According to an advocacy group and the California Department of Corrections, the three week old food strike is over as the prisoners took the time to read the proposal provided by the California officials a bit more thorough and understanding its intent and content a little bit better. Ceasing their actions to refuse food, these prisoners, housed in the Special Housing Units (SHU) at Pelican Bay, have “agreed to end their actions.” It is likely that this cease to resist and eat tactic is momentary as they take the time to read the state’s proposals The matters at hand are the correctional practices, policies and procedures regarding the restrictive SHU housing units and restrictive gang management practices. These are the same kind of correctional practices and issues that have been at the forefront of Arizona’s corrections system since 2005 and still being looked at for progressive corrective action to make the prison a safe and secure environment. Although there is no perfect agreement regarding the housing and treatment of the type of prisoners that are housed inside a SHU unit, there are excellent evidence based programs already in place that can enhance the environment for both the state and the prisoners. One matter that must be eliminated from the start is the type of cell SHU prisoners live in. These cells are designed for optimum security and staff [public] safety. Installing windows in these cells would structurally weaken the physical plant of the design and should not be considered as an option to meet the hunger strikers’ demands. It is with firm believed experience that this option is not on the negotiations table at this time.
The elimination of the SHU concept is also a matter that should not be considered. The SHU, alike the Special Management Units (SMU) units in Arizona are designed and widely accepted to house a limited designed number of special needs inmates in a physically discrete area where they can be managed more effectively than in a centralized unit. Its primary goal is to decentralize control and authority with staff empowerment to manage these special needs inmates with close contact and unit management thus allowing them to make better decisions regarding their needs. This methodology has worked immensely elsewhere and is effective to provide intense levels of supervision to special needs inmates. This concept to step away from traditional correctional practices adhered to in centralized or general population operations is very challenging and must be strictly held accountable for abuses and misguided power plays. The intense conditions of such an environment require constant accountability and supervision to be effective and productive. Many programs have failed because of appointed managers’ inability to successfully implement programs but lacking the authority to run their units in the manner they sought and prescribed based on fostered communication and agreement of the operations. This appears to be the biggest stumbling block inside these special management units as they are constantly operated by remote control by politics that are afar and many times imposed ideas that are not always in the best interest of the unit’s mission or productivity.
A good example of such political interference is the Security Threat Group (STG) step down program that has been in place in Arizona since 2006. This is the same type of program that is being discussed in this Pelican Bay hunger strike as it is one of the sticking points of the strikers’ demands to change the practice.
Taking an excerpt from a newspaper article regarding this subject it reads “Officials said the plans referenced in Cate’s [Matthew Cate, secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,] statement include a comprehensive assessment of “gang management and secured housing” policies by the Division of Adult Institutions. But it’s unclear whether that review, which was outlined earlier this year in a planning document [PDF], will lead to any major changes. A previous department study that proposed overhauling gang policies and reducing the length of time inmates spend in Security Housing Units was mothballed, according to internal documents and interviews.” The proposals were made in a 2007 internal report drawn up by a panel of national prison experts, including a former assistant director of the state corrections department. The panel’s recommendations included: Moving to a behavior-based model that punishes inmates for tangible offenses, rather than for mere affiliation with a gang - Ending the practice of indefinite detention of alleged prison gang members and associates in the Security Housing Units - Ending the practice of automatically sending validated prison gang members and associates to the Security Housing Units - Creating a “step-down” program inside the Security Housing Units to encourage positive behavior by offering incentives, such as special programs - Ending the distinction between prison gangs and other threat groups to give the department more flexibility in determining inmate placement in the Security Housing Units.’
The idea was to reduce gang related activities and cut down the amount of time that a prisoner spends inside one of these SHU units while addressing gang related conduct and eligibility to be transferred to another location at a reduced classification risk. Under the current conditions, a prisoner, once moved to the SHU unit for gang activity, is likely to spend the rest of his life inside the SHU as there are no definite methods or management tools available to exit such a place. Ironically, this is the same dilemma that faces Arizona prison officials as they share the concept of infinite placement in a gang validation system that allows a departure under similar conditions but one step better than California. Politics aside, the Arizona STG step down program finally got off the ground in 2007 when the administration decided to go ahead and allow the first selected group of eligible gang members to proceed and attend programming designed to allow a reduction in classification score once they completed the approved curriculum for the step down program. This eliminated one big step in the retention of gang members being housed in the SMU’s for an indefinite amount of time. Thus California’s political members have to decide if such a program will work for them as the structure, the regimented curriculum and the resources have already been identified to be sound and practical in practice and successful orientation and rehabilitation of the majority that attended and completed the step down program and now eligible for a reduction in custody level and less restrictive housing needs. The Arizona Step Down Plan can be easily adjusted [modified] to fit the needs of the California Step Down plan and should be considered as an option on the table to allow reintegration and successful programming of gang members free of gang activity for a pre-determined amount of time.
Resembling similar political interference such as that in California the program was risky but worth trying to manage the gang population more effectively and allow eligibility to reduce custody levels once approved to be moved. In Arizona, the plan was written and rewritten numerous times to meet the ultimate goal of providing a safe and secure environment for all involved. A timeline review of the Arizona plan shows both progress and resistance to the program-
May 3, 2006 – an email from Charles Goldsmith, regional Director to Warden John Ontiveros, warden at ASPC Eyman – which read “I want us to be in full compliance with the policy [DO 806] no later than June 1st. This means our first 10 are in the program. Work with Bill Powell and SMU II program, mental staff to effect this.” In turn, Warden Ontiveros writes to Bill Powell “set it and let know, and I will be there. Thanks for taking the lead on this. John.”
May 5, 2006, a memo written by William Powell to Warden John Ontiveros read:
“the proposal for the Step Down initiation meeting is Thursday 1000 hours on 5/11/06. The location remains at your discretion. Please advise me if this conflicts with your scheduling….. I am submitting this itinerary to Mr. [Todd] Gerrish and Deputy Warden Johnson also. I have provided Deputy Warden Johnson with copies of the Step Down forms for his review and reiterated the STG unit’s commitment for assistance in this program.” This itinerary below includes a request for participants. If the meeting date is compatible to your schedule and that of my supervisors Mr. [Jerry] Dunn and Mr. Gerrish, I will contact these staff with the exception of Mental Health personnel, which will likely require the status of your office.” The meeting agenda included: ADC expectations – Step Down Packet – eligibility requirements – program – facility requirements – safety issues – Staff training / participation.
May 6, 2006 – email from Todd Gerrish to Warden John Ontiveros – “the first polygraph was completed today for STG Step Down and the inmate passed. There will be at least one inmate per day tested. Dr. Garland is going to begin the psych evaluation of the inmates and it should be completed without issue.”
May 22, 2006, a memo went out from the administration to begin a STG step down program request and a participation request response forming the genesis of the program. The memo states that the “STG Step-Down program was officially initiated on May 21, 2006. There are currently ten participants who were selected to initiate this program. Assigned staff will timely process all participants to meet pre-qualifications based on security, housing location availability and staffing.”
The status of the applicant to enroll in this step-down program was classified into two characters, either meeting qualifications or not meeting the qualifications. The first statement of qualification read “Currently meets pre-qualification for the STG Step Down Program. Inmate will be interviewed and assigned to the designated Step Down program location based on security, program housing availability, staffing, or any other prevailing institutional needs and / or requirements. there was another option for the STG person applying for the program that read “Currently meets pre-qualification for the STG Step Down Program but sentence expiration is likely to preclude completion of the eighteen (18) month program.” The second character or terms for ineligibility read “Has not met the 48 continuous months of supervised validation; has documented gang activity within last 24 months; has documented incidents involving assaultive behavior, extortion or threats within last 24 months.” This second determination required the administration to notify or contact the inmate upon meeting the qualifications or advised “of your program start date and interviewed, if you are currently qualified.”
May 30, 2006 - Subsequently, there were polygraphs scheduled to be conducted as instructed in a memo that included the following questions. The first question was “Is it your intention to engage in gang activities while in the step down program?” the second question read “Is it your intent to harm someone while in the step down program?” The third question read “Is it your intention to honestly participate and complete the step down program?’ The last question read “Will you use the step down program to conduct gang activity?”
June 16, 2006 – memo from William Powell to Todd Gerrish stating “there have been numerous kits [inmate letters] submitted requesting participation in the Step Down Program. All letters have and continue to be responded to, indicating to them whether they are eligible or not (see attachment)
July 13, 2006, a meeting was held at the Arizona State Prison Complex Eyman SMU II [now the Browning Unit] that addressed current STG issues that included: Current STG housing and program suggestions to include future programming materials and curriculum. The committee suggested a modified pod restriction to allow internal movements to include jobs. Discussing the intricate details of how to interact and allow close contact with other group [rival gang] members and the careful selection of ten (10) participants at a time. Additional issues were discussed that indicated “intelligence information indicates that all (Old) Mexican Mafia members with the exception of *** will continue to be a security risk among other STG members. They fit an exclusive category where their safety and the safety of other inmates for which they may have future contact in this program cannot be sufficiently guaranteed.” The intelligence goes on to describe these inmates as “outcasts even among former allies such as the Surenos and Border Brothers. They have been disenfranchised by their former compatriot *** who is recognized as the only bona-fide member of the California Mexican Mafia and the only member of the original Mexican Mafia given a pass by the (New) Mexican Mafia. The committee asked for a “proper course of action” on this matter that has not yet been resolved.
July 14, 2006 – memorandum from Associate Deputy Warden Cindy Neese to Warden John Ontiveros that reads “the following observations are provided” – Mr. Powell did a good job talking with the inmates, however, it is appearant that they are frustrated with the guidelines of the program and how long it will take them to be approved for interaction with one another. The guidelines do not allow for social interaction for approximately one year.” Neese further writes “the inmates asked what they can do to assist in moving the program forward and what do they need to do to prove themselves. They believe that the interaction between themselves is the only thing that will prove their sincerity to the program. Several of the inmates voiced they are sincere and represent wing 4 (STG wing) and wing 4 is looking upon them for its success. They are requesting pod porter time to show they can make this program work and eventually pod rec time. The concern also there is not enough programs within the phases for the success of the program. Your feed back is appreciated.”
August 7, 2006 – Step Down Report from William Powell to Todd Gerrish that reads “Todd, attached to this email is the body of a larger report package put together for Bennie Rollins [Northern Region Director] who has requested an overview of the Step Down Program. I took the opportunity to provide that overview and an analysis of the program after 2 months.” Please advise if the consensus of the S.I.R.T. staff as reflected in this report, are consistent with your directions.”
September 5, 2006 – memo from William Powell, STG Investigator to Armando “Eddie” Valeriano, Captain, Connecticut Department of Corrections which contained a request to obtain programs related to: relapse prevention – bridge group – Howe to deal with your problems and to do your bid – orientation and communication – controlling your anger. The email asked to “please include any other program material that may be useful to be in our STG Step Down Program. Please advise if this material is under license agreement or if any copyrighted material would prohibit this materials distribution.”
September 19, 2006, memorandum written by William Powell to Deputy Warden Terry Johnson, SMU II unit in reference to addendum to STG Step Down Program Report – this report seeks guidance and direction regarding a segment of validated inmates that present probable concern to the security and safety safeguards of the STG Step Down Program.” This memo outlines a security concern related to the split in the gangs now known as the (Old) Mexican Mafia and the (New) Mexican Mafia. It also mentions the secondary split of the (New) Mexican Mafia and how it consists of validated members of this gang that has been clearly identified as two separate factions at war with each other for control of the Mexican Mafia. A recommendation is made by STG Powell that reads “it is understood that qualified STG members make a pledge to refrain from STG activity to include and imperatively so, any rivalry or predatory activity. Although all participants may agree they will not engage in retaliatory strikes, it would be prudent on our behalf to assume assaultive action involving these individuals eventual transfer to a lesser custody facility should they successfully complete the program. An alternative to group programming for these individuals would be independent group interaction. Absent the ability to observe constructive and cooperative behavior of individual programmers in a group setting, severely limits the S.I.R.T. staff from accurately monitoring progressive behavior.”
October 4, 2006, Step Down Phase II work assignments – A schedule was developed to allow out of cell work program – pending approval for such assignments from the Warden and STG administration Phoenix.
October 19, 2006 – The STG Step Down Participation requests have been returned and evaluated for meeting qualifications for the next group of ten (10) STG participants. A list has been formulated and provided to the STG administrator and the unit deputy warden.
October, 2006 through December 2007 - Programming continues in pod activities with self study classes based on courses provided by STG William Powell and his contacts for such activities. A second group of STG eligible inmates have started the program and the total is eighteen (18) at this time of the program. The first group is in a state of suspension due to lack of feedback by the administration to keep the program fluid and engaged. No social interaction has been approved and no pod activities are scheduled due to receiving no authorization from the Warden and the STG administration to proceed with the program expansion.
December 3, 2007 – first group of inmates have successfully completed the STG Step Down program but have not been allowed in pod activities or social interaction at this point. The program is stalled with no further guidance from the STG group for program expansion or modifications. Those enrolled in the STG Step Down are due for a classification review and since they are not ready to be considered for a custody reduction, all will be classified as level 5 STG validated gang member with STG Step Down programming ongoing. Memo from Deputy Warden ToersBijns to STG / SSU / SMU II staff reads “per our conversation this morning please engage policy 806-09 to be in compliance of policy…..” note if the program is suspended, this action will be null and void as further guidance will dictate next steps to take. However, if it is still active, we will be in compliance of both time frames and actions required per 806-09.1 through 1.1.5 that dictates a new classification review at this time.” This action is not based on the terms of the STG Step Down program and its contents. RATHER, this action is based on the policy itself mandating a review based on the last date these inmates were classified and the review appears to be due at this time to assign a proper classification score to them and seek proper custody placements.” I await the classification results as well as their placement into the established Correctional Plan for both educational and work base recommendations.”
December 4, 2007 – Step Down program classification review email from Deputy Warden ToersBijns to SMU II staff stating “I have completed the first classification review on all [inmates] listed below as their 18 months was completed.” All inmates will remain max custody based on their STG validation status and will remain @ A21 (SMU II) for monitoring and held accountable per DO 806.91.4.2 – these are my recommendations to the warden who may take his own action as deemed appropriate. This [action] puts us in compliance with their classification needs per 806.9 as they completed the Step Down program at this time.”
February 14, 2008, email from Deputy Warden ToersBijns to Warden Robert Stewart – reference: STG Step Down program @ SMU II – Warden Stewart, recent events coming from the STG inmates houses at SMU II are questions regarding the STG Step Down program and its status. I have been telling the SSU (Special Security Unit) staff that we have no information regarding their individual or group status since I have arrived at SMU II [July, 2007]. I do know that I was invited twice to meet regarding the editing of the policy 806 whereas I have no other information as to its status, changes or amendments. The policy regarding STG programs, criteria and expectations.” I hope this inquiry is taken in the spirit intended. I am concerned that as the unit DW [deputy warden] I do not have any answers as to the program status when asked by STG inmates that claim to be participants in a program allegedly started in March 2006 and completed December 2007. it would behoove me to know at the very least how to respond to these inquiries that range from classification status i.e. scoring Level 3 but still at a Level 5 unit, ability to move w/o restraints within the pod to and from the shower and recreation, expectation of going or moving to a lower custody yard and whether or not someone is going to meet with them regarding their concerns.” [To date] STG Debriefers and STG Step Down programs was a topic again this month as to whether or not these areas are going to be reviewed or modified soon. Ms. Carmen Gonzales, a facilitator from Central Office along with Mr. Jerry Dunn, STG Administrator, met with all 18 inmates in the step don on December 18th and returned on December 28th with more feedback to them to consider in a project that was not explained [or shared] with this administration. Another question I was asked was when will their custody level and score change to reflect their actual score and custody level rather than just their validation status as STG validated gang member. [See attached list]
May 16, 2008, a proposal to expand pod activities for STG members Monitored status was faxed to the Central Office administration for consideration. The position paper, written by Deputy Warden ToersBijns to the STG Step Down Committee outlined numerous recommendations for pending approval that included the expansion within the confines of pods 1 and 2 of Charlie Cluster in SMU II. This expansion will affect seventeen (17) individuals who have completed 24 months STG Step Down programs and are currently disciplinary free thus eligible for pending movement to another institution. Recommendations included all seventeen (17) inmates be permitted to leave their cells unrestrained and unescorted by staff. Specifics were to protect staff from any harm or threats.
May 19, 2008 - This recommendation to conduct unrestrained and unescorted movement within the pod to and from work assignments and recreation / showers was approved by the ADOC administration consisting of approving signatures of Northern Region Director Ivan Bartos, Deputy Division Director Bennie Rollins and Offender Division Director John Hallahan to complete the final phase for the STG Step Down program.
Shortly after this approval and based on the successful implementation of the STG Step Down Program at SMU II, all inmates were provided orientation and transfers to a lesser custody level and eligible for general population activities per policies set for Close Custody inmates. No incidents were reported related to any gang activities, safety to staff and violations of STG by rules set by ADOC policy 806 which has been re-written numerous times to keep up with the dynamics of STG management.
Source:
http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/pelican-bay-inmates-agree-end-3-week-hunger-strike-11624
No comments:
Post a Comment