to be an appropriate quantity. CIIC staff and inmates rate this

meal as average.

B. ATTEND AN EDUCATIONAL OR REHABILITATIVE PROGRAM

Ohio Revised Code Section 103.73 also requires attendance at an educational or rehabilitative

program. During the inspection, CIIC attended a program entitled ―Motivational Enhancement

Persuasion Group,‖ which is designed to address the needs of individuals with a variety of dual

diagnosis, such as depression and addiction or posttraumatic stress disorder and addiction.

Facilitating the program were two staff members, one from Recovery Services and one from

Mental Health Services.

Staff relayed that the program is one that was originally written by the Bureau of Mental Health

and was a mock trial: ―Drugs on Trial.‖ The role play activity engaged the facilitator as

Prosecutor, an inmate as Defense Attorney, three inmates testifying pro drugs, three inmates

testifying anti drugs, and the remaining inmates serving as the jury. The group session began

with the inmates reviewing the reasons why they used drugs and then reflecting on any benefits

and losses/harm they experienced or caused due to drug use. The purpose was to identify the

effects of drugs on the lives of the inmates and others.

The facilitators prepared all materials prior to class, and supplied inmates with ―script‖ cards to

use as needed. The session progressed in an organized and productive manner, with considerable

participation from all inmates.

C. EVALUATE THE INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE

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

grievance procedure at each state correctional institution.

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 in DRC Operations Support

Center.


The Inspector’s Activity Report for January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010 is provided in

Table 3 of the Appendix. According to the Inspector’s report there were 199 grievances filed

during the year.14

The report also indicates that there were 1,297 informal complaints received.

Of the 199 grievances completed, 190 were denied, nine were granted, and an additional two

were withdrawn by the inmate. The top three categories with the most grievances were personal

property with 42, health care with 39, and use of force with 30.15

The Inspector is also responsible for ensuring that staff respond to inmates’ informal complaint

resolutions, which is the first step of the grievance procedure. According to the Inspector’s

Activity Report for calendar year 2010, 59 responses to informal complaints were untimely, or

4.5 percent of the total number of informal complaints filed at the institution.

During the inspection, the CIIC inspection team interviewed 85 inmates. Questions regarding

inmates’ perception and use of the inmate grievance procedure were included in the interviews,

so as to accomplish CIIC’s statutory obligation to evaluate the inmate grievance procedure at

each institution during the biennium. The following responses were collected:

Number of inmates who said they knew the Inspector’s name: 19/85 (22.4 percent)

Number of inmates who said that the IGP was explained to them: 55/85 (64.7 percent)

Number of inmates who said that they know how to use the IGP: 57/85 (67.1 percent)

Number of inmates who try to resolve issues by first speaking with staff: 52/85 (61.2 percent)

Of the inmates who said that they had filed an informal complaint, the following number said that the informal complaint was resolved fairly: 12/42 (28.6 percent)

Of the inmates who said that they had filed a grievance, the following number said that the grievance was resolved fairly: 7/28 (25 percent)

Of the inmates who said that they had filed an appeal, the following number said that the appeal was resolved fairly: 5/16 (31.3 percent)

A key point to keep in mind is the high inmate population at Lebanon Correctional Institution,

which may make it difficult for the Inspector to see every inmate on a regular basis. These

percentages are slightly high compared to the responses to somewhat similar questions obtained

as part of the 2007 CIIC survey of inmates regarding the grievance procedure. More information

on the 2007 survey and the responses received can be found in the CIIC Biennial Report to the

129th

General Assembly: Inmate Grievance Procedure.

14

2010 Inspector Statistics, Inspector’s Office, Lebanon Correctional Institution. 15

Ibid.


SECTION IV. KEY STATISTICS

A. USE OF FORCE

The facility reported 508 Use of Force incidents from November 2010 through April 2011.16

There were 365 incidents involving black inmates, 140 involving white inmates, and three

involving an inmate of another race. Tables 4 and 5 of the Appendix provide an explanation of

Use of Force and a breakdown of the use of force incidents from November 2010 through April

2011.

Chart 4

Use of Force by Institution17

November 2010 to April 2011

B. ASSAULTS

According to the ―Significant Incident Summary,‖ which reflects information from January 1,

2009 through June 13, 2011, there were 182 reported inmate on inmate assaults18

and 142 inmate

on staff assaults.19

Of the 182 inmate on inmate assaults, 27 (14.8 percent) were harassment

assaults, 152 (83.5 percent) were physical assaults, and the remaining 3 (1.6 percent) were sexual

16

Report of Racial Breakdown and Use of Force monthly reports provided by ODRC for LeCI, November 2010 –

April 2011. 17

Ibid. 18

HA Incident List, Safety & Health, Lebanon Correctional Institution, January, 2009- June 13, 2011. 19

Inmate on Staff Assault Incident List, Safety & Health, Lebanon Correctional Institution, January, 2009- June 13,

2011.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

AC

IB

eC

IC

CI

DC

I/M

EPR

CFP

RC

GC

IH

CF

LaEC

ILo

CI

MaC

IM

CI

NC

CI

NC

IN

CC

TFN

EPR

CP

CI

RIC

ISC

I

RC

ILe

CI

Man

CI

TCI

ToC

IW

CI

SOC

FO

SP

CR

CLo

rCI

CM

CO

CF

OR

W

Level 1/2

Level 3

Level 4/5

Reception Center

Special


assaults.20

Of the 142 inmate on staff assaults, 61 (43.0 percent) were harassment assaults, 55

(38.7 percent) were physical assaults, 21 (14.8 percent) were inappropriate physical contact, and

the remaining 5 (3.5 percent) were sexual assaults.21

Staff sustained physical injuries in 49 of the

inmate on staff assault.22

Tables 6 and 7 provide a snapshot of the assault data at Lebanon

Correctional Institution from January 1, 2009 through June 13, 2011.

Chart 5

Total Assaults

January 1, 2009 to June 13, 2011

*One incident involved both harassment and physical assault

**One incident involved two victims

C. SUICIDES AND SUICIDE ATTEMPTS

The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction reported 79 attempted suicides from June

2010 through May 2011. Lebanon Correctional Institution has had zero suicides and one suicide

attempt during this period.23

Table 8 of the Appendix outlines the suicide attempts per month for

each institution.

20

HA Incident List, Safety & Health, Lebanon Correctional Institution, January, 2009- June 13, 2011. 21

Inmate on Staff Assault Incident List, Safety & Health, Lebanon Correctional Institution, January, 2009- June 13,

2011. 22

Inmate on Staff Assault Statistics by Victim Injuries, Safety & Health, Lebanon Correctional Institution, January,

2009- June 13, 2011. 23

Monthly Suicide Reports. ODRC. June 2010- May 2011.

2009 2010* 2011 YTD**

Inmate on Staff 58 64 20

Inmate on Inmate 68 85 29

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Nu

mb

er o

f A

ssa

ult

s


Chart 6

Suicide Attempts by Institution24

June 2010 to May 2011

D. INVESTIGATOR DATA

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

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

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

investigations do not constitute the total number of investigations conducted regarding

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

From June 2010 to May 2011, the Investigator initiated 158 investigations. The majority of the

activity involved drugs involving a visitor and an inmate (38) and positive urinalysis (16).25

The Investigator’s monthly reports also report major contraband confiscated at the institution. At

Lebanon Correctional Institution, the majority of contraband confiscated from June 2010 to May

2011 was a weapon: shanks or locks in a sock (29). Cell phones (7) were the second most

confiscated item from inmates and thirdly, confiscation of marijuana (4 incidents). Also

confiscated by staff during this time period was tobacco, cash, and Klonopin.26

Table 9 in the Appendix provides a breakdown of cases by type.

24

Ibid. 25

Investigator’s Monthly Caseload reports, Lebanon Correctional Institution, June 2010 – May 2011. 26

Ibid.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

AC

IB

eC

IC

CI

DC

I/M

EPR

CFP

RC

GC

IH

CF

LaEC

ILo

CI

MaC

IM

CI

NC

CI

NC

IN

CC

TFN

EPR

CP

CI

RIC

ISC

I

RC

ILe

CI

Man

CI

TCI

ToC

IW

CI

SOC

FO

SP

CR

CLo

rCI

CM

CO

CF

OR

W

Level

1/2

Level

3

Level

4/5

Reception

Center Special


SECTION V. OPERATIONS

A. MEDICAL SERVICES

During the inspection, a walkthrough of the infirmary showed a clean, organized area. There are

four exam rooms with sinks and six beds for medical patients. In addition, four of the five

segregation units had a medical cell with a sink. There were zero crisis cells. According to staff,

there are plans in the near future to expand and reorganize the exam rooms, adding a permanent

wall in between exam chairs and adding space for an additional dental exam chair. On the day

of inspection, the institution used shelving units as space dividers. The space dividers were also

used to protect the privacy of the patients during exams. To further protect the patients’ privacy

during exams, staff keep the air conditioners or heaters running to muffle noise while the patients

and staff are discussing medical issues. The space appears insufficient for the size of the

population and the facility is old, but the rooms are all clean and organized.

The medical services staff includes the following state employees: one health care administrator,

one administrative assistant 3, one quality improvement coordinator, one Certified Nurse

Practitioner, eight Registered Nurses, one Health Information Technician/Scheduler, one

phlebotomist, one pharmacy attendant, and one assistant state dental director. There are

currently vacancies for one Chief Medical Officer, six Registered Nurses, one Licensed Practical

Nurse, one pharmacy attendant, and two Health Information Technicians. Of these vacancies,

Lebanon Correctional Institution is utilizing agency staff to cover the Chief Medical Officer and

six Registered Nurse positions.27

The institution’s contract staff includes one podiatrist, one optometrist, three dentists, two dental

hygienists, one dental lead assistant, two dental assistants, one X-ray technician, one pharmacist,

and three pharmacy attendants.28

According to monthly medical services reports provided by the institution, during the time period

of December 2010 and May 2011, nurses performed a total of 3,560 Sick Calls and Assessments.

Doctors performed a total of 1,316 Sick Calls.29

The medical staff is also responsible for treating

inmates at the minimum camp, seeing four to five inmates each day.30

According to staff, there

was a backlog of 300 inmates to see the physician on the day of the inspection.

During the same time period, there were 28 incidents where inmates were sent to a local

emergency room and 25 occurrences where inmates were sent to OSU. Medical staff treated a

total of 210 inmate emergencies on site.31

The Dentist conducted 2,444 scheduled appointments and 279 emergency visits, for a total of

2,723 appointments.32

27

Lebanon Correctional Medical Services Employees Table of Organization, June 21, 2011. 28

Ibid. 29

Office of Correctional Health Care Medical Monthly Institutional Statistical Summary reports for LeCI, ODRC,

December 2010 – May 2011. 30

Personal Communication, Lebanon Correctional Institution, June 13, 2011. 31

Ibid. 32

Ibid.


Specialty care at Lebanon Correctional Institution includes both podiatry and optometry. The

Optometrist conducted 298 appointments and the podiatrist conducted 238 appointments.33

The Pharmacy filled a total of 40,101 prescriptions during the six month period.34

Eleven inmates were tested for tuberculosis during the six month period. There were 23-26 HIV

positive inmates during any given month at Lebanon Correctional Institution from December

2010 through May, 2011.35

Table 10 of the Appendix and the Infirmary Checklist provide more information about the

medical services at Lebanon Correctional Institution.

Staff relayed that the medical services recently lost their long-term physician, which has created

challenges while the agency physician adjusts to working in a correctional environment. The

nursing staff works well together, are supportive of one another and acknowledge that prison has

unique challenges in medical services. They have a monthly shining star program which

acknowledges an employee going above and beyond to better serve the medical needs of the

inmates. To facilitate open communication and information dissemination, the Health Care

Administrator has created a monthly book that the nurses each must utilize to communicate the

daily happenings in the institution, as well as any training issues that may arise. They also have

Target Improvement Teams, made up of institutional staff who meet to discuss ways of

improving patient care.36

B. MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

The mental health staff is comprised of a psychology supervisor, three psychology assistants, one

human services program administrator, two psych/MR nurses, and two psychologist 2.37

There were 5,367 mental health prescriptions issued from December 2010 through May 2011.38

There were 479 inmates on the mental health caseload on the day of the inspection, which is

greater than the average DRC-wide (369 as of April, 2011) institutional caseload. Of those

inmates, 212 were listed as Seriously Mentally Ill (SMI), which is greater than the DRC-wide

average institutional SMI population of 159 (as of April 2011).39

Since January 2011, Lebanon Correctional Institution has offered a wide range of mental health-

related programs to serve its’ population, including:40

33

Ibid. 34

Ibid. 35

Ibid. 36



Office of Correctional Health Care Medical Monthly Institutional Statistical Summary reports for LeCI, ODRC,

December 2010 – May 2011. 39

ODRC, Operations Support Center, as reported to CIIC, as of April 4, 2011. 40

Mental Health Department Groups Held in 2011, January - May, Lebanon Correctional Institution, June 13, 2011.


Medication Education/Compliance (65 participants)

Heat Education (220 participants)

ADAPT (10 participants)

Sleep Hygiene (9 participants)

Depression (7 participants)

Anger Management (10 participants)

SAMI (10 participants)

Anxiety (11 participants)

Spirituality (6 participants)

Griefwork (6 participants)

Self Awareness (13 participants)

Meditation (14 participants)

Stress Management (38 participants)

Anger Management (89 participants)

Ongoing Support Groups (3) (29 participants)

Ongoing PTSD Maintenance (7 participants)

Changes That Heal (15 participants)

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

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

C. FOOD SERVICES

As of 2010 the average food cost per meal at Lebanon Correctional Institution was $1.14. In

comparison, the average food cost per inmate meal across the DRC was $1.00, as of October

2010.41

The conditions of the food preparation area were clean, with the exception of water on

the floor by one of the coolers. Due to the fact that the new kitchen area just opened a little over

a week prior to this inspection, the area is impressive (see also Section II). The biggest problem

noted is that both of the new freezers are wired incorrectly and cannot currently be used. They

have had a company out to evaluate the problem and will continue using the old freezers until

they can be fixed.

Staff relayed that there are 224 inmates assigned to the food service department, and all are

trained on the proper handling of their area’s equipment. They explained that the inmates are

trained regarding proper hygiene. Inmates as well as staff were wearing hair nets and gloves

while preparing and serving the meal during the inspection. The equipment is sanitized after

every meal and chemicals are properly secured. The facility does not use knives, instead using a

meat slicer and a dough cutter, and a chit system is used to keep track of tools. The food storage

areas were clean and appropriately organized. Deliveries occur on Mondays and Wednesdays

for milk, Tuesdays and Fridays for Central Warehouse food, and Thursdays for produce.42

The dining hall has a temporary structure of wood that is serving as the serving line until the new

kitchen is ready to accommodate the serving lines. As stated in the previous report, the dining

room floor is still in dire need of being replaced. Many of the tiles are cracked, worn, or missing

and the cement underneath appears to be crumbling.

The institution’s last health inspection was in April 2011 and there were no violations.

41

Evaluation of Correctional Food Services. CIIC. February 14, 2011. http://www.ciic.state.oh.us/. 42

Personal Communication, Lebanon Correctional Institution, June 13, 2011.


D. OHIO PENAL INDUSTRIES (OPI) – License Plate Shop

Lebanon Correctional Institution houses an OPI shop that produces license plates. There are

currently nine staff members supervising 120 inmate workers who work in 6.5 hour shifts,

making $40-80 per month.43

All inmate workers are trained on the proper handling of equipment

and are searched before and after their shifts. The equipment is checked daily per safety

standards but staff relayed that because the equipment is very old, there are always maintenance

issues. As stated in Section II, the Lebanon Correctional Institution OPI shop is a point of pride

for the institution.

The OPI license shop staff would like to expand the shop by taking on more projects from the

Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles, such as production of handicap placards.44

E. HOUSING UNITS

Lebanon Correctional Institution has 15 housing units including nine blocks, one minimum

camp, and five segregation blocks. Each regular housing block is made up of three floors of

cells, each holding two inmates, for a total ranging from 200-275 inmates in each block. The

minimum camp had 181 inmates in it on the day of inspection.45

A Block

B Block

C Block – Segregation

D Block – Super Merit

E Block

F Block

G Block

H Block

J Block

K Block

L 1 Block – Segregation



R Block – Segregation

Minimum Camp

43


Ibid. 45

Warden’s Office, Lebanon Correctional Institution, June 13, 2011.


Overall, the conditions of the housing units were clean, but several areas were in disrepair (see

Section II). CIIC staff observed two blocks (H and K) that had a problem with roaches and ants.

There were a few condemned cells throughout the facility, uninhabitable by inmates. The

showers displayed structural issues, which included holes in the ceilings, walls crumbling, and

paint peeling from the walls. Some of the showers had black mold and were continuously

running. Please refer to the individual housing unit checklists in the appendix for further

observations.

Correctional Camp

Unlike the main compound, the minimum camp is set up in a dormitory style, with two main

rooms of bunkbeds that share toilet and shower facilities. Each bunkbed is partitioned off from

the one next to it, with each inmate’s picture on the outside of the partition. The shower and

toilet facilities were clean, as were all living areas. The indoor recreation room at the camp has

several choices of games for inmates to play, including a pool table, ping pong tables, steppers,

and pullup bars. There is a problem with birds in the building, however, due to broken or

missing screens. The camp maintains its’ own food services area, which appeared organized and

clean, but staff reports that flies are a major problem during the hotter weather and they have

requested a flytrap.46

Segregation

The segregation count on the day of the inspection was 318 with 135 inmates under Security

Control (SC) status, 40 inmates in Disciplinary Control (DC) and 143 inmates under Local

Control (LC).47

The conditions of four of the segregation blocks overall appeared to be clean.

Conversely, R block was dirty and had roaches, as relayed by inmates and seen by CIIC staff.

Inmates are permitted to shower during second shift and only with their cellmate. The showers

in four of the segregation blocks were clean, but R block has soap sum on the walls of the

shower stall. The facility is old, so all of the showers are showing signs of aging. There were

eight toilets reported as inoperative, and reports of sinks not draining properly.

Each segregation block except L3 has a cell used by medical and mental health staff to examine

inmates. These cells have basic medical equipment in them, and staff relayed that these cells

will be receiving exam tables in the near future. This enables the inmates to be seen by medical

or mental health staff without requiring an escort to take them from segregation to medical or

mental health48

.

F. COMMISSARY

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

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

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

46


Warden’s Office, Lebanon Correctional Institution, June 13, 2011. 48

Personal Communication, Lebanon Correctional Institution, June 13, 2011.


and items will be given to the inmate. Inmates are permitted to spend $130 every two weeks49

at

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

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

cubic foot storage box.

Staff relayed that the three staff members supervise 20 inmate workers, who work 6 hour shifts

and make $19 per month.50

The commissary was clean on the day of inspection, with few

inventory issues, even with the new over-the-counter medications. The staff recently won an

award for their low loss of inventory (see Section II).

G. RECREATION

The conditions of the recreational facilities appeared clean and well maintained, and are offered

to all inmates. There were eleven correctional officers assigned to supervise recreation, three per

shift with two for relief, and currently there are eleven inmate workers assigned to recreation.51

The hours of recreation start at 7:15 am and continue with various choices of activities until 8:35

pm. The outdoor recreation included a soccer field, football field, three basketball courts,

hardball courts, three softball diamonds, a running track, workout stations, and a four-man water

fountain in the middle of the yard. Indoor recreation included a full-length basketball court,

bleachers, and a stage (similar to a typical high school gym). Lebanon Correctional Institution

also offers programs for inmates with disabilities, such as a beeping ball for a blind inmate.

49


Ibid. 51

Ibid.


SECTION VI. PROGRAMS

Inmate programming falls under several categories, which may include academic (secondary,

post-secondary or college, GED/ABE or ABLE), vocational, career-technical, community

service, rehabilitative, recovery, or reentry. Quality of programming is considered an important

issue for Ohio legislators, as demonstrated by the CIIC statutory obligation to include an

educational or rehabilitative program as part of the inspection.

In recent years, however, access to programming has arisen as an additional concern, as prison

overcrowding resulted in lengthy waitlists for programs. Lack of access to programs has serious

consequences: It both impedes the reentry effort and results in inmates finding other, potentially

less beneficial, ways to pass the time.

A. EDUCATIONAL/VOCATIONAL PROGRAMMING

According to the May 2011 monthly reports, there were zero inmates enrolled in the Literacy

program and zero inmates on the waitlist. The monthly report indicated that there were 109

inmates enrolled in the ABLE (Adult Basic and Literacy Education) with 516 inmates on the

waitlist. There are 151 inmates enrolled in the Pre-GED program with 183 inmates on the

waitlist and 46 inmates enrolled in the GED program with 50 inmates on the waitlist.52

Overall, there were 306 inmates enrolled in academic/GED preparatory programs and 749

inmates on the waitlist.53

Most of the inmates on the waitlist, none of whom have a GED or high

school diploma, will not receive a GED before release. For a full breakdown of inmate

enrollment in educational and vocational programs for May 2011, see Table 15 of the Appendix.

B. REENTRY/UNIT PROGRAMS

Reentry programming focuses on skill development in dealing with issues as conflict and

confrontation, or employment skills. The reentry programs at Lebanon Correctional Institution

include:54

The Inside Out Dad program (11 participants): deals with improving parenting skills including communication, discipline, nurturing, etc.

Money Smart Program (30 participants): produced by the FDIC, and is adjusted to meet the needs of the prison population as part of reentry initiatives.

Thinking for a Change (11 participants): 22 week long program addressing cognitive thinking errors, social skills and problem solving to address criminal choices/behavior.

Victim Awareness (16 participants): focuses on the effect various crimes have on victims.

Two Community Service Projects for Community (100 participants): (1) Real Men Crochet Program—two-phase program that provides inmates with the basic art of

crocheting and then gives them the opportunity to donate works to area nonprofit groups.

52

Ohio Central School System Monthly Enrollment Report, May 2011. 53

Ibid. 54

Warden’s Office, Lebanon Correctional Institution, June 21, 2011.


(2) The Sew Much Comfort Program—provides adaptive clothing for wounded service

members from all branches of the military and National Guard.

Dog program: trains service dogs to assist those with special needs.

C. RECOVERY SERVICES

The recovery services programs staff has the challenge of having only two people on staff in the

institution at this time due to the recovery services supervisor and coordinator being out on

medical leave for an undetermined amount of time. Even so, they are able to provide the

following programs:55

Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP) (100 participants in 2011, 44 successful completions): Cognitive behavioral treatment (CBT) program that focuses on changing

the addicts behaviors and thoughts leading to a more proactive, productive lifestyle

through four different journals, based off the program developed by The Federal Bureau

of Prisons.

Aftercare Counseling (AC) (17 participants, 14 completed): Continuation of the IOP where inmates complete two more journals focusing on recovery maintenance and

relapse awareness.

Alcohol and Other Drug program (AOD) (25 past participants in 2011): Teaches the inmates about the negative effects of drugs and alcohol on their body, families, and

community.

Motivational Enhancement Group (MEG) (13 current participants): Motivational group for dual diagnosed inmates to educate them in the benefits of treating both their mental

health and drug and alcohol problems.

Celebrate Recovery-Ancillary: (approximately 14 participants per month): Faith based program that is AA and NA modified into 8 steps.

Circle for Reentry-Ancillary: (approximately 21 participants per month): Community Based program to assist inmates that are leaving with drug or alcohol problems to receive

assistance in the community.

Alcoholics Anonymous (approximately 25 participants per month)

Narcotics Anonymous (approximately 21 participants per month)

D. RELIGIOUS PROGRAMS

According to DRC policy 72-REG-02, the DRC ―seeks to meet all inmates’ religious needs

within the unique parameters of the correctional setting.‖ Lebanon Correctional Institution

offers religious programming for the following faith groups: Christians, Catholics, Muslims,

Buddhists, Jewish, and Jehovah Witnesses.56

Furthermore, faith-based volunteers often come

into the institution to provide faith-based studies.

Per House Bill 113 of the 127th

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

According to institutional staff, Lebanon Correctional Institution has 535 volunteers57

that come

55

Recovery Services, Lebanon Correctional Institution, June 21, 2011. 56

Lebanon Correctional Institution website, http://www.drc.ohio.gov/Public/LECI_religious.pdf. 57

Active Volunteer Counts by Service Type, Lebanon Correctional Institution, June 13, 2011.


into the institution on a regular basis to provide faith-based activities for the more than 800

inmates who choose to participate in religious services.58

E. LIBRARY SERVICES

Each institution has a library and a law library. Access to both 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 library provides

the following schedule for inmates:59

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

7:15-

10:30 am

Unit

Library

Unit

Library A & B

Unit

Library K & F B & A

Unit

Library

12:15-

3:30 pm

Unit

Library

Unit

Library D & E F & G

Camp 12:00-

1:00 pm/E & D J & K H & G

5:15 -

8:30 pm

Unit

Library

Unit

Library

Unit

Library H & J Unit Library

Unit

Library

OPI

College &

Voc

Students

The law library is only available if the inmate sends a kite for a pass. Additionally, inmates have

access to the Block Libraries on Sundays, Mondays, and other times the library is closed.60

Staff relayed that there are usually eight to ten inmate workers for the libraries. There are four

typewriters (three that are currently working) and seven computers (including one in the

minimum camp). The library has print copies of DRC’s Administrative Rules and policies, and

these are provided to inmates in the isolation blocks.61

Former CIIC Chairman and State Representative Tyrone Yates recommended that each

institutional library have separate sections for ethnic literature – in particular, inspirational

biographies – that would serve both educational and rehabilitative purposes. Lebanon

Correctional Institution has at least one hundred titles of literature representing different

ethnicities, including African-American and Hispanic groups. Staff also relayed that new

materials are provided to the library two to three times per year through Half Price Books,

donations, and purchases and that more magazine subscriptions are coming in future months.62

The library was closed on the day of the inspection.

58

Chapel Programs, Lebanon Correctional Institution, June 21, 2011. 59

Lebanon Correctional Institution Library Schedule, February 19, 2011. 60

Ibid. 61

Personal Communication, June 17, 2011. 62

Ibid.


SECTION VII. CIIC CONTACTS AND CONCERNS

From December 1, 2010 through May 31, 2011, CIIC received 72 contacts from or regarding

inmates at Lebanon Correctional Institution, from which 233 concerns were reported. The

institution ranked fourth among all DRC institutions for total number of contacts. The top four

concerns reported to CIIC regarding Lebanon Correctional Institution were related to the

following: Supervision (38 concerns), Inmate Grievance Procedure (20 concerns), Use of Force

(17 concerns), and Staff Accountability (17 concerns).63

Chart 7

CIIC Contacts with Institutional Breakdown (DRC)64

December 1, 2010 – May 31, 2011

Tables 18 and 19 of the Appendix provide information about the concerns relayed to CIIC

regarding Lebanon Correctional Institution.

63

CIIC database tracking information. December 2010- May 31, 2011. 64

Ibid.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

AC

IB

eC

IC

CI

DC

I/M

EPR

CFP

RC

GC

IH

CF

LaEC

ILo

CI

MaC

IM

CI

NC

CI

NC

IN

CC

TFN

EPR

CP

CI

RIC

ISC

I

RC

ILe

CI

Man

CI

TCI

ToC

IW

CI

SOC

FO

SP

CR

CLo

rCI

CM

CO

CF

OR

W

Level

1/2

Level

3

Level

4/5

Reception

Center Special


Chart 8

Top Ten Reported Concerns to CIIC (Lebanon Correctional Institution)65

December 1, 2010 through May 31, 2011

Chart 9

Breakdown of Top Four Reported Concerns (Lebanon Correctional Institution)66

December 1, 2010 through May 31, 2011

65

Ibid. 66

Ibid.

38

2017 17

15 15 14 1310 9

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Supervision Inmate

Grievance Procedure

Use of Force Staff Accountability


A. INQUIRIES

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

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

inmates at Lebanon Correctional Institution in the last six months (December 2010 – May 2011).

Two of the inquiries were in regards to inmates’ personal safety. Two inmates stated that they

were severely beaten by other inmates and then their medical treatment was either denied or

postponed for days after the attacks. The other two inquiries were in regards to staff misconduct,

one of which involved an inmate alleging excessive use of force by two correctional officers.


SECTION VIII. APPENDIX

A. DATA TABLES

Table 1.

Prison Rated Capacity with Population and Percent of Capacity

May 31, 2011

Institution Rated Capacity Count as of May 31,

2011

Percent of

Capacity

LorCI 756 1,625 215

LeCI 1,481 2,777 188

CRC 900 1,589 177

CCI 1,673 2,886 173

WCI 807 1,389 172

GCI 939 1,555 166

HCF 298 484 162

ORW 1,641 2,649 161

ManCI 1,536 2,464 160

ACI 844 1,334 158

MCI 1,666 2,632 158

TCI 902 1,259 140

BeCI 1,855 2,579 139

RCI 1,643 2,225 135

RiCI 1,855 2,509 135

NCI 1,855 2,409 130

NCCI 1,855 2,312 125

SCI 1,358 1,567 115

MaCI 2,167 2378 110

ToCI 1,192 1,265 106

OCF 191 199 104

NCCTF 660 680 103

FPRC 480 476 99

LaECI 1,498 1,482 99

LoCI 2,290 2,259 99

DCI 482 471 98

SOCF 1,540 1,419 92

MePRC 352 311 88

PCI 2,465 2,142 87

OSP 734 601 82

NEPRC 640 510 80

CMC 210 124 59

Total 38,765 50,561 130%


Table 2.

Staff Population Breakdown

June 13, 2011

Total Staff 532

Total Male Staff 422

White 350

Black 64

Other 8

Male Unknown Race 0

Total Female Staff 110

White 73

Black 35

Other 2

Female Unknown Race 0

Total CO 328

Total Male CO 285

White 236

Black 43

Other 6

Male CO Unknown Race 0

Total Female CO 43

White 25

Black 18

Other 0

Female CO Unknown Race 0

Table 3.

Inspector’s Report

January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010 Grievance Numbers

Total Number of Grievances Filed During Year 198

Total Number of Inmates Who Filed Grievances During Year 149

Highest Number of Grievances Filed by Single Inmate 8

Grievances on Hand at Beginning of This Period 4

Grievances Received during this period 198

Total 202

Grievances Completed During This Period 201

Grievances on Hand at End of This Period 1

Total 202

ICR Summary


Number of Informal Complaints Received 1297

Number of Informal Complaint Responses Received 1289

Number of Informal Complaint Responses Untimely 59

Granted W B O Total

Granted – Problem Corrected 1 4 0 5

Granted – Problem Noted, Correction Pending 1 1 0 2 Granted – Problem Noted, Report/Recommendation to the Warden 0 2 0 2

Subtotal Granted 2 7 0 9

Denied

Denied – Insufficient Evidence to Support Claim 32 50 0 82

Denied – Staff Action Was Valid Exercise of Discretion 1 3 0 4

Denied – No Violation of Rule, Policy, or Law 13 27 0 40

Denied – Not within the Scope of the Grievance Procedure 2 5 0 7 Denied – False Claim 0 0 0 0

Denied – Failure to Use Informal Complaint Procedure 4 2 0 6

Denied – Not within Time Limits 24 26 1 51

Subtotal Denied 76 113 1 190

Withdrawn at Inmate’s Request 1 1 0 2

Pending Disposition 1 0 0 1

TOTALS 80 121 1 202

Percent 39.6% 59.9% 0.5% 100% Extensions

14-Day Extensions 0 28-Day Extensions 0

Total 0

Table 4.

Use of Force with Racial Breakdown

November 2010 through April 2011 Black White Other Total

Use of Force Incidents 365 140 3 508

Percentage 71.85 27.56 .59 100

Action Taken on Use of Force Incidents:

Assigned to Use of Force Committee for Investigation 42 17 1 22

Logged as ―No Further Action Required‖ 323 123 2 448

Referred to the employee disciplinary process 0 0 0 0

Referred to the Chief Inspector 0 0 0 0

Number of investigations not completed within 30 days

and extended 37 15 1 53


Number of extended investigations from previous month that were:

Completed 52 20 0 72

Not Completed 93 38 0 131

Table 5.

Use of Force with Racial and Monthly Breakdown

November 2010 through April 2011 Black White Other Total

November 49 35 0 84

December 72 26 1 99

January 65 25 1 91

February 49 19 0 68

March 48 19 0 67

April 82 16 1 99

Total 365 140 3 508

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

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

third person as follows:

1. Self-defense from physical attack or threat of physical harm. 2. Defense of another from physical attack or threat of physical attack. 3. When necessary to control or subdue an inmate who refuses to obey prison rules, regulations, or

orders.

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

5. Prevention of an escape or apprehension of an escapee. 6. Controlling or subduing an inmate in order to stop or prevent self-inflicted harm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Chief Inspector in the following instances:

Factual circumstances are not described sufficiently.

The incident involved serious physical harm.

The incident was a significant disruption to normal operations.

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


Table 6.

Assaults: Inmate on Inmate


Category of Assault 2009 2010 2011 YTD

Physical Assault 55 72 25

Harassment Assault 11 12 4

Sexual Assault 2 1 0

Total 68 85 29

Table 7.

Assaults: Inmate on Staff


Category of Assault 2009 2010 2011 YTD

Physical Assault 12 32 11

Inappropriate Physical

Contact 14 7 0

Harassment Assault 29 23 9

Sexual Assault 3 2 0

Total 58 64 20

Table 8.

Inmate Suicide Attempts

Jun 2010-May 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 9.

Investigator Monthly Report Summary by Type of Investigation

June 2010 to May 2011

Investigations Cases Initiated

Drugs (Staff/Inmate) 2

Drugs (Inmate/Visitor) 38

Drugs (Mail/Package) 3

Drugs (Staff) 0

Drugs (other) 0

Positive Urinalysis 16

Staff/Inmate Relationship 1

Staff Misconduct 2

Assault-(Inmate on Staff) 3

Assault (Inmate on Inmate) 2

Sexual Assault (Inmate on Inmate) 3

Other: 2

Background Investigations 86

Total 158

Table 10.

Medical Services

December 2010 to April 2011

December January February March April May Total

Sick Call

Nurse Intake

Screen 76 166 134 96 99 159 730

Nurse Referrals

to Doctor 211 214 220 247 126 226 1244


New Intakes

Referred to

Physician 5 3 5 2 3 5 23

Nurse Sick Call

and

Assessments 620 713 648 634 413 532 3560

Doctor Sick

Call 218 349 207 255 148 139 1316

Doctor History

and Physicals

Done 7 11 11 4 6 5 44

Doctor No

Shows 8 5 5 12 8 3 41

Emergency Triage

Sent to local ER 9 2 1 7 7 2 28

Sent to OSU ER 7 5 3 4 3 3 25

Sent from Local

to OSU 0 2 0 2 1 1 6

Inmate

Emergencies

Treated On Site 18 25 28 13 97 29 210

Staff Treated 100 99 60 89 88 82 518

Visitors Treated 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Bed Days Used

for Medical 54 54 15 21 15 26 185

Bed Days Used

for Mental 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bed Days Used

for Security 9 10 5 18 39 29 110

Dental Care

Scheduled

Visits 353 441 383 540 388 339 2444

Emergency

Visits 39 16 19 9 87 109 279

Total Visits 392 457 402 549 475 448 2723

No Shows 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AMAs 26 43 23 37 25 19 173

Specialty Care On Site

Optometry

Consults 3 5 12 9 5 6 40

Inmates Seen 50 60 50 59 22 57 298


Emergencies

Seen 0 0 2 0 1 2 5

Hours On Site 24 24 26 24 12 24 134

Podiatry

Consults 2 2 7 5 0 5 21

Inmates Seen 31 51 51 37 44 24 238 Emergencies

Seen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hours On Site 18 20 28 22 16 18 122

OB Gyn

Consults 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Inmates Seen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Emergencies

Seen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hours On Site 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pharmacy

Medical Refills 4651 4295 4091 3773 2655 2650 22115

Mental Refills 722 802 643 583 501 603 3854

Medical New

Prescriptions 1817 2344 2197 2380 2004 1877 12619

Mental New

Prescriptions 231 200 256 322 221 283 1513 Total

Prescriptions 7421 7641 7187 7058 5381 5413 40101 Medical

Controlled

Prescriptions 12 7 8 6 9 8 50 Mental

Controlled

Prescriptions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lab Data

Blood Draws 218 205 249 410 259 242 1583 DNA Blood

Draws 17 5 0 5 5 6 38

Mental Health

Blood Draws 3 8 25 25 21 21 103

EKGs 11 12 8 15 11 5 62 Non CMC X-

Rays 81 120 107 133 72 47 513

Infectious Disease Data

Number Inmates

Tested for TB 0 5 0 0 3 3 11

Positive PPD Test 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Staff PPD 2 13 18 4 5 5 47

Inmates

Completed INH 0 1 2 9 0 0 12

Inmates

Incomplete INH 11 10 7 3 9 9 49

Inmates Refusing

INH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

HIV Positive

Inmates 23 25 25 26 25 26

Inmate HIV

Conversions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Deaths

Deaths Expected 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deaths

Unexpected 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Suicides 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Homicides 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Deaths at Local

Hospital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Deaths at OSU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 11.

Percent of Prison Population on the Mental Health Caseload by Institution

April 2011

Institution Percent of

Total

Population on

Mental Health

Caseload

April 4, 2011

Population

Count

Number of

Inmates on

Mental

Health

Caseload

April 2011

Oakwood CF 73.4 199 146

Northeast Pre-Release Cent. 54.1 519 281

Franklin Pre-Release Center 50.4 478 241

Ohio Reformatory for Women 48.7 2,563 1,247

Southern Ohio CF 32.1 1,416 454

Toledo CI 28.2 1,110 313

Trumbull CI 25.5 1,347 343

Warren CI 23.2 1,372 318

Chillicothe CI 22.5 2,966 667

Allen CI 21.7 1,353 294

Belmont CI 21.6 2,577 557

Marion CI 21.4 2,551 545

Hocking CF 20.8 461 96


Mansfield CI 20.3 2,478 504

Correctional Reception Cent. 18.5 1,678 311

North Central CI 18.4 2,305 423

North Coast Corr. Treat. Facility 18.3 676 124

Richland CI 18.2 2,527 461

Madison CI 17.5 2,385 417

Noble CI 17.3 2,375 412

Grafton CI 16.8 1,527 257

Corrections Medical Center 16.7 120 20

Lebanon CI 16.4 2,815 463

Southeastern CI 16.1 1,549 249

Lorain CI 15.9 1,572 250

London CI 15.8 2,387 378

Pickaway CI 15.6 2,122 330

Ross CI 14.0 2,228 312

Ohio State Penitentiary 13.8 608 84

Lake Erie CI 12.8 1,495 191

Dayton CI 0.4 794 3

TOTALS 21.1 50,553 10,691

Table 12.

Seriously Mentally Ill by Institution with Number and Percent

April 2011

Institution

Number of

Seriously

Mentally Ill

Percent

Ohio Reformatory for Women 583 12.7

Chillicothe Correctional Institution 359 7.8

Belmont Correctional Institution 252 5.5

Southern Ohio Correctional Facility 218 4.7

Noble Correctional Institution 212 4.6

Lebanon Correctional Institution 204 4.4

Warren Correctional Institution 203 4.4

Madison Correctional Institution 187 4.1

Mansfield Correctional Institution 178 3.9

Marion Correctional Institution 180 3.9

Allen Correctional Institution 169 3.7

London Correctional Institution 168 3.6

Northeast Pre-Release Center (Females) 165 3.6

Correctional Reception Center 161 3.5

North Central Correctional Institution 156 3.4

Pickaway Correctional Institution 152 3.3

Grafton Correctional Institution 137 3.0


Richland Correctional Institution 122 2.6

Southeastern Correctional Institution 119 2.6

Franklin Pre-Release Center (Females) 110 2.4

Oakwood Correctional Facility 105 2.3

Toledo Correctional Institution 105 2.3

Trumbull Correctional Institution 100 2.2

Ross Correctional Institution 98 2.1

Lake Erie Correctional Institution 85 1.8

Lorain Correctional Institution 27 0.6

Hocking Correctional Facility 25 0.5

Corrections Medical Center 10 0.2

Ohio State Penitentiary 11 0.2

North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility 3 0.1

Dayton Correctional Institution 0 0.0

Total 4,604 100%

Table 13.

Monthly Academic Enrollment and Academic Wait List

April 2011

Monthly

Academic

Enrollment –

April 2011

YTD Academic Waitlist –

April 2011*

ACI/OCF 125 114

BECI 453 637

CCI 474 285

CMC 0 0

CRC 283 77

DCI/MEPRC 85 61

FPRC 109 84

GCI 136 102

HCF 59 104

LAECI 174 263

LECI 301 710

LOCI 245 84

LORCI 120 297

MACI 194 735

MANCI 182 576

MCI 283 256

NCI 235 779


NCCI 343 346

NCCTF 92 165

NEPRC 168 10

ORW 556 585

OSP 107 78

PCI 272 553

RICI 347 395

RCI 195 269

SCI 338 361

SOCF 87 222

TOCI 111 259

TCI 187 169

WCI 169 273

Total 6430 8849

*Total number of inmates shown as ‘Inmates without GED and

on Academic Wait List’ represents a one-day snapshot of the

number of inmates on the institutional academic wait lists.

Table 14.

GEDs Passed and Inmates on Academic Wait List

April 2011

GEDs PASSED -

YTD as of April

2011

Inmates Without GED and

on Academic Wait List - YTD

April 2011*

ACI/OCF 13 114

BECI 117 637

CCI 104 285

CMC 0 0

CRC 29 77

DCI/MEPRC 15 61

FPRC 59 84

GCI 31 102

HCF 2 104

LAECI 53 263

LECI 26 710

LOCI 60 84

LORCI 21 297

MACI 59 735


MANCI 85 576

MCI 47 256

NCI 139 779

NCCI 124 346

NCCTF 54 165

NEPRC 22 10

ORW 84 585

OSP 26 78

PCI 28 553

RICI 97 395

RCI 73 269

SCI 59 361

SOCF 70 222

TOCI 15 259

TCI 38 169

WCI 21 273

TOTAL 1571 8849

*Total number of inmates shown as ‘Inmates without GED and on

Academic Wait List’ represents a one-day snapshot of the number of

inmates on the institutional academic wait lists.

Table 15.

Inmate Enrollment in Educational Programs

May 2011

Program For

Month < 22 YTD

Waiting

List

# of Certificates % Attained Goals

Month YTD QTR YTD

Literacy 0

10

0 0 0

516

183

0 0 0% 0%

ABLE (Adult

Basic and Literacy

Education)

109 52 158 516 12 65 0% 100%

Pre-GED 151 46 193 183 10 57 0% 99%

GED 46 19 156 50 1 18 0% 100%

GED Evening

HS/HS Options 0 0 1 0 1

Academic Total 306 117 508 749 23 141

CIIC Report: Lebanon Correctional Institut

lebanon correctional institution - ciic.state.oh.usciic.state.oh.us › docs ›...

Documents