Institution Character Profile – BOP Program Statement 1070.08

U.S. Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Prisons

Program Statement

OPI: PRD

NUMBER: 1070.08

DATE: 8/16/2001

SUBJECT: Institution Character Profile

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

To establish a system of periodic comprehensive assessments of each Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) institution in the areas of:

• staff and inmate morale,
• professionalism,
• communication, and
• community relations.

The Institution Character Profile (ICP) is one of a number of complementary methods the Bureau uses to assess the organizational climate and program performance at its institutions.

The ICP relies on face-to-face interviews with staff and inmates, data analysis, record reviews, and field observations. Other methods include program reviews, the Executive Staff Module, Prison Social Climate Surveys, and objective measures drawn from the Bureau’s management information system, the Key Indicators/Strategic Support System (KI/SSS).

Data from KI/SSS assists regional ICP teams in making preliminary determinations of potential areas of concern and special emphasis that can help to focus resources during the week of the ICP visit.

This Program Statement provides policy, procedures, and other guidance for regional ICP teams, as well as for all Bureau staff, in the three specific areas of:

• staff roles and responsibilities,
• use of the ICP instrument, and
• limits the appropriate use of ICP-related information.

PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

The expected results of this program are:

1. Every three years each institution will be assessed by the Regional Director in the areas of staff morale, professionalism, communication, inmate morale, and community relations.
2. Information gathered and evaluated will be used only for specified purposes.

DIRECTIVES AFFECTED

Directive Rescinded: PS 1070.06  Institution Character Profile (12/3/97)

Directive Referenced

PS 1070.07  Research (5/12/99)

STANDARDS REFERENCED

None

AREAS REVIEWED

Each ICP team must review, at a minimum, the following areas:

Staff Morale

The overall morale or mood of the institution staff is determined by an assessment (through observations, interviews, and record reviews) of staff perceptions of:

• the incentive awards program,
• the performance appraisal process,
• training satisfaction,
• job resources,
• the employee assistance program,
• staffing/workload,
• safety and security,
• staff turnover,
• job satisfaction,
• career opportunities and commitment,
• department morale,
• management’s effect on morale, and
• staff mentoring program.

Professionalism

Professionalism is evaluated by examining the performance and competence of staff and management in such areas as:

• staff professionalism,
• interaction with inmates, and
• staff competence.

Communication

The quality and methods of communication throughout the institution are assessed by examining areas such as:

• management accessibility and responsiveness,
• labor-management relations,
• staff/supervisor relations, and
• information accessibility and sources.

Inmate Climate

The character or mood of inmates as determined by an assessment (through observations, interviews, and record reviews) of inmate perceptions of:

• staff/inmate interactions,
• communication of institution issues,
• safety,
• sanitation,
• recreation,
• food service,
• health services,
• psychology services,
• mail service,
• commissary services,
• discipline process,
• work opportunities,
• educational opportunities,
• religious programs, and
• the visiting program.

Community Relations

The quality and extent of the relationship between the institution and members of the community are determined by assessing:

• recruitment activities;
• the institution’s reputation in the community;
• the institution’s relationship with other law enforcement agencies; and
• community activities such as:
  • the visiting room program,
  • open houses,
  • the community relations board,
  • charitable activities,
  • volunteer and citizen participation program, and
  • number and quality of community partnership programs.

Special Focus Areas

The Regional Director may identify a particular area of concern beyond the scope of these ICP guidelines. In this case, the ICP team may be directed to expand the interview, record review, or field observation guides to address this concern.

SCHEDULING

Each Regional Director must:

• schedule an ICP for each institution in that region once every three years;
• schedule an ICP visit for newly activated institutions any time during the first three years of activation at the Regional Director’s discretion;
• provide an updated ICP schedule to the Senior Deputy Assistant Director, Program Review Division (PRD) at least once every year by January 15th; and
• notify the PRD Senior Deputy Assistant Director of any changes to the ICP schedule immediately.

The PRD Program Analysis Section must maintain a current ICP master schedule and distribute it to all Executive Staff members by January 31st of each year and at other times when requested.

ICP TEAMS

The Regional Director is to determine each ICP team’s size, based on the size and complexity of the institution to be reviewed and any other pertinent factors.

Ordinarily, a team will be composed primarily of regional staff; however, other staff may participate at the Regional Director’s discretion.

The Regional Director must ensure that:

• all ICP team members are familiar with the intent and technical aspects of the ICP process;
• all ICP team members are able to effectively conduct interviews and produce quality results; and
• the regional office, with Central Office support (see Section 10.), provides the institution with random samples for staff and inmates.

The PRD Program Analysis Section must provide telephonic or on-site assistance to regional office staff upon request.

ROLE OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR

Ordinarily, the Regional Director does not need to be present for the entire ICP. However, at a minimum, the Regional Director must enter the ICP at mid-week to conduct interviews, be advised of findings, help the team summarize findings for close-outs, and determine what means will be used to share findings with staff (e.g., meetings with institution Executive Staff, department head meetings, and staff recalls).

The Regional Director must:

• interview institution Executive Staff and others,
• instruct the team to gather more data when appropriate,
• provide other direction as needed, and
• participate in closeouts and other meetings.

PREPARATION FOR AN ICP

Regional Team Preparation

The regional ICP coordinator must:

• ensure that data required from the KI/SSS is retrieved prior to the ICP and distributed to appropriate team members;
• ensure that any relevant program review and other assessment data is collected (ordinarily from the regional administrators) and provided to the appropriate team members;
• ensure that ICP team members use data from KI/SSS, program reviews, etc., effectively to identify any areas of concern or special emphasis that can help focus resources during the week of the ICP visit; and
• help the institution coordinator prepare for the ICP.

Institution Preparation

Institution preparation work is to be kept to the minimum needed to ensure an effective ICP visit.

1. When preparing for the ICP visit, regional ICP staff must make every effort to limit institution staff tasks to the minimum required to address the ICP team’s logistic and data needs.
2. Institution staff must work closely with the regional staff, particularly the regional ICP coordinator, to ensure efforts are not being duplicated.
3. In some instances it is preferable that the ICP team review original documents on-site. However, some data may be analyzed more effectively prior to the ICP visit, and for this reason some documents will need to be copied. ICP staff should clearly request all copying of documents with as much advance notice as possible.
4. Institution staff must prepare:
   • staff and inmate interview schedules based on the random sample provided by the regional office, and
   • activity schedules.
5. Institution Executive Staff are to prepare a brief statement addressing any existing or anticipated concerns prior to conducting an ICP.

Otherwise, institutions should not compile special booklets or reports.

INTERVIEWS

For each ICP, the HRMIS Section, Human Resource Management Division, is to provide a random sample of staff to be interviewed that ensures representation of all races, ethnic backgrounds, experience levels, genders, and departments. HRMIS will also provide a list of all staff grouped by the demographic categories mentioned earlier in this section, so that regional staff may make matched substitutions when an original staff member is unable to attend the ICP interview.

Regional staff retrieve inmate random samples through SENTRY.

Sample Size

1. Staff. Regional Directors should ensure an adequate representation of staff are sampled.
2. Inmates. Generally, somewhere between two and five percent of inmates should be interviewed.

In most cases the size of the samples will not provide data that can be used to draw statistically significant conclusions about how the “average” staff member or inmate feels about a specific question, or about the percentage of staff or inmates throughout the institution that share a common outlook.

However, the samples should allow for the ICP team to gain valid insights held by some staff and inmates representing all races, experience levels, etc., as defined in the first paragraph in this Section.

Community Relations Board

Ordinarily, a sample of Community Relations Board members are to be interviewed individually. It is not necessary to convene a meeting for an ICP; however, if the Board is meeting the week of the ICP, the Regional Director may decide to attend.

Labor Management Relations

The Regional Director and the local union president will meet to discuss local LMR issues. At this time, the local president may present a written summary of local observations.

Non-scheduled Interviews

In addition to randomly selected interviews of staff and inmates, other staff or inmates may request to talk with the ICP team. However, these interviews should be kept informal, i.e., the official interview guides should not be used.

The insights gained from these interviews may assist the team to corroborate other findings or raise concerns for further evaluation or other appropriate actions, but the opinions should not be tallied with those from the randomly selected interviews for final summary.

Explanation to Interviewees

ICP interviewers are to read or paraphrase the explanation provided on the interview guide cover page to each interviewee (staff as well as inmates), explaining:

• the ICP’s purpose,
• the voluntary nature of the interview, and
• the limits of confidentiality.

FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND RECORD REVIEW (FORR)

FORR data consists of two types: that which is collected in advance of the ICP visit (see Attachment B), and that which is collected/observed on-site (see Attachment C). Attachments B and C provide recommended field observations and record reviews, which can be used at the regional office’s discretion.

Pre-visit data are gathered in advance so that the ICP team can determine if any trends exist that might require special attention during the ICP visit.

REPORTS

Telemessage to the Director

Upon completing an ICP visit, and in advance of forwarding the written ICP report, the Regional Director must brief the Director of the findings and any other salient issues via telemessage.

Report Format

A written report that is a minimum of two pages, is required. The report should consist of two parts – the Executive Summary and the Component Breakdown (see Attachment A).

1. The Executive Summary must have:
   • a brief background statement of any concerns provided by the institution staff;
   • a brief description of the overall findings and concerns; and,
   • a statement of the overall rating. The ratings scale is as follows:
     • Unsatisfactory,
     • Marginal,
     • Satisfactory,
     • Exceeds, and
     • Outstanding.
   • a brief description that will reflect the discussions with the warden and local union president, as well as any written documentation provided.
2. The Component Breakdown must include a brief description and rating for each primary area. Recommendations may be provided when warranted.

If the recommendations made affect the working conditions of bargaining unit staff, the union shall be notified and given the opportunity to bargain prior to implementation of said recommendations.

3. Working papers should not be included in the final report.

The Regional Director must sign a cover memorandum for each ICP report and provide copies to the Warden, and the PRD Senior Deputy Assistant Director.

Worksheets

Each region will determine its own method of constructing and using working papers. Standardized ICP worksheets are not required.

USES OF ICP DATA, WORKING PAPERS, AND REPORTS

ICP data and reports may be used only for communication among the Regional Director and the Warden. The Warden may share appropriate parts of the written report with those institution staff members with a need to know.

If changes in working conditions of bargaining unit employees result from recommendations or findings of the ICP, the affected local union will be notified, provided a copy of the pertinent recommendations from the ICP report (sanitized if necessary) and offered an opportunity to bargain prior to implementation of said changes.

Regional Directors must maintain Character Profile reports for at least three ICP cycles (nine years) and working papers for one three-year cycle.

/s/

Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, Director

ICP REPORT FORMAT

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. The summary must have:

• a brief introduction to include dates of current and last ICP visits, ICP team members, and the number of staff and inmate interviews;
• a brief statement identifying the institution Executive Staff;
• a brief background statement of any concerns provided by the institution staff;
• a brief description of the overall findings and concerns; and
• a statement of the overall rating.

II. COMPONENT BREAKDOWN. The component breakdown will include a rating and a summary for each primary area, (i.e., Staff Morale, Professionalism, Communication, Community Relations, and Inmate Morale) and recommendations as required. The rating scale is as follows: Outstanding, Exceeds, Satisfactory, Marginal, and Unsatisfactory.

1. STAFF MORALE OVERALL
   Rating/Comments/Recommendations
2. PROFESSIONALISM OVERALL
   Rating/Comments/Recommendations
3. COMMUNICATION OVERALL
   Rating/Comments/Recommendations
4. COMMUNITY RELATIONS OVERALL
   Rating/Comments/Recommendations
5. INMATE MORALE OVERALL
   Rating/Comments/Recommendations

SAMPLE REPORT FORMAT FCI SMITHVILLE

INSTITUTION CHARACTER PROFILE JANUARY 4-8, 1999

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

An Institution Character Profile (ICP) was conducted January 4-8, 1999, at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI), Smithville. The ICP team members conducted formal interviews with 18 staff and 24 inmates.

Many informal interviews with staff and inmates were also conducted. The team directly observed inmate activities and programs, attended staff meetings, reviewed inmate records and other pertinent Institution documents, and evaluated data from the Bureau of Prisons automated inmate information systems prior to and during the ICP visit.

FCI Smithville is located on a former military base with a staff complement of 115 and an inmate population of 455. The overall ICP rating was outstanding. Although Warden Smith’s tenure at this facility has been only a few months, her judgement and decision making ability are recurrently complimented. The cohesiveness and teamwork among the Executive Staff were evident.

The overall institutional atmosphere is outstanding. The Institution is composed of a seasoned, stable workforce that is mission-oriented. The Warden and Executive Staff maintain a highly visible presence within the Institution and are perceived as competent and concerned about the welfare of staff and inmates. The staff are proud of the ample and diverse inmate programs that have been developed to occupy time productively and facilitate inmate reentry into society.

Labor management relations are cordial, and informal lines of communication are open and a primary means of dispute resolution.

Staff Morale

Employee morale at FCI Smithville is outstanding. Staff generally have a cheerful and enthusiastic attitude about their work and working conditions. They feel confident in the responsiveness and competence of the Executive Staff because of their high visibility, communication skills, and sincere interest in maintaining a climate where staff can excel. Most staff are satisfied with their jobs, are overwhelmingly career-oriented, but reluctant to entertain career enhancing transfers to other facilities. Staff feel appropriately recognized by their supervisors for noteworthy accomplishments, and incentive awards are distributed equitably among departments and across gender and special emphasis categories. They indicate good inmate discipline exists and that the Institution is a safe place to work.

Professionalism

Staff professionalism was rated outstanding. Staff are competent, capable, and take pride in their work and program areas. Staff were personable and cordial in their interactions with the general public and inmates. They clearly see the value of ample and diverse inmate programming and have developed an exceptional number of community-service and public-work projects.

Communications

The communication network, both formal and informal, is well established and rated exceeds. Staff and inmates were complimentary of the processes by which they are kept informed of Institution events and procedures. Executive Staff were complimented extensively for their personal accessibility and responsiveness. Strategic planning and progress in implementing plans were evident and well documented.

Community Relations

The Institution has an outstanding relationship with the surrounding community as well as with federal and local law enforcement agencies. The reservoir of goodwill and cooperation has served to insulate the Institution from criticism when negative publicity arises. The Community Relations Board is active, has a diverse participation, and provides an appreciated forum for discussion of topics of mutual concern.

Inmate Climate

Inmate climate was rated exceeds by the inmates who were interviewed. They felt they were kept well informed about issues affecting them and that staff treated them respectfully.

Inmates indicated there were ample opportunities for work and that the quantity and quality of religion and recreation programs were exceptional. They spoke very favorably about recreation programs. They indicated sanitation and maintenance of the buildings and grounds are excellent. Inmates have no fear for their personal safety.

PRE-VISIT RECORD REVIEW LIST

STAFF MORALE

INCENTIVE AWARDS PROGRAM

1. Staff perceptions as to whether they will receive a cash award or unscheduled pay increase if they perform especially well (KI/SSS)

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL PROCESS

1. Staff response regarding whether their last annual performance rating presented a fair and accurate picture of their actual job performance (KI/SSS)
2. Relevant program review findings
3. Performance appraisals: comparison of institution performance appraisals with the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) overall (KI/SSS)

TRAINING SATISFACTION

1. Staff perceptions about the degree to which needed training is supported by their supervisors (KI/SSS)
2. Staff perceptions about whether their training has been effective in improving their job performance (KI/SSS)
3. Relevant program review findings

STAFFING/WORKLOAD

1. Institution and same security level inmate-to-staff ratios (over latest available 12 months) (KI/SSS)
2. Percent of staff who feel staffing levels are adequate to ensure staff and inmate safety during the day, night, and morning shifts (KI/SSS)

SAFETY AND SECURITY

1. Perceived likelihood of staff member being assaulted (KI/SSS)
2. Staff perceptions of how the design of their facility affects staff surveillance of inmates and staff safety (KI/SSS)
3. Assaults — counts and rates (over latest 12 months: institution patterns and comparison to same security level) (KI/SSS)
4. Escape counts and rates (over latest 12 months: institution patterns and comparison to same security level) (KI/SSS)
5. Security Designations Bar Charts (compare the same or most recent month for the past two years, e.g., January 1996 and January 1997) (KI/SSS)
6. Relevant program review findings

STAFF TURNOVER

1. Staff perceptions about their level of satisfaction with the institution and their commitment to it (KI/SSS)
2. Number of separations (patterns over latest 12 months) (KI/SSS)
3. Reasons why staff are leaving (numbers fired, resigned, lateral transfers, and promotions) (KI/SSS)

JOB SATISFACTION

1. Staff perceptions about their level of satisfaction with their job and their commitment to it (KI/SSS)

CAREER OPPORTUNITIES AND COMMITMENT

1. Staff perceptions that job advancement opportunities are available to them at their institution (KI/SSS)
2. Staff perceptions that job advancement opportunities are available to minorities at their institution (KI/SSS)
3. Staff perceptions that personal job advancement is possible in the Bureau (KI/SSS)
4. Staff perceptions that job advancement is possible for minorities in the Bureau (KI/SSS)
5. Staff responses as to whether they are usually dissatisfied with their particular institution (KI/SSS)
6. Staff perceptions about their level of satisfaction with the institution and their commitment to it (KI/SSS)
7. Staff perceptions about their level of satisfaction with the Bureau and their commitment to it (KI/SSS)

PROFESSIONALISM

STAFF PROFESSIONALISM

1. Administrative remedies — number of complaints filed against staff where relief has been granted (KI/SSS)
2. OIA statistics — past 12 months (KI/SSS)
3. Disciplinary/adverse actions — past 12 months (KI/SSS)

STAFF COMPETENCE

1. Institution fact sheet: staff experience level (KI/SSS)
2. Compare staff experience levels of current and prior years and note percent increase or decrease (KI/SSS)

INTERACTIONS WITH INMATES

1. Number of inside/outside escapes over last year; note any increasing or decreasing pattern
2. Administrative remedies — number of complaints filed about DHO and UDC (KI/SSS)
3. Staff perceptions of how much control they have over inmates during each shift (KI/SSS)

COMMUNICATION

INFORMATION ACCESSIBILITY AND SOURCES

1. The degree to which staff see Bureau information materials, namely the Monday Morning Highlights, and the institution news memorandum (KI/SSS)

LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS

1. Relevant program review findings
2. Staff’s perception of Labor/Management Partner Council (KI/SSS)

STAFF/SUPERVISOR RELATIONS

1. Staff evaluation of the quality of supervision (KI/SSS)
2. Staff indications that they are not afraid to inform supervisors about problems in the institution (KI/SSS)
3. The degree of comfort staff feel in going to their immediate supervisors with suggestions or concerns about institution operations (KI/SSS)
4. Staff response as to whether they had made any suggestions to their supervisors, in the past six months, regarding changes or improvements for their institution or the Bureau (KI/SSS)
5. Staff perceptions of their ability to participate in and contribute to efficiency of institution’s operations (KI/SSS)

INMATE CLIMATE

STAFF/INMATE INTERACTIONS

1. The frequency with which staff felt effective in dealing with inmates (KI/SSS)
2. Administrative remedies — complaints filed against staff (KI/SSS)

SAFETY

1. Assault counts and rates (over latest 12 months: institution patterns and comparison to same security level)
2. Staff perceptions of the frequency with which inmates possessed weapons on their person or in their quarters during the last six months (KI/SSS)
3. Staff responses to whether there had been any gang activity in the last six months in their institution (KI/SSS)
4. The perceived likelihood of an inmate being assaulted in his/her living unit (KI/SSS)
5. Relevant program review findings

SANITATION

1. The frequency with which sanitation (insects, rodents, dirt, or litter) has been a problem in the inmate housing units and in the dining hall (KI/SSS)
2. The frequency with which the inmate housing units have contained too much clutter that could feed a fire (KI/SSS)
3. Relevant program review findings

RECREATION

1. Relevant program review findings

FOOD SERVICE

1. Administrative remedies — complaints filed about food (KI/SSS)
2. Relevant program review findings

HEALTH SERVICES

1. Administrative remedies — number of complaints filed about medical care (not forced) (KI/SSS)
2. Complaints filed about medical treatment (forced) (KI/SSS)
3. Number of complaints filed about dental care (KI/SSS)
4. Number of complaints filed about mental health care (KI/SSS)
5. Relevant program review findings

MAIL SERVICE

1. Administrative remedies — number of complaints about mail (KI/SSS)
2. Relevant program review findings

COMMISSARY

1. Relevant program review findings.

DISCIPLINE PROCESS

1. Administrative remedies — complaints filed about DHO appeals (KI/SSS)
2. Number of complaints filed about UDC action (KI/SSS)

WORK OPPORTUNITIES

1. Administrative remedies — complaints filed about work assignments (KI/SSS)

EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

1. Administrative remedies — number of complaints filed about Education (KI/SSS)
2. Education summary over time span (over latest 12 months: same security level comparison for ABE, GED, ESL, PSE, ACE, and OCC) (KI/SSS)

VISITATION PROCESS

1. Administrative remedies — number of complaints filed about visiting (KI/SSS)

RELIGIOUS PROGRAMS

1. Relevant program review findings

COMMUNITY RELATIONS

INSTITUTION REPUTATION

1. In the community where you live, how aware do you think people are of the existence of the prison? (KI/SSS)
2. In the community where you live, how would you describe the image of the Bureau? (KI/SSS)

COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES

1. Community relations board (number of members and meetings held) (KI/SSS)
2. Volunteer Program (by department, number of volunteers, average monthly visits/volunteer) (KI/SSS)

ON-SITE FIELD OBSERVATIONS/RECORD REVIEW LIST

STAFF MORALE

INCENTIVE AWARDS PROGRAM QUALITY

1. Incentive awards logs/reports: distribution (indicate whether or not evenly distributed across departments, gender, race, etc.)
2. Number and types of awards for past 12 months

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL PROCESS

1. Examination of performance ratings (timeliness, substantiveness, and representativeness)

TRAINING SATISFACTION

1. Review of Annual Training Plan (quality, submitted by all departments, departments not submitting plan, and departments receiving the least training)

JOB RESOURCES

1. Observations to corroborate complaints of lack of resources

EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (EAP)

1. Interview with EAP Coordinator (availability, staff contact, and services that are contracted) (KI/SSS)

STAFFING/WORKLOAD

1. Overtime charges (note high overtime areas)
2. Review of institution staffing patterns:
   • Number of vacancies
   • Critically understaffed departments (include by how much)
   • Overtime use patterns
   • Difficulties with getting staff to work overtime

SAFETY AND SECURITY

1. Observation of the condition and operation of the institution as they relate to safety and security
2. Safety and Environmental Health Inspection Report

STAFF TURNOVER

1. Reasons why staff are leaving institution (numbers fired, resigned, laterally transferred, promoted, and other) (KI/SSS)

MANAGEMENT’S EFFECT ON MORALE

1. Interview with Union Officer

DEPARTMENT MORALE

1. Interview with Employees Club President

PROFESSIONALISM

STAFF PROFESSIONALISM

1. Observation of staff attitude/demeanor
2. Staff efficiency
3. Staff compliance to uniform clothing policies
4. Observation of staff contact with visitors
5. Observation of UDC and Unit Team Meeting
6. Observation of personnel interview
7. Observation of institution training session
8. Institution telephone etiquette (by shift: number of rings and manner handled)
9. Observation of receptionist/front lobby office
10. Observation of staff professionalism in discharging their duties.
11. Observation of supervisory and management attire.

INTERACTIONS WITH INMATES

1. Observe staff interaction with inmates

COMMUNICATION

INFORMATION ACCESSIBILITY AND SOURCES

1. Observations of meetings at all levels
2. Assessment of meetings minutes
3. Assessment of confidential logs
4. Observations of officers’ roll call
5. Identification of unique methods of communication
6. Institution newsletter (quality and distribution)
7. Assessment of duty officer reports
8. Observe staff recall
9. Correspondence review

LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS

1. Labor/management communications
2. Observation of labor/management meetings
3. Union’s concerns
4. Union President’s communication with management
5. Union President’s assessment of labor/management meetings
6. Warden’s assessment of labor/management meetings

STAFF/SUPERVISOR RELATIONS

1. Examination of the strategic planning process (plan development, plan quality, and plan use)

MANAGEMENT ACCESSIBILITY AND RESPONSIVENESS

1. Affirmative Action Committee meeting minutes
2. Interview with Affirmative Action Committee Chairperson
3. Executive Staff attendance at various meetings

INMATE CLIMATE

STAFF/INMATE INTERACTIONS

1. Unit team observations
2. Interactions between staff and inmates
3. Staff responsiveness
4. Inmate access to administrative staff
5. Open house observations (Who has open houses?)

COMMUNICATION OF INSTITUTION ISSUES

1. Inmate bulletin boards (timeliness, relevance, and Spanish)
2. Evaluations of other information sources (Admission and Orientation (A&O) handbook quality, currency, and availability in Spanish)
3. Observe A&O program

SAFETY

1. Observation of safety and security of living/working conditions

SANITATION

1. Observation of institution sanitation
2. Evaluation of overall living conditions extent of overcrowding
   • Response of administration to overcrowding
   • Evaluation of living unit sanitation
   • Evaluation of administrative detention and disciplinary segregation conditions
   • Evaluation of staff visitation

RECREATION

1. Observation of Recreation activities (accessibility, organization, supervision, and variety)

FOOD SERVICE

1. Evaluation of Food Service and mainline (portions, taste appearance, general atmosphere of dining hall, variety in monthly menu, and sanitation)

HEALTH SERVICES

1. Observation of hospital/dispensary (sick call hours and availability of services other than during sick call)

PSYCHOLOGY SERVICES

1. Observation of the drug treatment program, when applicable

MAIL SERVICE

1. Observation of mail call procedures

COMMISSARY

1. Observation of commissary (evaluation of variety, prices, hours of operation, and manner of transactions)

DISCIPLINE PROCESS

1. Observation of the UDC process, if applicable

WORK OPPORTUNITIES

1. Observation of on-site work/VT areas (types of training available and other self-help programs)

EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

1. Observation of Education areas (types of programs available and other self-study courses)

VISITATION PROCESS

1. Observation of visiting policy (hours/days, restrictions, visiting room operations, and treatment of visitors

RELIGIOUS PROGRAMS

1. Observation of Religious activities (accessibility, variety, general atmosphere of chapel, and use of volunteers)

COMMUNITY RELATIONS

RECRUITMENT

1. Interview with Human Resources Manager (recruitment efforts, which efforts most effective, and percent of staff hired from community)

INSTITUTION REPUTATION

1. How the institution is portrayed in news articles
2. Efforts made by the institution to maintain a positive relationship with the media
3. How local community feels about institution

RELATIONSHIP WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT

1. Observations of receiving and discharge procedures with Marshals or other law enforcement personnel
2. Relationship between institution and members of law enforcement community
3. Law enforcement assessments of the institution (U.S. Probation, Marshals, FBI, local police, etc.)

COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES

1. Visiting room observations
2. Interview of visitor about visiting process
3. Written policy or guidelines in place for Community Relations Board
4. Observations from Community Board Members about the Board and institution
5. Charitable activities over the past year
6. Interview with Volunteer Coordinator
7. Interviews with volunteers
8. Interviews with representatives form partnership organizations

Published Feb 8, 2025 by Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA | Last Updated by Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA on Feb 21, 2025 at 9:01 pm