Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction QStP Team Projects - Inmate Disciplinary Projects
Related Links
TICKET TRACKERS
Lebanon Correctional Institution (1998)
The process for hearing an inmate conduct report exceeded the seven day requirement of American Correctional Association standards and DRC policy. The team, developed a series of solutions to address the problem and to bring the institution into compliance. Jane Crutchfield, Leader 513-932-1211.
TICKET TIMERS TEAM
Allen Correctional Institution (1998)
The team was formed to access the delay in a ticket (inmate violation of rules) being heard before the Rules Infraction Board. The team used quality tools to discover the "real problem" and recommended changes to resolve it. Steve Bechtel, Leader 419-224-8000.
JUST SAY NOT TEAM
Allen Correctional Institution (1997)
The mission of this team was to provide structured programming to inmates who have been convicted of Class II rule violations to include their placement in housing for Behavior Adjustment program and the Mandatory Drug Awareness Program. Pete Hummel and Dean McCombs, Leaders 419-224-8000.
DINGBATS
Chillicothe Correctional Institution (1996)
The CCI team was formed because it was believed that extra duty was not a functional deterrent in the disciplinary process. The team benchmarked with other prisons and CCI employees. As the team looked at the process, a number of inconsistencies were noted. In the end, the group provided a framework for the consistent implementation of extra duty. A 30 day trial period was conducted using the new policy. There was a follow up survey which showed that 61% of the extra duty assigned had been completed as compared to the 40% completion rate found in the initial survey. Charlie McKee and Katherine Ramey, Leaders 740-773-2616.
MAXIMUM COURT REVIEW
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1996)
The inmate disciplinary process had inequities, poor documentation and inadequate record maintenance. The team, from SOCF, began under the premise that some inmates receive and excessive number of verbal reprimands as opposed to being seen by the Rules Infraction Board (RIB) for violation of rules. Team members proposed changes in material/equipment (computerization, copiers, carbonless forms), personnel (secretary, escort officer, permanent RIB panel) and procedures. Although their recommendations remain in the implementation phase, it will allow for a more efficiently run process. Rita Moore, Leader 740-259-5544.
R.I.B. KINGS
Warren Correctional Institution (1996)
The team, from WCI, began the project with a goal of offering alternative disciplinary sanctions and providing programming to inmates found guilty of prison related substance abuse violations. The team made recommendations that would encourage inmates to volunteer to an expanded substance abuse addition recovery services. The team plans to implement graduated sanctions for future violators. R.I.B. Kings will monitor and collect data from the Rule Infraction Board to gauge the success of their plan. Ken Sexton, Leader 513-932-3388.
TICKETMASTERS
Ohio Reformatory For Women (1996)
33% of staff at ORW responded to a survey. 89% of that group felt the disciplinary process was seldom or never effective. Perception indicated that there were not enough disciplinary cells. Inmates were being housed in areas not designated for disciplinary i.e., infirmary. The team discovered the number of cells was not the real problem. The team members set out to improve utilization of existing cells set aside for discipline. The result of their work was impressive. No inmates were housed outside of the control area. In a five month period before the team began its work 34 inmates had been housed in areas not designated for disciplinary. All conduct reports were processed - the backlog disappeared. During the test period 62 inmates in one unit were without disciplinary reports - there had been only 41 inmates in this category prior to the test. Susan Kestella, Leader 513-642-1065.
[Back to top]