An Assessment of Enhanced Supervision Housing
for Young Adults

New York City Board of Correction

July 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................ III

This Assessment .............................................................................................................................................................. iii
Young Adult ESH ........................................................................................................................................................... iv
Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................................... v
Findings ........................................................................................................................................................................... vi
I.

BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................... 1

II.

ASSESSMENT PURPOSE & METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 2

III.

TIMELINE OF ESH IMPLEMENTATION & RESTRICTIVE HOUSING FOR YAs ......................................................... 3

IV.

ESH & THE YOUNG ADULT POPULATION .................................................................................................. 5

PLACEMENTS & AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION .................................................................................................... 6
DEMOGRAPHICS ............................................................................................................................................ 9
CUSTODY STATUS ........................................................................................................................................ 11
SECURITY DESIGNATIONS & CLASSIFICATION LEVELS .......................................................................................... 11
CLINICAL DESIGNATIONS & SUICIDE WATCH .................................................................................................... 12
LENGTH OF STAY & TIME IN ESH ..................................................................................................................... 13
HOUSING LOCATION PRIOR TO ESH ENTRY ...................................................................................................... 14
HOUSING LOCATION AFTER ESH EXIT............................................................................................................... 14

V.

DUE PROCESS ..................................................................................................................................... 15
PLACEMENT ................................................................................................................................................. 15
PLACEMENT DETERMINATION .......................................................................................................................... 16
APPEAL OF PLACEMENT ................................................................................................................................. 17
REASON FOR ESH PLACEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 17
RESTRICTIONS.............................................................................................................................................. 19

VI.

YOUNG ADULT ESH REVIEW PROCESS .................................................................................................... 21

28-DAY & 30-DAY REVIEWS ........................................................................................................................ 21
45-DAY REVIEWS ........................................................................................................................................ 23
VII.

LENGTH OF STAY BY LEVEL ................................................................................................................... 24

VIII.

CONDITIONS IN YOUNG ADULT ESH ...................................................................................................... 25

TIME OUT-OF-CELL (LOCK-OUT / LOCK-IN)........................................................................................................ 25

i

LOCKDOWNS ............................................................................................................................................. 26
YOUNG ADULT PERSPECTIVES......................................................................................................................... 28
HEALTH & MENTAL HEALTH CARE ACCESS IN YA ESH .......................................................................................... 28
EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................................ 29

School Attendance ............................................................................................................................... 32
Restraint Desks in School ...................................................................................................................... 34
RECREATION................................................................................................................................................ 34

Mandated Services Logbook Review: Recreation ................................................................................ 36
ACCESS TO LEGAL SERVICES-LAW LIBRARY ....................................................................................................... 36

IX.

PROGRAMMING.................................................................................................................................. 37
IMPLEMENTATION OF ESH LEVELS & APPROACH TO ESH PROGRAMMING .............................................................. 37

X.

INCIDENTS & VIOLENCE IN ESH ............................................................................................................. 41
USE OF FORCE ............................................................................................................................................. 41
INFRACTIONS FOR FIGHTS AND ASSAULTS ........................................................................................................ 42
DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITY & OTHER VIOLENCE ......................................................................................................... 43
INJURIES ..................................................................................................................................................... 44
ARRESTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 45
CURRENT DISCIPLINARY OPTIONS IN ESH .......................................................................................................... 45

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 46
GLOSSARY ..................................................................................................................................................... 47
ATTACHMENTS ............................................................................................................................................... 50

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Assessment
This assessment builds upon the Board of Correction’s (“Board”) Assessment of Enhanced Supervision
Housing (ESH) for Adults1 released in April 2017 and offers a specific analysis of ESH implementation for
the young adult (“YA”) population (18 through 21 year olds). To conduct this assessment, Board staff
matched available data on individuals placed in Young Adult ESH (“YA ESH”) to various Department of
Correction (“Department” or “DOC”)-wide data systems and conducted unit observations to get a better
understanding of YA ESH’s operational framework. Board staff also reviewed all young adult placements
in ESH between September 2016 and March 2017, including all due process records for these
placements. Correctional Health Services (CHS) and the Department of Education (DOE) also provided
information on the characteristics of and services provided to young adults while housed in ESH.
The Board’s April 2017 Assessment identified several areas for improving ESH including: policies and practices
related to progression through ESH and periodic reviews, medical care access, lock-out, and steady staffing.
Board staff also identified numerous opportunities for improving fairness and transparency in the
Department’s implementation of ESH due process. This assessment of ESH implementation for young adults
finds those recommendations are equally applicable to the Department’s YA ESH model. Board staff are
encouraged by DOC’s efforts to develop policies and a model tailored to the unique needs of the young adult
population as well as the Department’s adoption of a more multidisciplinary approach to management. Board
staff are also encouraged by the Department’s recent steps toward developing systems for tracking,
monitoring, and evaluating ESH.
Despite the Department’s commendable efforts, Board staff remain concerned about ESH for the young adult
population. For a variety of reasons, including—lockdowns, the lockout schedule, operational issues related
to staffing and management, safety concerns, and a general lack of engagement—most young adults are
spending nearly all day locked in their cells rather than the minimum 7 hours provided for under the ESH
Standards.2 Most young adults in ESH are restrained to desks when they lock out of their cells, and
participation in programming, recreation, and mental health services has been very low, particularly in
blended ESH units (units housing adults and young adults). Nearly all young adults in ESH have non-contact
visit restrictions imposed for the duration of their time in DOC custody, and very few young adults have
progressed to less restrictive housing assignments. Furthermore, the occurrences of slashings and serious acts
of violence in units where restraint desks are in use raises serious concerns and warrants further investigation.
Beyond compliance with existing ESH policies and Standards, the findings and recommendations presented
speak more broadly to the appropriateness and efficacy of the ESH Standards themselves and how the YA ESH
model should be improved moving forward. The Department still lacks the electronic data management
1

See N.Y.C. BD. OF CORR., AN ASSESSMENT OF THE N.Y.C. DEP’T OF CORR. IMPLEMENTATION OF ADULT ENHANCED SUPERVISION
HOUSING (Apr. 2017) [hereinafter Assessment], available at https://goo.gl/oBSAVj.
2
N.Y.C. BOARD OF CORRECTION, CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, LOCK-IN § 1-05(b)(2) (Jan. 23, 2016).

iii

systems that would facilitate tracking and analyzing critical areas related to ESH implementation and the
Minimum Standards, such as due process, restrictions, and program participation. This is a continued barrier
to effective assessment and evaluation.

Young Adult ESH
On September 7, 2016, the first young adult was placed in ESH. The Department opened a young adultonly unit, on October 12, 2016, where young adults were restrained to desks for all out-of-cell activities
and received “28-Day Reviews.” In November 2016, the Department formalized the use of ESH
“incentive levels” in policy creating a more restrictive ESH “Level 1” in which individuals are in restraints
during out-of-cell movement and at restraint desks for all lock-out activities.3 Upon making these policy
changes, DOC expanded its use of ESH. There are six ESH housing units currently in operation, each
housing at least one young adult.4 All ESH units operate in the Otis Bantum Correctional Center (OBCC)
on Riker’s Island.
On November 14, 2016, the Department started conducting 28-Day Reviews for young people placed in
the Young Adult ESH unit, with the first young adults receiving reviews having entered the unit on
October 17, 2016. The 28-Day Reviews were used to determine an individual’s housing assignment and
involved consideration of different assessments5 conducted by DOC staff. The Young Adult ESH unit was
renamed the “ESH Entry Unit,” on March 1, 2017, following policy changes to the young adult placement
criteria and the change in time for assessment reviews from 28 to 30 days. DOC places young adults in
the ESH Entry Unit who have recently committed and/or participated in an actual or attempted slashing
or stabbing, or engaged in activity that caused serious injury to an officer, another person in custody, or
any other person and when the use of the Restraint Desk is the least restrictive option necessary for the
safety of others.6 Young adults not involved in a recent incident of serious violence but meeting other
ESH criteria may be placed in blended ESH units without restraint desks, which operate according to the
incentive level structure used for adults in ESH.7

3

See N.Y.C. DEP’T OF CORR., OTIS BANTUM CORRECTIONAL CORR. CTR., INST’L ORDER NO. 106/16, ENHANCED SUPERVISION
HOUSING (ESH) (eff. Nov. 16, 2016). Note this order does not include reference to the young adult ESH unit which
was open and operating under the same conditions as an ESH Level 1 unit at the time the order was issued.
4
Number of ESH housing units as of July 3, 2017.
5
Assessments include a psychosocial assessment (now called the Intake Assessment), the National Institute on
Drug Abuse (NIDA) drug use screening tool, an environmental assessment, and test of adult basic education
(TABE). On June 9, 2017, the Department introduced the Juvenile Relational Inquiry Tool to the assessment
process to assist with mapping family supports for young adults in the ESH Entry Unit.
6
RECORDS OF VARIANCE ACTION, N.Y.C. BD. OF CORR. (Feb. 14, 2017), available at https://goo.gl/AFGt9W and
https://goo.gl/JJe35M.
7
Eighteen-year-olds are not housed with Adults age 22 and over. This means young adults who are 18 years old
must be placed and remain in the ESH Entry Unit during their time in ESH (unless and until additional young adultspecific ESH units are created). N.Y.C. BOARD OF CORRECTION, CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, CLASSIFICATION OF PRISONERS, LOCK-IN
§ 1-02 (Jan. 23, 2016).

iv

Recommendations
Placement
•
•
•
•
•

Use restrictive housing rulemaking to clarify how ESH fits into a continuum of restrictive housing
options for the young adult population.
Conduct an in-depth analysis of all young adults in DOC custody to understand how alternatives
to punitive segregation are used across the entire young adult population.
Narrow the lookback period for incidents used to justify the placement of young adults in ESH.
Ensure young adults have a meaningful opportunity to progress to a less restrictive setting.
Shorten the time from discretionary decisions regarding placement/progression into and
through ESH and young adults’ actual movement.

Education
•
•
•
•

Create an area that is separate and apart from the ESH Entry Unit and blended ESH housing units
to hold school for young adults in a classroom setting.
Ensure young adults who are not housed in ESH units with restraint desks do not have to attend
school in a restraint desk.
Address scheduling conflicts between school and other mandated services in blended ESH
housing units.
Work with DOE to regularly and publicly report school attendance for the ESH Entry Unit and
blended ESH units.

Programming
•
•
•
•
•

Clarify the program structure for young adults in ESH and ensure the structure allows for
consistent progress across all young adult housing options.
Develop programming for the young adult population that accounts for movement across
housing areas.
Track young adult program participation in blended ESH units.
Improve engagement of young adults in blended ESH units to increase program participation.
Continue to pilot new strategies that address the root causes of violence, such as the Cure
Violence model.

Conditions of Confinement
•
•
•
•

Reevaluate duration non-contact visitation restrictions for young adults in ESH to ensure
meaningful visitation and connections to family and the community.
Incentivize recreation for young adults and address identified barriers such as the physical
conditions of the recreation space and staffing shortages.
Increase mental health and substance use disorder treatment options provided by CHS for
young adults in ESH.
Improve access to medical and mental health care through implementation of the Access Action
Plan developed by DOC & Correctional Health Services.

v

Monitoring & Evaluation
•
•
•
•

Develop a more comprehensive data tracking system to monitor and evaluate ESH
implementation, conditions in ESH, and young adult outcomes.
Design and implement public monthly tracking reports and biannual outcome reports on young
adult restrictive housing.
Update Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to reflect changes to the young adult strategy.
Engage an independent evaluator to study the use of restraint desks as an alternative to
punitive segregation for young adults.

Findings
Young Adults ESH Population
•
•
•
•
•

•

•
•
•

From September 2016 to March 2017, a total of 61 young adults were housed in ESH,
accounting for a total of 65 distinct ESH placements.
As of March 2017, young adults made up 34% (n=36) of the average daily ESH population
(N=107).
Young adults in ESH made up only four percent (4%, n=37) of the overall young adult population
in DOC (N=994)8
Forty-eight (48%, n=36) of all young adults in alternatives to punitive segregation (N=75) are
housed in ESH.9
Since the Department started placing young adults in ESH there has been a 29% increase in the
number of YAs in alternatives to punitive segregation (combined), a 43% decrease in the ADP of
Second Chance Housing, and a 37% decrease in the ADP of the Transitional Restorative Unit.
All young adults placed in ESH were men.10 The racial composition of the young adult ESH
population was 52% Black (n=34), 42% Hispanic (n=27), and 6% other (n=4). A higher portion of
the ESH young adult population was Hispanic (42%, n=27) compared to the population of adults
in ESH (33%, n=114) and the DOC population overall (34%, n=3,325).11
Over half of young people housed in ESH were pretrial detainees (69%, n=45), a smaller portion
compared to the DOC population overall (80% pretrial, n=7,608).12
Twenty-nine percent (29%, n=19) were sentenced and awaiting transfer to state custody.
All young adults in ESH were identified by DOC as gang affiliated.13

8

Young adults (18 through 21-year-olds) made up 11% of the overall DOC population on March 31, 2017.
March 2017 ADP numbers.
10
No studies or reports were done about individuals’ gender identities. The Department of Correction housed
people in ESH in a male facility, but it is possible that there are individuals in these units that identify as women or
are gender non-binary.
11
Race and Ethnicity reported for Average Daily Population in NYC Department of Correction, Population
Demographics Report: Fiscal Year 2017 First Quarter (undated), available at: goo.gl/3Vy536.
12
DOC Census data averaged from September 2016-March 2017.
13
N.Y.C. DEP’T OF CORR., OPERATIONS ORDER 03/12, MONITORING AND MANAGING SECURITY RISK GROUPS AND WATCH GROUPS,
sec. III(A), at 2 (eff. Mar. 17, 2012).
9

vi

•

Seventy-six percent (76%, n=50) of young adults placed in ESH were identified by DOC as having
used or possessed a weapon or dangerous instrument while in Department custody.14

Placement in ESH
•

•
•
•
•

•
•

•

Of the 65 young adult placements in ESH from September 2016 to March 2017, twenty-two
percent (22%, n=14) of the young people entering ESH were transferred from a general
population housing unit, 18% (n=12) were transferred from an isolation unit, and 18% (n=12)
were transferred into ESH from Transitional Restorative Unit (TRU).
Most young adults (62%, n=40) were initially placed in the ESH Entry Unit, 32% (n=21) were
initially placed in an ESH Level 1 unit, and 6% (n=4) were initially placed in an ESH Level 2 unit.
Overall, young adults were placed in ESH an average of 61 days and a median of 16 days after
the most recent incident used to justify their ESH placement.
Most placement hearings were timely 67% (n=43)15 and most young adults attended their
hearing 65% (n=43).
Of the 60 young adult placements continued after a placement hearing, 98% (n=59) for serious
or persistent violence, 97% (n=58) were placed for assaults, 67% (n=40) for participation in a
slashing or stabbing, 42% (n=25) for SRG (gang) activity, 27% (n=16) for possession of a scalpel,
and 12% (n=7) for being an influential gang leader.16 None of the ESH placements during this
period were based on events that occurred when people were out of DOC custody.
Thirty-eight percent (38%, n=23) had specific restrictions identified on their placement
determination forms provided to young adults after their placement hearings.
Only 25 young adult placements were informed of and provided written justification for the
restraint desk restriction. Most young adults whose placement continued in an ESH unit with
restraint desks (29 out of 54 placements) failed to receive proper due process for the restraint
desk restriction as required under ESH Standards.17
No young adults appealed their placement in ESH with the Department. One young adult filed
an Article 78 appeal, but it was considered moot and dismissed by the Court after the young
adult was transferred to state custody.

Progress Through & Out of ESH
•

Seventy-two percent (72%, n=47) of all young adult placed from September 2016 to March
201718 had an ESH exit date, while 28% remain in DOC custody (n=18).19 Over half of young
adults released from ESH (57%, n=27) were discharged from DOC custody entirely. Most young
adults exiting ESH and leaving DOC custody were transferred to state prison. Thirteen percent

14

See N.Y.C. DEP’T OF CORR., DIRECTIVE No. 4518R-C, RED ID AND ENHANCED RESTRAINT STATUS INMATES, sec. III(A), at 2 (eff.
Sept. 28, 2016).
15
This is calculated from all placements not discontinued prior to a hearing (n=64).
16
All placement statistics are derived from criteria recorded on everyone’s Placement Hearing Determination
Forms (ESH-3 Form). Department staff indicate on the ESH forms which placement criteria are met.
17
N.Y.C. BD. OF CORR., CORR. FACILITIES, ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING § 1-16(g)(3)(6) (Jan. 23, 2016).
18
Young adult ESH placements from September 2016- March 2017.
19
As of June 28, 2017.

vii

•

•
•

•
•
•

(13%, n=6) were transferred to general population housing, 15% (n=7) were released to a
Enhanced Restraint unit, 6% (n=3) were transferred to the Secure unit, and 4% (n=2) were sent
to Punitive Segregation.20
Most of the 28/30 Day Reviews audited by Board staff (17 of 24 reviews examined)
recommended that young people remain in a unit with a restraint desk; seven were
recommended to stay in the Entry Unit and 11 were recommended for ESH Level 1. Four (4)
young adults were recommended for ESH Level 2, one (1) individual was recommended for the
Secure Unit, and one young adult had a recommendation that did not mention any specific level.
Young adults who did progress following a 28/30 Day Review took an average of 9 days to be
moved out of the ESH Entry Unit.21
Most young people (62%, n=38) placed in ESH were eligible for at least one periodic review (45Day Reviews). A total of seventy-one periodic reviews were conducted and 90% (n=64) were
timely.
Six individuals progressed to a less restrictive level because of a 45-Day Review and one young
adult was moved to a less restrictive housing unit without a review recommendation.
The average time between a 45-Day Review recommending movement and actual movement to
a less restrictive level was 16 days.
As of June 28, 2017, young adults who had been placed in ESH between September and March
2017 had spent a median of 41 days in the ESH Entry Unit, 60 days in ESH Level 1, 79 days in ESH
Level 2, and 19 days in ESH Level 3.

Programming
•
•

•
•

People placed in ESH are required to participate in programming to progress to a less restrictive
housing unit and transition back into general population.
Young adults in the ESH Entry Unit receive different programming than young adults placed in
(or progressing to) blended ESH units (Levels 1, 2, or 3) where young adults and adults are
provided the same programming options based on their ESH level. The options available in ESH
Level 1 differ from the programming options in Level 2 and 3.
Participation in programming appears to be higher in the ESH Entry Unit compared to
participation reported for the ESH blended units. (See Tables 19 & 20)
Board staff was unable to determine whether people participating in programming in ESH
blended units were young adults or adults from the data regularly provided to the Board in the
Department’s 60-Day ESH reports. 22 In general, program participation in ESH blended units
appears to be very low. (See Table 20).

20

The individuals sent to punitive segregation entered ESH when they were 21 years old but turned 22 while in
ESH and prior to being transferred to punitive segregation.
21
Young adults remained in the Entry Unit a minimum of 3 days and a maximum of 34 days, after their placement
review indicated they should be moved out.
22
Tracking programming enrollment and participation is particularly challenging because DOC does not have an
information management system designed for this. While DOC’s contracted program providers have their own
case management systems for tracking individual participation, DOC does not. Individual-level program
participation in ESH is captured by hand and recorded on spreadsheets by program staff. DOC does not routinely

viii

•

•

Other than the Brooklyn Public Library Book Distribution program, average participation in
program offerings in blended ESH units has never exceeded an average of ~5 people per session
in ESH Level 1 units (combined) or ~2 people per session for programming in ESH Levels 2 & 3
units (combined).
Board staff observations and DOC staff confirm there are frequent disruptions to programming
while it is in session.

Education
•

•
•
•

•
•
•

Thirty-one (47%, n=31) of the young adults placed in ESH between September 2016 and April
2017 were enrolled in school while in ESH, only nine (9) of whom were previously enrolled in
school. This means that 22 young adults enrolled in school after entering ESH.23
More than half of the students in ESH (51%, n=16) were students with Individualized Education
Programs (IEPs),24 and sixteen percent (16%, n=5) were English language learners.
Nine (9) students in ESH made meaningful gains25 in math and 11 students made meaningful
gains in reading while in ESH.26
DOE tracks daily attendance in both ESH school sessions in a combined roster making
comparison between the ESH Entry and the ESH blended class sessions’ attendance and
educational outcomes difficult.
DOE reports that attendance for young adults in ESH is not significantly different from
attendance percentages reported for 18-21-year-olds in other housing areas and facilities.
School frequently starts late due to delays associated with staffing and escorting.
Young adults who attend school sit at restraint desks—legs restrained to the desk with wrists
free of restraint—for the duration of the school period regardless of whether they are housed in
an ESH unit with restraint desks for out-of-cell activities.

Treatment Needs & Access to Treatment
•

•

Over half (61%, n=37) of young adults placed in ESH had identified mental health needs and
were receiving mental health services prior to placement. No individuals placed in ESH had a
diagnosis for a serious mental illness (SMI).
Thirty-one percent of young adults (31%, n=19) in ESH had a substance use disorder prior to
placement.

record programming for young adults separately and has only recently started capturing program participation by
ESH Level. Reporting programming by ESH level started with the Department’s October-November 2016 60-Day
ESH report to the Board.
23
DOE reports that one young adult had previously earned a high school equivalency diploma prior to entering ESH
and no students have obtained a TASC, high school diploma, or high school equivalency while in ESH.
24
The Individualized Education Program, also called the IEP, is a document that is developed for each public-school
child who needs special education. The IEP is created through a team effort, reviewed periodically.
25
“Made meaningful gains” in math or English skills refers to the number and percentage of youth who have been
incarcerated for at least 60 days and who made meaningful gains, as determined by DOE based on TABE Math and
Reading tests.
26
Students need to have taken the TABE test twice for DOE to calculate a gain, and students must be enrolled a
minimum of 30 days to re-take the test. Students sometimes refuse to be retested.

ix

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

None of the young people placed in ESH has a serious physical disability.27
Twenty-two (n=22) young adults had previously been on DOC’s suicide watch list though they
were not on the list at the time of their placement in ESH.
Two young adults appeared on the suicide watch list during their ESH placement period.
Fifty-nine percent (59%, n=27) of all scheduled health encounters28 and 56% (n=74) of all
scheduled mental health encounters29 for ESH patients were completed.
The Department did not produce 30% (n=14) of scheduled health encounters, and 23% (n=31) of
scheduled mental health encounters.30
CHS rescheduled or services were no longer indicated for one scheduled health encounter and
four scheduled mental health encounters for young adults in ESH.
Data reported by CHS indicate that 37% of all placements in ESH (n=23) had one or more injuries
reported during their ESH placement period, only one of which was considered serious.
Thirty-four percent of injuries were due to DOC use of force (34%, n=19), 29% were a result of
self-injury (n=16), and 14% were a result of inmate-on-inmate fight (n=8).

Conditions in ESH
•
•
•

•
•

Due to facility-wide and ESH area lockdowns, individuals in ESH had 39% fewer potential hours
of out-of-cell time than the minimum hours required under ESH Minimum Standards.31
Participation in daily recreation is very low, with an average of only 20% of young adults
participating.
Recreation for young adults in the ESH Entry Unit and Level 1 units is provided in the former
Central Punitive Segregation Unit (CPSU) recreation yard “cages” at OBCC. As was the case in
CPSU, the ESH unit recreation cages do not have any exercise equipment, i.e., dip bars, pull up
bars, basketball hoops, etc.32 The recreation yard for young adults in the ESH Level 2 unit has
basketball hoops, pull-up bars, and other limited recreation equipment fixed to the paved
ground.
Recreation is consistently understaffed, causing the recreation staff to have difficulty providing
timely-daily recreation to each house.
An analysis of a snapshot of the 37 young adults33 in ESH on March 31, 2017 found that twothirds (70%, n=26) had a non-contact visit restriction and nearly all (96%, n=25) of those

27

CHS clinical staff conduct a case by case review of individuals recommended for ESH placement and determine
whether a physical disability is serious enough to preclude placement. Less serious disabilities such as visual or
hearing disabilities are addressed through appropriate medical treatment.
28
These numbers include all scheduled and add-on medical encounters.
29
These numbers include all mental health service types.
30
Reasons for non-production are not known or captured by CHS staff in their electronic data system. DOC has
started to track reasons why patients are not brought to scheduled encounters to better understand why services
are not completed.
31
Calculated using total actual time on lockdown as reported in the Department’s IRS 24 Hour Report from
September 2016-March 2017 divided by total lockout time entitled under ESH Standards over the same period.
32
See BOC report on Barriers to Recreation at Rikers Island Central Punitive Segregation Unit, at 16 (July 2014)
33
Young adults at the time of ESH placement. Two young adult placed between September 2016 and March 31,
2017 turned 22 years old by March 31, 2017 and are included in this analysis.

x

restrictions were restrictions for the duration of an individual’s incarceration, subject to sixmonth reviews of that status.

Violence & Disruptive Activity
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•

There was a total of 88 use of force (UOF) incidents occurring in ESH between September 2016
to March 2017,34 81% (n=71) involved young adults.35
Nearly half of the incidents involving young adults, 47% (n=33) involved the use of chemical
agents.
In nearly a quarter, (24%, n=17) of the UOF incidents involving young adults, the reason
identified for the use of force was an assault on staff.
There were no incidents of serious injuries to staff or assaults on non-uniform staff involving
young adults placed in ESH between September 2016 to March 2017.
More than half of the infractions issued for fights and assaults in ESH were issued to young
adults (56%, n=30) for their alleged involvement in inmate-on-inmate fights and assaults during
this period.36 There was a sharp rise in infractions for inmate-on-inmate fights and assaults from
October through December 2016. 37 This period corresponds to a significant increase in the ESH
young adult population and the opening of new ESH units.
Young adults in ESH have told Board staff that they are concerned about being restrained to
desks and not being able to defend themselves.
From September 2016 through March 2017, there were a total of eight slashings in the ESH
housing area – six of which involved young adults.
Three of the 6 slashings occurred in units where people are restrained to desks during lockout
(ESH Level 1).
There were eight logbook entries noted in the Department’s 24 Hour Reports that did not meet
the DOC’s definition of a “reportable incident” and appear to involve assaults on or harm to
staff.
There were 28 splashings associated with young adults during this period. Nearly half occurred
in January 2017 and 12 of them involved the same individual in multiple housing areas. There
were also nine occurrences of spitting, six of them occurred in January and 5 of them involved
the same young adult.

Discipline in ESH
•

Young adults in ESH who are found guilty of an infraction are not subject to punitive
segregation, but there is not a separate disciplinary sanction schedule for young adults.
Through the DOC adjudication process, young adults who are found guilty of a grade I or grade II
infraction will be subject to a $25 surcharge. In addition, monetary restitution may be applied

34

N.Y.C. DEP’T OF CORRECTION, Monthly Security Statistical Reports – Fiscal Year 2017 (on file).
BOC staff matched young adults placed in ESH between September 2016 through March 2017 to incidents
reported in DOC’s 24 Hour Reports through March 2017.
36
BOC staff matched young adults placed in ESH between September 2016 through March 2017 to incidents
reported in DOC’s 24 Hour Reports through March 2017.
37
N.Y.C. DEP’T OF CORRECTION, Monthly Security Statistical Reports – Fiscal Year 2017 (on file).
35

xi

•

for damage to DOC property or when injured staff receive medical treatment (hospital
visit). ‘Good time’ may also be taken for sentenced young adults.
Twenty-eight percent (28%, n=17) of the 61 young adults placed in ESH between September
2016 and March 2017 were arrested during their time in ESH. 38 There were 26 arrests involving
young adults; five young adults were arrested multiple times during their time in ESH.39
Additionally, there was 1 incident involving the arrest of a visitor to a young adult in ESH.40

Monitoring
•
•
•
•

DOC does not regularly audit compliance with Minimum Standards in ESH and does not
currently track lock-out in a manner that can be routinely monitored for compliance.
DOC does not track program participation at the individual level. This limits the Department’s
ability to track and report participation for the young adult population in blended units.
DOE does not currently track school attendance for the ESH Entry and Blended school sessions
separately which precludes the ability to compare participation across the two school sessions.
Beyond placement criteria, information on due process is not routinely tracked or monitored by
the Department.

38

Arrests made between individuals’ ESH placement and exit dates. Determined by matching ESH young adults
(placed between September 2016 to March 2017) to incidents in the DOC’s 24 Hour Reports through March 31,
2017.
39
Determined by matching ESH young adults (placed between September 2016 to March 2017) to incidents in the
DOC’s 24 Hour Reports through March 31, 2017.
40
Id.

xii

AN ASSESSMENT OF ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING FOR YOUNG ADULTS

I.

BACKGROUND

On January 13, 2015, the Board of Correction (“Board” or “BOC”) amended its Minimum Standards to
create Enhanced Supervision Housing (ESH). 1 The Department of Correction (“Department” or “DOC”)
had first proposed the new restrictive housing area in October 2014. The purpose of creating ESH was
to address the increase in serious violence among incarcerated people in New York City jails and to
integrate a new restrictive housing unit as the Department reformed its use of punitive segregation.2
When the Board passed the ESH Standards, it also created new standards prohibiting the use of punitive
segregation and ESH for individuals under the age of 22.3
ESH is intended to house people who present “a significant threat to the safety and security of the
facility if housed elsewhere”4 and was established to provide the Department the ability “to protect the
safety and security of inmates and facilities, while promoting rehabilitation, good behavior, and the
psychological and physical well-being of inmates.”5 The Minimum Standards were also amended to
allow seven daily lock-out hours in ESH units, rather than the generally required fourteen hours.6
The key components of ESH are codified in Standard § 1-16 and include provisions regarding (1)
placement criteria to limit discretion and ensure ESH is reserved for individuals who present the most
serious security risk; (2) exclusions (adolescents, young adults, and people with the serious mental
illnesses or physical disabilities) to mitigate potential harm; (3) conditions, programming, and services to
facilitate rehabilitation, address the root causes of violence, and minimize idleness; (4) staffing (40 hours
of training and at least 25% assigned to steady posts) to ensure safety and consistency in management;
(5) full due process protections to ensure procedural justice; and (6) Board monitoring to create
transparency and accountability.
The Board originally prohibited placement of 16- to 21-year-olds in ESH and tailored the ESH standards
to address the challenges posed by, and the needs of, incarcerated adults. However, the Board
subsequently on four occasions approved variances from the ESH Minimum Standards that permit the
Department to house young adults ages 18 through 21 in ESH. The Department’s variance requests
have repeatedly cited security concerns and the need for ESH as a housing option for young adults who
have perpetrated violence.
The Standards require the Board to convene to discuss “the effectiveness and continued
appropriateness of ESH” no later than two years after implementation of ESH.7 To satisfy this

1

See generally N.Y.C. BD. OF CORR., CORR. FACILITIES, ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING § 1-16 (Jan. 23, 2016). The
Minimum Standards section on Enhanced Supervision Housing is attached hereto as Attachment B.
2
See N.Y.C. BOARD OF CORRECTION, NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF RULES, 142 THE CITY RECORD 215 (2015).
3
N.Y.C. BOARD OF CORRECTION, CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF PUNITIVE SEGREGATION § 1-17 (Jan. 23,
2016).
4
N.Y.C. BOARD OF CORRECTION, CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING § 1-16(b) (Jan. 23, 2016).
5
Id. at § 1-16(a).
6
N.Y.C. BOARD OF CORRECTION, CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, LOCK-IN § 1-05(b)(2) (Jan. 23, 2016).
7
N.Y.C. BOARD OF CORRECTION, CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING § 1-16(i)(2) (Jan. 23, 2016).

1

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION
requirement, on April 26, 2017, Board staff released its Assessment8 of ESH implementation for adults
(22 years of age or older) and the Board discussed ESH at the May 10th public Board meeting. This
report expands on the adult assessment by examining the components of ESH related to young adults.
It will also inform the Board's rulemaking on restrictive housing for young adults.

II.

ASSESSMENT PURPOSE & METHODOLOGY

DOC policies and procedures related to ESH have changed significantly, making it difficult to evaluate.
This report describes ESH implementation with respect to the young adult population (18 through 21
years old). DOC’s policies and compliance with the Minimum Standards on ESH and lessons learned over
the course of implementation are also discussed. Finally, recommendations and implications for the
Board’s upcoming rulemaking on restrictive housing are presented for consideration in this report’s
Executive Summary.
Board staff conducted an in-depth file audit of all young adult ESH placements between September 2016
and March 2017. This audit included 65 placements, with three individuals having more than one
placement.
The findings in this report are based on a wide range of sources including:
•
•
•
•
•

All available documentation related to ESH policies and procedures;9
Information and conversations with DOC, CHS, DOE staff tasked with implementing ESH;
Detailed field observations and monitoring of ESH units by Board staff;
Administrative data captured by DOC, CHS, and DOE; and
Files containing all ESH due process paperwork, audio recordings of placement hearings,10 and
complaints submitted to the Board.

8

N.Y.C. BD. OF CORR., AN ASSESSMENT OF THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION’S IMPLEMENTATION OF ADULT
ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING, (APR. 26, 2017), available at https://goo.gl/278xdT.
9
There is no written policy in effect that is specific to the YA ESH model, however, an updated draft ESH Directive
which addresses new elements of the ESH model specific to young adults is currently under development and
review.
10
Audio recordings of placement hearings were available for 89% (n=58) of audited placements.

2

AN ASSESSMENT OF ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING FOR YOUNG ADULTS

III.

TIMELINE OF ESH IMPLEMENTATION & RESTRICTIVE HOUSING FOR YAs11
2015

February 19, 2015

Board voted to amend Minimum Standards to create Enhanced Supervision Housing (ESH) units, excluding
its use for 16- through 21-year-olds and people with serious mental or physical disabilities or conditions,
and voted to end Punitive Segregation for 16- through 21-year olds, effective January 1, 2016. 1
DOC issued its first Directive on ESH policies and procedures (Directive 4497).

February 21, 2015

ESH Minimum Standards took effect.

February 23, 2015

DOC began moving incarcerated adults into ESH.

January 13, 2015

July 1, 2015
November 10, 2015

2

Deadline for DOC to provide people in ESH with both voluntary and involuntary and both in- and out-of-cell,
programming. This programming must be aimed at facilitating rehabilitation, addressing root causes of
violence, and minimizing idleness.
Board granted DOC's variance request extending deadline to end Punitive Segregation for young adults
ages 18 through 21 until February 29, 2016. 3

2016
Around January 2016

February 1, 2016

DOC began implementing three “phases” in ESH with "phase one" being the most restrictive.
Board granted DOC's [second] variance request extending the deadline to end Punitive Segregation for
young adults ages 18 through 21 until June 1, 2016. 4
Incentive-based programming model tied to new ESH levels introduced to ESH leadership.

February 23, 2016

Second Chance Housing Units (SCHU) for young adults opened at the GMDC facility.

January 12, 2016

April 21, 2016
May 1, 2016
May 10, 2016
May 26, 2016
June 29, 2016
June 30, 2016
July 7, 2016
July 12, 2016
July 26, 2016
September 7, 2016
October 2016
October 11, 2016
October 12, 2016
November 1, 2016
November 15, 2016
November 16, 2016
December 9, 2016

Transitional Restorative Unit (TRU) for young adults opened at the GMDC facility.
“Passport to Success” ESH program orientation process started in ESH units.
Board granted DOC's variance request to open and operate the Secure Unit to house young adults ages 18
through 21 until November 10, 2016.5
Board granted DOC's [third] variance request extending deadline to end Punitive Segregation for young
adults ages 18 through 21 until June 30, 2016. 6
Secure Unit opened with three young adults placed there.
Board's variance to house young adults ages 18 through 21 in Punitive Segregation expired. This date also
marked the official end date of Punitive Segregation for 18-year-old young adults.
Board issued a Notice of Violation to DOC for its continued use of Punitive Segregation for young adults
ages 19 through 21.7
Board granted DOC's variance request to place young adults ages 19 through 21 in ESH until October 11,
2016; and [fourth] variance request extending deadline to end Punitive Segregation for young adults ages
19 through 21 until October 11, 2016.8
DOC issued an updated Directive on ESH procedures and policies (Directive 4497R) to reflect Department’s
ability to house young adult inmates in ESH.
The Department placed the first young adult in ESH.
DOE began providing regularly scheduled educational services to young adults in ESH.
The Department announced the end of Punitive Segregation for young adults ages 19 through 21. Board
granted DOC's variance requests permitting placement of young adults ages 18 through 21 in ESH (19through 21-year-olds in ESH until January 11, 2017 and 18 year-olds until April 11, 2017). 9
The Department opened the YA ESH Assessment Unit, where young adults are restrained to desks during
all out-of-cell activities and receive 28-day assessments.
Chief of Department approved the first placement of an 18-year-old in ESH.
Board granted DOC's [second] variance request permitting the placement of young adults ages 18 through
21 in the Secure Unit until May 15, 2017. 10
The Department issued a Command Level Order formalizing an ESH level structure, changing terminology
from phases to levels, including ESH Level 1 requiring use of restraint desks during all out-of-cell time.
The Department updated its ESH due process forms to include the use of restraint desks as a potential
individualized restriction.

3

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION
2017
January 11, 2017
January 20, 2017

February 10, 2017

Board’s variance permitting placement of 19- through 21-year-olds in ESH expired.
Board issued a Notice of Violation of Minimum Standards to DOC for its continued operation of ESH for
young adults ages 19 through 21.11
The Department issued a Security Memorandum requiring that whenever a person housed in the
Assessment or a Level 1 unit leaves his cell, he will undergo a more extensive search, and that only one
inmate at a time will be moved around the housing unit. 12

February 13, 2017

DOE began offering an additional school session to accommodate young adults in ESH, increased the
number of school sessions from one to two sessions in ESH.

February 14, 2017

Board granted DOC's variance request permitting the housing of young adults ages 18 through 21 in ESH
until August 14, 2017 and modified placement criteria so that young adults may be only placed in ESH Entry
after the young adult has recently committed and / or participated in an actual or attempted slashing or
stabbing or activity causing serious injury to another person. 13

February 24, 2017

The Department issued a Deputy Warden Order requiring ESU staff with tasers and canines to be present
during any lockout of any person and feedings in a Level 1 unit. 14

March 1, 2017

The Department renamed the YA ESH Assessment Unit the YA ESH Entry Unit, changing the assessment
time-period from 28 days to 30 days.

March 6, 2017

The Department issued a Security Memorandum to require that ESU staff or a K9 officer with a canine be
present during any movement in Level 1 units. 15

March 30, 2017
April 26, 2017

May 10, 2017

June 13, 2017
June 27, 2017
July 11, 2017

Department shared a revised draft of the ESH directive soliciting Board feedback.
Board released a report assessing ESH for adults to inform the Board's discussion of "the continued
effectiveness and appropriateness of ESH" required by the Minimum Standards. 16
Board discussed "the continued effectiveness and appropriateness of ESH" as required by the Minimum
Standards;
Board granted DOC's [third] request permitting the housing of young adults ages 18 through 21 in the
Secure Unit until June 15, 2017.17
Board granted DOC's [fourth] variance request permitting the housing of young adults ages 18 through 21
in the Secure Unit until July 11, 2017.18
DOC submitted to the Board an Evaluation of Enhanced Supervision Housing for Young Adults, as required
by the Board's February 14, 2017 ESH variance condition.
Board granted DOC's Variance request permitting the housing of young adults ages 18 through 21 in ESH until
November 15, 2017.19

4

AN ASSESSMENT OF ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING FOR YOUNG ADULTS

IV.

ESH & THE YOUNG ADULT POPULATION
On September 7, 2016, the first young adult was placed in ESH. The Department opened a young adultonly unit, on October 12, 2016, where young adults were restrained to desks for all out-of-cell activities
and received “28-Day Reviews.” In November 2016, the Department formalized the use of ESH
“incentive levels” in policy creating a more restrictive ESH “Level 1” in which individuals are in restraints
during out-of-cell movement and at restraint desks for all lock-out activities.12 Upon making these policy
changes, DOC expanded its use of ESH. There are six ESH housing units currently in operation, each
housing at least one young adult.13 All ESH units operate in the Otis Bantum Correctional Center (OBCC)
on Riker’s Island.
On November 14, 2016, the Department started conducting 28 Day Reviews for young people placed in
the Young Adult ESH unit, with the first young adults receiving reviews having entered the unit on
October 17, 2016. The 28-Day Reviews were used to determine an individual’s housing assignment and
involved consideration of different assessments14 conducted by DOC staff. The Young Adult ESH unit
was renamed the “ESH Entry Unit,” on March 1, 2017, following policy changes to the young adult
placement criteria and the assessment time for conducting reviews changing from 28 to 30 days. DOC
places young adults in the ESH Entry Unit who have recently committed and/or participated in an actual
or attempted slashing or stabbing, or engaged in activity that caused serious injury to an officer, another
inmate or any other person and presents a significant threat to the safety and security of the facility,
and who they believe require the heightened safety and security afforded by Restraint Desks. Young
adults not involved in a recent incident of serious violence but meeting other ESH criteria may be placed
in blended ESH units without restraint desks, which operate according to the incentive level structure
used for adults in ESH.15

12

See N.Y.C. DEP’T OF CORR., OTIS BANTUM CORRECTIONAL CORR. CTR., INST’L ORDER NO. 106/16, ENHANCED SUPERVISION
HOUSING (ESH) (eff. Nov. 16, 2016). Note this order does not include reference to the young adult ESH unit which
was open and operating under the same conditions as an ESH Level 1 unit at the time the order was issued.
13
Number of ESH housing units as of July 3, 2017.
14
Assessments include a psychosocial assessment, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) drug use screening
tool, an environmental assessment, and test of adult basic education (TABE). On June 9, 2017, the Department
introduced the Juvenile Relational Inquiry Tool to the assessment process to assist with mapping family supports
for young adults in the ESH Entry Unit.
15
Eighteen-year-olds are not housed with adults age 22 and over. This means young adults who are 18 years old
must be placed and remain in the ESH Entry Unit during their time in ESH (unless and until additional young adultspecific ESH units are created). N.Y.C. BOARD OF CORRECTION, CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, CLASSIFICATION OF PRISONERS, LOCK-IN
§ 1-02 (Jan. 23, 2016).

5

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION
Table 1

Description of Young Adult ESH by Level
ESH Entry Unit
Number of
Housing Units
Currently in
Operation

Level 1

Level 2

2 Units

Level 3

Level 4

1 Unit

There have never
been any ESH
Level 4 only
housing units in
operation.

1 Unit

2 Units

Restraint
Desks Used

Yes
(All Lockout Time)

Yes
(All Lockout Time)

Lock-out
Afforded

7 hours

7 hours

7 hours

10 hours

14 hours

$50

$50

$70

$95

$125

--Dialectical Behavioral
Therapy (DBT)
--Youth Communication
--Creative Expression
Arts and Crafts

--Individuals
Determined to
Overcome Life's
Struggles (IDOLS)
--Cage Your Rage

Young Adults Restrained in Desks When
Attending School in the ESH Entry Unit

(minimum)

Commissary
Limit
(weekly)

Programs
Offered

--Individualized Correction Achievement Network
(ICAN)
--The Challenge Journal Series
--Brooklyn Public Library Book Distribution
--Teleconferencing & Family Reunification

PLACEMENTS & AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION
From September 2016 to March 2017, a total of 61 young adults were housed in ESH, accounting for a
total of 65 distinct ESH placements. Three young adults had more than one placement. Two young
adults had two placements, and one young adult had three placements during this period.
From September 2016 to March 2017, the number of ESH placements per month ranged between a
minimum of four placements in September 2016 to a maximum of 17 placements in November 2016.

6

AN ASSESSMENT OF ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING FOR YOUNG ADULTS

Figure 1

The average daily population (ADP) in ESH ranged from a minimum of 2 young adults in September
2016, when ESH first started housing young adults, to a maximum of 36 young adults in March and April
2017.

Figure 2

7

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION
As of March 2017, young adults made up 34% of the average daily ESH population. Prior to punitive
segregation reform and the establishment of ESH, young adults ages 18-21 made up 30% of the punitive
segregation population in 201316 and 35% of the punitive segregation population in 2014.17

Figure 3

Since the Department started placing YAs in ESH, there has been a 29% increase in the number of YAs in
alternatives to punitive segregation (combined) housing, a 43% decrease in the ADP of Second Chance
Housing, and a 37% decrease in the ADP of the Transitional Restorative Unit.

16
17

DOC census taken on November 1, 2013.
DOC census taken on November 24, 2014.

8

AN ASSESSMENT OF ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING FOR YOUNG ADULTS

Figure 4

DEMOGRAPHICS
All young adults placed in ESH were men.18 The racial composition of the young adult ESH population
was 52% Black (n=34), 42% Hispanic (n=27), and 6% other (n=4). A higher portion of the ESH young
adult population was Hispanic (42%, n=27) compared to the population of adults placed in ESH (33%,
n=114)19 and in the DOC population overall (34%, n=3,325).20

18

No studies or reports were done about individuals’ gender identities. The Department of Correction housed
people in ESH in a male facility, but it is possible that there are individuals in these units that identify as women or
are gender non-binary.
19
Race statistics determined from a total of 348 adults who were placed in ESH between February 2015 and
November 2016.
20
Race and Ethnicity reported for Average Daily Population in NYC Department of Correction, Population
Demographics Report: Fiscal Year 2017 First Quarter (undated), available at: goo.gl/UoRFMX.

9

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION
Table 2

Racial and Ethnic Breakdown of ESH Population
vs. Department-wide Population
ESH Young
Race / Ethnicity
Adult
Black (Non-Hispanic)
34
White (Non-Hispanic)
0
Other (Non-Hispanic)
4
Hispanic
27
Total
65

Percent
52%
0%
6%
42%
100%

DOC Overall
Population
5,338
685
446
3,325
9,794

Percent
55%
7%
5%
34%
100%

SOURCE: Ra ce & Ethni ci ty for ESH young a dul ts recorded i n Depa rtment of Correction
Inma te Identifi ca tion Sys tem.
NOTE: Ra ce a nd Ethni ci ty reported for Avera ge Da i l y Popul a tion i n NYC Depa rtment of
Correction, Popul a tion Demogra phi cs Report: Fi s ca l Yea r 2017
Fi rs t Qua rter (unda ted), a va i l a bl e a t goo.gl /3Vy536

The average age of young adults entering ESH was 20 years old. A cross-section of the DOC census on
March 31, 2017 showed that young adults (18-21 years) made up 35% (n=37) of the total ESH population
(n=107). Young adults in ESH on that date made up only four percent (4%, n=37) of the total young
adult population (ages 18 through21) in DOC (n=994).21
Table 3

Age Breakdown of ESH Population and
Department-wide Population
on March 31, 2017
Age
18 years old
19 years old
20 years old
21 years old
Total

ESH Young Adult
DOC Young Adult
Population
Percent
Population
Percent
4
11%
176
18%
6
16%
215
22%
18
49%
296
30%
9
24%
307
31%
37
100%
994
100%

SOURCE: Depa rtment of Correction cens us da ta compi l ed by Boa rd of Correction.
NOTE: DOC Young a dul t popul a tion i s a s na ps hot on Ma rch 31, 2017.

21

Young adults (18-21 -year -old) made up 11% of the overall DOC population on March 31, 2017.

10

AN ASSESSMENT OF ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING FOR YOUNG ADULTS

Figure 5

CUSTODY STATUS
Nearly all young adults housed in ESH were facing or were sentenced to felony charges (95%, n=62).
Over half of young adults housed in ESH were pretrial detainees (69%, n=45), a smaller proportion
compared to the DOC population overall (80% pretrial, n=7,608).22 Thirty-one percent (31%, n=20) of
young adults in ESH were sentenced, a larger portion compared to the DOC population overall (20%,
n=1,948).23 Twenty-nine percent (29%, n=19) were sentenced and awaiting transfer to state custody.

SECURITY DESIGNATIONS & CLASSIFICATION LEVELS
All young adults in ESH were identified by DOC as gang-affiliated. 24 Seventy-seven percent (77%, n=50)
have been found by DOC to have used or possessed a weapon or other dangerous instruments while in
Department custody.25
The risk classification score26 for young adults placed in ESH ranged from 6 to 33 with an average
classification score of 21.6. Of the 65 ESH placements reviewed, 88% (n=57) met the criteria for a
22

DOC Census data averaged from September 2016-March 2017.
Id.
24
N.Y.C. DEP’T OF CORRECTION, OPERATIONS ORDER 03/12, MONITORING AND MANAGING SECURITY RISK GROUPS AND WATCH
GROUPS, sec. III(A), at 2 (eff. Mar. 17, 2012).
25
See N.Y.C. DEP’T OF CORRECTION, DIRECTIVE No. 4518R-C, RED ID AND ENHANCED RESTRAINT STATUS INMATES, sec. III(A), at 2
(eff. Sept. 28, 2016).
26
DOC’s risk classification score is assigned upon admission to DOC custody and reassessed every 60 days. Factors
used to derive the score include securing orders, RAP sheet, Sentence Commitment Orders, warrants, detainers,
23

11

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION
maximum risk classification level (a classification score of 13 or more); 11% (n=7) had a medium custody
classification (a score between 7 and 12), and 2% (n=1)27 had minimum custody classification (a score
between 4 and 6) prior to their ESH placement.

CLINICAL DESIGNATIONS & SUICIDE WATCH
The Minimum Standards require the exclusion of people with serious physical or mental health
conditions from ESH housing.28 Individuals housed in ESH were more likely to have mental health needs
than the overall DOC population.29 Over half (61%, n=37), of young adults in ESH had identified mental
health needs prior to placement. No individuals placed in ESH had a diagnosis for a serious mental
illness (SMI). Thirty-one percent (31%, n=19) of young adults in ESH had a substance use disorder prior
to placement. None of the young people placed in ESH had a serious physical disability.30
Table 4

Clinical Designations for Young Adults Placed in ESH
September 2016-March 2017
N= 61 Young Adults

Receiving mental health services before placement
SMI before placement
Substance use disorder before placement
Serious physical disability before placement

Number Percent
37
61%
0
19
31%
0

SOURCE: Correctiona l Hea l th Servi ces da ta a s of Ma y 24, 2017 ma tched to young a dul ts
pl a ced i n ESH from September 2016 to Ma rch 2017.
NOTE: Subs tance us e di s order numbers excl ude remi s s i on di a gnos i s , toba cco us e, a nd
ca nna bi s . Twenty-fi ve ca nna bi s onl y us ers were removed from the total number of
s ubs tance us e di s orders .

A review of the Department’s suicide watch list found that 22 young adults had previously been on the
Department’s suicide watch list, though they were not on the list at the time of their placement in ESH.
Two young adults have appeared on the suicide watch list and remained in ESH during that time. One of
the young adults was on the list once and the other young adult was on the suicide watch list twice.

pre-sentence reports, probation reports, and institutional behavior. See generally N.Y.C. DEP’T OF CORRECTION,
DIRECTIVE No. 4100R-D, CLASSIFICATION (eff. Mar. 10, 2014).
27
This young adult had a low classification score at the time of his ESH placement. Prior to his placement in ESH he
had participated in a stabbing that took place in a general population housing area.
28
See N.Y.C. BOARD OF CORRECTION, CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING § 1-16(c)(1)(iii) (Jan. 23,
2016).
29
In fiscal years 2015 and 2016, approximately 42% of DOC’s ADP was receiving mental health services (Brad H/M
Designation). See NEW YORK CITY MAYOR’S OFFICE OF OPERATIONS, PRELIMINARY MAYOR’S MANAGEMENT REPORT: PRELIMINARY
FISCAL YEAR 2017 76 (Feb. 2017), available at: goo.gl/inji4E.
30
CHS clinical staff conduct a case-by-case review of individuals recommended for ESH placement and determine
whether a physical disability is serious enough to preclude placement. Less serious disabilities such as visual or
hearing disabilities are addressed through appropriate medical treatment.

12

AN ASSESSMENT OF ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING FOR YOUNG ADULTS
Individuals with developmental disabilities may be identified at DOC intake. Several screening questions
are intended to assist with identification. For individuals who are receiving mental health services,
additional intake screening questions help to identify the presence of a developmental disability;
however, CHS reports that many of the young adults in ESH are not receiving mental health services
while in ESH. Individuals identified prior to ESH placement (e.g. at intake or at a MH assessment) as
having a developmental disability are not cleared for ESH placement.

LENGTH OF STAY & TIME IN ESH
The length of stay in ESH for young adults who were eventually released from ESH ranged from two days
to 247 days with an average length of stay of 74 days (2.5 months) and median length of stay of 50 days
(1.6 months).31
A snapshot of the 18 individuals who were placed between September 2016 and March 2017 and were
still in ESH as of June 28, 2017 had an average length of stay in ESH of 184 days (6.1 months) and a
median length of stay of 192 days (6.4 months), with one individual having served 282 days in ESH. The
minimum length of stay for young adults still housed in ESH was 96 days.

Figure 6

31

Of the 65 young adult ESH placements, 43 had an ESH exit date.

13

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION
HOUSING LOCATION PRIOR TO ESH ENTRY
For the 65 young adult placements in ESH from September 2016 to March 2017, twenty-two percent
(22%, n=14) of the young adults entering ESH were transferred from a general population housing unit,
18% (n=12) were transferred into ESH from an isolation unit, and 18% (n=12) were transferred into ESH
from Transitional Restorative Unit (TRU). Table 5 summarizes all housing locations of young people
immediately prior to their ESH entry.

HOUSING LOCATION AFTER ESH EXIT
Seventy-two percent (72%, n=47) of all young adults placed from September 2016 to March 201732 had
an ESH exit date, while 28% remain in DOC custody (n=18).33 Over half of young adult placements
released from ESH (57%, n=27) were discharged from DOC custody entirely. Most young adults exiting
ESH and leaving DOC custody were transferred to state prison. Thirteen percent (13%, n=6) were
transferred to general population housing, 15% (n=7) were released to an Enhanced Restraint unit, 6%
(n=3) were transferred to the Secure unit, and 4% (n=2) were sent to Punitive Segregation.34 Table 6
summarizes the housing location for all 47 young adult placements exiting ESH.
Table 5

Table 6

Housing Location of Young Adults
Prior to ESH Placement

Release Location of Young Adults
After Exit from ESH

September 2016 - March 2017 Placements

September 2016 - March 2017 Placements

Count Percent
General Population
14
22%
Isolation
12
18%
Transitional Restortative Unit
12
18%
Enhanced Restraint Unit
8
12%
Accelerated Program Unit
6
9%
Punitive Segregation
5
8%
Administrative Segregation
4
6%
Clinical Alternative to Punitive Segregation
1
2%
Detox
1
2%
New Admission
1
2%
Secure Unit
1
2%
Total 65
100%
SOURCE: Boa rd of Correction revi ew of hous i ng l oca tion refl ected i n the
DOC Inma te Informa tion Sys tem.

General Population
Protective Custody
Enhanced Restraint Unit
Accelerated Program Unit
Punitive Segregation*
Secure Unit
Released from DOC Custody
Transferred to State Prison or Other Jurisdiction
Bail Paid
Time Served
Released on Own Recognizance
Total

Count
6
1
7
1
2
3
27

Percent
13%
2%
15%
2%
4%
6%
57%

22
1
2
2
47

100%

SOURCE: Boa rd of Correction revi ew of hous i ng l oca tion refl ected i n the DOC
Inma te Informa tion Sys tem on June 28, 2017.
* Indi vi dua l s who went i nto puni tive s egrega tion were 21 yea rs ol d when they
were ori gi na l l y pl a ced i nto ESH. They turned 22 yea rs ol d duri ng thei r
pl a cement.

32

Young adult ESH placements from September 2016- March 2017.
As of June 28, 2017.
34
The individuals sent to punitive segregation entered ESH when they were 21 years old and turned 22 while in
ESH and prior to being transferred to punitive segregation.
33

14

AN ASSESSMENT OF ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING FOR YOUNG ADULTS

V.

DUE PROCESS

PLACEMENT
The majority of young adults (62%, n=40) were initially placed in the ESH Entry Unit, 32% (n=21) were
initially placed in an ESH Level 1 unit, and 6% (n=4) were initially placed in an ESH Level 2 unit.
Table 7
Prior to February 14, 2017, when the Board
limited the criteria for placing young adults in
ESH units with restraint desks, young adults
could be placed in any ESH unit provided they
met the criteria outlined in the Minimum
Standards on ESH.

Young Adult ESH Placement by Level
September 2016 - March 2017 Placements
ESH Entry Unit
ESH Level 1
ESH level 2

Number
40
21
4
65

Percent
62%
32%
6%
100%

After February 14, 2017, a young adult could
only be placed directly into the ESH Entry Unit if
SOURCE: Boa rd of Correcti on revi ew of hous i ng l oca ti on
they recently committed and/or participated in
refl ected i n the DOC Inma te Informa ti on Sys tem
an actual or attempted slashing or stabbing, or
engaged in activity that caused serious injury to an officer, another person in custody, or any other
person and when the use of the Restraint Desk is the least restrictive option necessary for the safety of
others.35 Furthermore, a young adult could only be placed in ESH Level 1 if the ESH Entry Unit
assessment recommended continued Level 1 placement and the use of a restraint desk continued to be
the least restrictive option necessary for the safety of others.36

Total

The Minimum Standards give medical staff the authority to determine if a person should be excluded
from ESH placement or moved to a more appropriate housing unit.37 After DOC makes a
recommendation for placement, CHS staff are typically notified by email regarding an individual’s
placement in ESH. CHS is typically sent a list of individuals for review. They are not specifically informed
of whether a patient will be placed in an ESH unit where restraint desks are used. Once notified, CHS
conducts a review of the individual’s electronic medical record to see whether they have a serious
mental illness. CHS also checks its records for any known cognitive deficits and any serious or recent
self-injury.
CHS reports that they have not found health issues arising from the use of the restraint desks in ESH to
date.

35

RECORDS OF VARIANCE ACTION, N.Y.C. BD. OF CORR. (Feb. 14, 2017), available at https://goo.gl/AFGt9W and
https://goo.gl/JJe35M.
36
Id.
37
N.Y.C. BOARD OF CORRECTION, CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING § 1-16(c)(2) (Jan. 23, 2016).

15

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION
PLACEMENT DETERMINATION
Of the 65 placements in ESH between September 2016 and March 2017, five were discontinued. One
placement was discontinued prior to an ESH placement hearing because the young adult was
transferred to state prison two days after entering ESH. Three placements were discontinued after a
placement hearing upon a finding that ESH placement criteria were not met—one of the three young
adults spent 8 days in ESH prior to being transferred out, another spent 13 days, and one spent 14 days
in ESH prior to transfer.
One young adult placement was discontinued two days after entering ESH. He received a placement
hearing but was immediately transferred to the West Facility.
One young adult whose placement was continued was initially placed in the ESH Entry Unit and his
placement determination found no restrictions should be imposed while in ESH. This young adult was
moved to an ESH Level 2 unit (without a restraint desk) 21 days after his initial placement in ESH.

Figure 7

Just over two-thirds of young adult placements 67% (n=43)38 received a timely placement hearing
(within three business days of notice of placement).

38

This is calculated from all placements not discontinued prior to a hearing (n=64).

16

AN ASSESSMENT OF ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING FOR YOUNG ADULTS
Board staff listened to a total of 58 audio recordings of hearings. Placement hearings ranged from 52
seconds to 20.5 minutes, depending on the level of participation by the person being adjudicated and
amount of evidence reviewed in the hearing. All individuals are informed of their right to attend their
ESH placement hearing on their ESH placement notice form and 65% (n=43) of young adults did so.
Of the young adults in ESH whose placement records were reviewed, none requested a hearing
facilitator. Three young adults had their placement hearings adjourned—one young adult requested the
opportunity to call witnesses, another hearing was adjourned pending receipt of documents and the
results of an infraction hearing, and one young adult refused to participate in the hearing at the hearing
itself; the adjudication captain terminated the hearing and held a hearing in absentia at a later date.
Individuals who do not speak English are entitled to the assistance of a hearing facilitator who is a
civilian employee of the Department, usually a legal coordinator from the law library or a counselor.39
Board staff listened to a recording of one hearing where a correction officer served as an interpreter for
a young adult who did not speak English.

APPEAL OF PLACEMENT
While the Department’s ESH directive provides an avenue to appeal the placement decision within 21
days, no young adult placed in ESH appealed their placement in ESH with the Department. One young
adult filed an Article 78 appeal, but it was considered moot and dismissed by the Court after the young
adult was transferred to state custody.

REASON FOR ESH PLACEMENT
People can be placed in ESH for meeting one or more of the ESH placement criteria outlined in the
Minimum Standards. Of the 60 young adult placements continued after an ESH placement hearing, 98%
(n=59) for serious or persistent violence, 97% (n=58) were placed for assaults, 67% (n=40) for
participation in a slashing or stabbing, 42% (n=25) for SRG (gang) activity, 27% (n=16) for possession of a
scalpel, and 12% (n=7) for being an influential gang leader.40 None of the ESH placements during this
period were based on events that occurred when people were out of DOC custody.
The Standards allow the Department to consider a single incident or rule violation as meeting multiple
ESH placement criteria. Serious and Persistent Violence (98%, n=59) is the criterion most frequently
cited for a young person’s placement in ESH, followed by Assault (97%, n=58). Assault is also often an
aspect of other criteria, including involvement in a gang-related assault and causing serious injury to
another person. Of the 58 placements for assaultive behavior, nearly all (95%, n=55) cited assaults on

39

N.Y.C. DEP’T OF CORRECTION, DIRECTIVE NO. 4497R-A, ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING (ESH) (eff. July 26, 2016).
All placement statistics are derived from criteria recorded on everyone’s Placement Hearing Determination
Forms (ESH-3 Form). Department staff indicate on the ESH forms which placement criteria are met. There are six
criteria or options provided on the forms, which do not directly parse the wording of ESH standards.
40

17

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION
an inmate and 47% (n=27) cited assaults on staff. Forty-one percent of placements for “Assault” (41%,
n=24) were placements that cited both assaults on inmates and assaults on staff.

Figure 8

Overall, young adults were placed in ESH an average of 61 days and a median of 16 days after the most
recent incident used to justify their ESH placement. Young adults placed in the ESH Entry Unit were
placed an average of 23 days and a median on 6 days after the most recent incident used to justify
placement in ESH. Young adults placed in the ESH Level 1 housing units were placed an average of 129
days and a median of 77 days after the most recent incident used to justify placement in ESH.

18

AN ASSESSMENT OF ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING FOR YOUNG ADULTS
Table 8

Time from Most Recent Incident Cited in ESH Placement
Determination Form to Entry into ESH
Young Adult Placements September 2016- March 2017
Level Entered
ESH
ESH1
ESH2
Overall*

Number of
Placements
40
20
4
64

Average Median Days
Days Prior
Prior
23
6
129
77
106
113
61
16

Min
Days Prior
1
1
35
1

Max
Days Prior
209
843
165
843

SOURCE: Depa rtment of Correction da ta compi l ed by Boa rd of Correction.
* One i ndi vi dua l exi ted ESH pri or to a pl a cment hea ri ng determi na tion.

RESTRICTIONS
At the time someone is recommended for placement in ESH, the Department may recommend that
certain restrictions be imposed, including noncontact restrictions, mail monitoring, and package
restrictions.41 The ESH notice form provided to individuals placed in ESH lists all restrictions that may be
imposed but does not specify whether DOC has in fact recommended any specific restrictions for the
individual receiving the notice.42 This was an area for improvement identified in the Board’s recently
released Assessment of ESH for Adults.

Of the 60 young adult placements continued after a placement hearing, 39% (n=24) had specific
restrictions identified on their placement determination (ESH # 3) forms provided to young adults after
their placement hearings. There were five placements with non-contact visits added.43 Only 25 young
adult placements were informed of and provided written justification for the restraint desk restriction.
Most young adults whose placement continued in an ESH unit with restraint desks (29 out of 54
placements) failed to receive proper due process for the restraint desk restriction as required under ESH
Standards.44

41

See N.Y.C. DEP’T OF CORRECTION, DIRECTIVE NO. 4497R-A, ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING (ESH), Recommendation for
Initial Placement of Inmate in Enhanced Supervision Housing (ESH-1 Form) (eff. July 26, 2016).
42
Improving how people placed in ESH are notified of restrictions upon placement was a recommendation
presented in the Board’s adult assessment of ESH report released in April 2017.
43
Inmates may have multiple restrictions.
44
N.Y.C. BOARD OF CORRECTION, CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING § 1-16(g)(3)(6) (Jan. 23, 2016).

19

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION
Significantly more young adults were subject to visit restrictions while in ESH than the six that were
processed for visit restrictions at the time of placement. An analysis of a snapshot of the 37 young
adults45 in ESH on March 31, 2017 found that two-thirds (70%, n=26) had a non-contact visit restriction
and nearly all (96%, n=25) of those restrictions were restrictions for the duration of an individual’s
incarceration, subject to six-month reviews of that status.
In general, there was a lack of discussion of specific restrictions during placement hearings and lack of
understanding on the part of young adults placed in ESH as to when restrictions were imposed and why
they were necessary. The Department lacks a centralized tracking system that would allow for a
complete analysis of all the restrictions imposed on people in custody. This makes identifying exactly
when and why restrictions were imposed and whether due process was provided difficult to assess.

45

Young adults at the time of ESH placement. Two young adult placed between September 2016 and March 31,
2017 turned 22 years old by March 31, 2017 and are included in this analysis.

20

AN ASSESSMENT OF ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING FOR YOUNG ADULTS

VI.

YOUNG ADULT ESH REVIEW PROCESS

Table 9

Young Adult (YA) ESH Placement Review Process by Level

Review
Process

ESH Entry Unit

Levels 1-4

30-day review to determine most appropriate housing
placement (i.e. ESH Level, Secure or another housing Unit); and

Review of Placement Required Every 45-day
to determine phase advancement, phase
regression, and the reduction or
enhancement of privileges

45-day reviews to determine phase advancement, phase
regression, and the reduction or enhancement of privileges

Staff
Involved

ESH Entry Status Review:
--ESH Deputy Warden (and/or
Assistant Deputy Warden of ESH)
--Associate Correction Counselor/Education Specialist
--ESH Housing Area Officers
--Deputy Commissioner of Youth Offender Programming
--Chief of the Department

45-Day Review:
--ESH Deputy Warden
--ESH Captain
--ESH Housing Officers
--Servicing clinicians from the day and
evening tours

The 30-Day Review involves consideration of feedback from program staff, the Operations Security Intelligence
Unit (OSIU), and the Central Intelligence Bureau (CIB). A review of the unit's behavioral logbook is also
considered in assessing the young adult's behavior during the assessment period. The Deputy Commissioner
of Youth Offender Programming makes a recommendation regarding placement and the Chief of the
Department approves or disapproves of the recommendation.
Basis of
Review

Factors considered in the 45-Day Review process include:
-- justification for continued ESH placement;
--each individual ESH restriction and whether any such individual restrictions should be relaxed or lifted;
--the effect of ESH placement or of individual ESH restrictions on the inmate's mental and physical health;
--any written statement submitted by the inmate for consideration;
--any other factors that may favor retaining the inmate in or releasing the inmate from ESH
--any other factors that may favor the lifting of individual ESH restrictionsor ESH release;
--any actions or behavioral changes that the inmate might undertake to further rehabilitative goals and
facilitate the lifting of individual ESH restrictions or ESH release.

SOURCE: Entry Unit Status Review process reported by DOC. (There is no written policy in effect outlining the Entry Unit
Status review process.) The ESH 45-Day Review process for young adults is operating per: N.Y.C. DEP’T OF CORRECTION,
DIRECTIVE NO. 4497R-A, ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING (ESH) (eff. July 26, 2016).

28-DAY & 30-DAY REVIEWS
Young adults placed in the ESH Entry Unit receive a 28 or 30-day review to determine their appropriate
housing placement. The Department started conducting reviews in November 201646 after the opening
of the young adult ESH unit; 30-day reviews replaced 28-day reviews when the Young Adult ESH Unit
became the ESH Entry Unit in March of 2017.

46

Young adults placed in the young adult ESH unit on October 17, 2016 were the first to receive 28-Day reviews.

21

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION
Reviews consider a summary of the following assessment information:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)

(iv)

Psychosocial assessment (Intake assessment), intended to provide DOC with background
information on each young person in the Entry Unit to promote engagement.
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Screening Tool, to determine substance use
history over the past year and make referrals to treatment services when indicated. 47
Environmental assessment, a security assessment derived from intelligence gathered by the
Department’s Operations Security Intelligence Unit (OSIU) and the Central Intelligence
Bureau (CIB).
Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) test, an assessment conducted by DOE that is “used to
measure basic academic skills commonly found in adult education curricula taught in high
school and adult instructional programs.”48

On June 9, 2017, the Department introduced the Juvenile Relational Inquiry Tool49 to the assessment
process to assist with mapping family supports for young adults in the ESH Entry Unit.
The availability of assessment information depends on the young adult’s willingness to participate in the
assessment process. The Department reports that the assessment not only supports the individual’s
subsequent housing assignment but also allows the Department to identify the young adult’s specific
triggers, motivators, goals, and who may be contacted to assist in supporting young adults during the
30-day period prior to review.
The Department reports that the Deputy Commissioner for Youth Offender Programming conducts
reviews and makes housing assignment recommendations based on feedback from the Deputy Warden
and the Assistant Deputy Warden for ESH, an Education Specialist, a Program Coordinator, and
correction officers who are regularly assigned to the ESH housing area. Starting with March placements,
the Chief of the Department approves or disapproves of the recommendation.
The majority of the 28/30 day reviews audited by Board staff (17 of 24 reviews examined)
recommended that young people remain in a unit with a restraint desk: seven were recommended to
stay in the Entry Unit and 11 were recommended for ESH Level 1. Four (4) young adults were
recommended for ESH Level 2, one (1) individual was recommended for the Secure Unit, and one (1)
young adult had a recommendation that did not mention any specific level.

47

This tool was designed by National Institute on Drug Abuse to provide medical clinicians a tool for screening for
drug use in adults. The Board does not have information on whether the young adults were screened by medical
clinicians as the names of individuals conducting the assessments were redacted. See NIDA, SCREENING FOR DRUG USE
IN GENERAL MEDICAL SETTINGS RESOURCE GUIDE, (Jul. 12, 2010), available at https://goo.gl/8BXUXt.
48
TEST OF ADULT BASIC EDUCATION OVERVIEW, available at http://tabetest.com/educators/why-tabe/.
49
Vera’s Juvenile Relational Inquiry Tool helps staff build on incarcerated youth’s strengths and social connections
and build rapport between staff and youth while collecting information that can enhance reentry planning. For
more information, see Ryan Shanahan, “Integrating Family-Focused Approaches In Juvenile Justice Reform,” The
Link: Connecting Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare (Child Welfare League of America) 8, no. 1 (2010): 1-6.

22

AN ASSESSMENT OF ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING FOR YOUNG ADULTS
The Board found that housing recommendations and final approvals from the 28-day and 30-day
reviews were not always followed. Four (4) young adults who were recommended to progress out of
the ESH Entry Unit were not moved out. Young adults who did progress took an average of 9 days to be
moved out of the ESH Entry Unit after their review.50
Nine (9) reviews were missing the date of assessment and the person who conducted the assessment
was redacted or missing.51 Most reviews were completed by either the Deputy Commissioner of
Youthful Offender Programming or the Assistant Commissioner for Education and Youth Advocacy
Services.
Table 10

ESH Entry Unit Reviews
Eligible for 28-Day / 30-Day** Reviews
Placements
Received 28 / 30-day reviews
24
Did not receive a review
16
Moved out of ESH prior to due date
7
Not able to get copies of 28-day reviews
5
Discharged to State Prison prior to review date*
4
Total
40
SOURCE: Informa tion i s deri ved from Depa rtment of Correction's
28-da y / 30-da y revi ew forms .
NOTE: * One i ndi vi dua l wa s tra ns ferred to Sta te Pri s on the da y a fter hi s
revi ew wa s due. **Indi vi dua l s wi th revi ew da ys i n Apri l recei ved 30-da y
revi ews .

45-DAY REVIEWS
The Minimum Standards require the Department to review individuals’ placement in ESH every 45 days
to determine whether they continue to present a “significant threat to the safety and security of the
facility” so as to warrant continued placement in ESH.52 According to the Department’s ESH Directive,
45-Day Reviews are conducted by ESH staff including the ESH Deputy Warden for ESH, an ESH captain,
ESH housing officers, and clinical staff servicing ESH.53 The Deputy Warden for ESH signs all review
determinations. Determination forms include a justification for the decision and information on
individuals’ program participation as well as unit observations including overall inmate behavior

50

While others remained in the Entry Unit placement for a minimum of 3 days to a maximum of 34 days, after
their placement review indicated they should be moved out.
51
The Board has reminded the Department that documents provided to the Board, under its City Charter
authority, should not be redacted. See N.Y.C. CHARTER, CHAPTER 25: DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, sec. 626, (c)(1)(g).
52
N.Y.C. BOARD OF CORRECTION, CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING § 1-16(h)(1) (Jan. 23, 2016).
53
N.Y.C. DEP’T OF CORRECTION, DIRECTIVE NO. 4497R-A, ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING (ESH) (eff. July 26, 2016).

23

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION
(towards staff, inmates, DOC rules, cleanliness), and behavioral log book entries and infractions, if any,
during the review period.
Most young people (62%, n=38) placed in ESH were eligible for at least one periodic review. A total of
seventy-one 45-Day Reviews were conducted, 90% (n=64) of which were timely.
Six (6) individuals progressed to a less restrictive level as a result of a 45-day review and one (1) young
adult was moved to a less restrictive housing unit without a review recommendation. Six (6) individuals
progressed from ESH Level 1 housing unit to an ESH Level 2 unit. One person progressed from Level 2 to
a Level 3 ESH housing unit after being in ESH for 235 days. The average time between a 45-day review
recommending movement and an individual’s actual movement to a less restrictive level was 16 days.
While six young adults were transferred to general population units from ESH, none were moved there
because of a 45-day review. In fact, most were not in ESH long enough to even qualify for a 45-day
review.

VII.

LENGTH OF STAY BY LEVEL

As of June 28, 2017, young adults who had been placed in ESH between September 2016 and March
2017 had spent a median of 41 days in the ESH Entry Unit, 60 days in ESH Level 1, 79 days in ESH Level 2,
and 19 days in ESH Level 3. Not all young people entered every ESH level and the range in length of stay
by ESH Level varied dramatically. Table 11 presents the overall average, median, minimum, and
maximum length of stay by ESH level. Figure 9 presents the same information by ESH release status.
Table 11

Young Adult ESH
Time in Level (Days)*
Entry Unit Level 1 Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

(N=44)

(N=40)

(N=24)

(N=3)

(N=0)

Average
Median
Minimum

45
41
2

69
52
1

89
79
8

24
19
3

0
0
0

Maximum

123

226

269

50

0

SOURCE: Da ta from the Depa rtment of Correction's Inma te Informa tion
Sys tem compi l ed by Boa rd of Correction.
NOTES: *Al l young a dul t ESH pl a cements from September 2016-Ma rch
2017. Ti me by l evel i s ca l cul a ted a s of June 16, 2017.

24

AN ASSESSMENT OF ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING FOR YOUNG ADULTS

Figure 9

VIII.

CONDITIONS IN YOUNG ADULT ESH

TIME OUT-OF-CELL (LOCK-OUT/LOCK-IN)
In conversations with Board staff, several correction officers in ESH acknowledged that daily lock-out
sometimes begins 15 to 45 minutes late, especially in the morning. Correction officers explained that
there is not enough staff in the unit during the overnight or midnight tour to lock out people in ESH at 5
am, when lock-outs are scheduled to begin. Lock-outs in the ESH Entry or Level 1 units further require
the presence of ESU staff with a canine or Taser. Additionally, only one individual can be escorted to
lockout at a time in those units. Correction officers have further explained to Board staff that in the
mornings the new tour of correction officers sometimes does not arrive at the unit until after their
scheduled 5 am start time because they are held at roll call or are late to the post for other reasons such
as the bus schedules. While most young adults in ESH do not chose to lock out at the early hour it is
offered, even if they chose to, they would not be able to do so due to staff shortages.
Board staff have, on numerous occasions, observed lock out begin later than scheduled at the ESH Entry
Unit because not enough staff were present to provide lock-out options. For example, on April 12th,
afternoon lock-out did not commence until 1:42 pm because the staff required to provide lock-out
options were not present in the unit before then. Despite it not being possible to lock individuals out at
1 pm (due to insufficient staffing), Board staff observed correction officers round the unit – one with a
handheld video camera – and ask each young adult whether he wanted to lock out. A correction officer
explained that they are required to ask even when there is not enough staff to lock anyone out.

25

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION

Given the security procedures and staffing requirements regarding inmate movement and frequent
lockdowns in ESH units with restraint desks (ESH Entry & Level 1), it is very unlikely that young adults are
provided or receive a full 7 hours of daily lock-out time.

LOCKDOWNS
Facility and ESH area lockdowns limit young adults out-of-cell time. During a lockdown, all incarcerated
people must be in their cell and all movement, services, and programming cease. The number of
reported ESH housing area lockdowns54 from September 2016 through March 2017 ranged from two to
36 and averaged 15 per month and five hours each. In addition, over the same period, the number of
facility-wide lockdowns at OBCC ranged from zero (0) to 11 with an average of about four per-month,
averaging three hours each.
To put this in context, individuals in ESH are entitled to an average total of 213 hours of out-of-cell time
per-month (7 hours per day)55 but could only be offered a total average of 130 hours per month due to
facility-wide and ESH area lockdowns.56 This means that people in ESH only had the opportunity to lock
out an average of 4.3 hours per day from September 2016 through March 2017. That is 39% fewer
potential hours (~2.7 fewer hours per day) of out-of-cell-time than that to which they are entitled under
ESH Minimum Standards. It is important to note that many of the lockdowns reported occurred
consecutively. Comparing the average total lockdowns in ESH between September and December 2016
and January through March 2017, there was a 127% increase in the average number of lockdowns (area
and facility-wide) affecting ESH units, coinciding with an increase in the number and portion of young
adults in ESH (See Figure 3).
The most common reason for lockdowns affecting ESH were slashings (35%, n=46), followed by inmate
tension (25%, n=33), uses of force (20%, n=26), and assaults on staff (10%, n=13) (See Table 13).

54

Lockdown information is derived from the Department’s IRS 24 Hour Report data matched to the Department’s
5 am Daily Census Report to determine which units referenced were ESH units at the time of the lockdown.
55
Individuals in ESH levels 2-4 are also subject to lockdowns but are afforded more than the 7 hours of minimum
out-of-cell time.
56
Calculated using total actual time on lockdown as reported in the Department’s IRS 24 Hour Report from
September 2016-March 2017 divided by total lockout time entitled under ESH Standards over the same period.

26

AN ASSESSMENT OF ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING FOR YOUNG ADULTS
Table 12

Table 13

Lockdowns Affecting ESH

Reasons Reported for Lockdowns

September 2016 - March 2017
Average per Month
Average Length
per month (hours)

2016

2017

September
October
November
December
January
February
March
Total

Area
15

Facility
4

Total
19

5
Area
2
2
14
20
10
36
23
107

3
Facility
1
11
4
2
0
1
6
25

8
Total
3
13
18
22
10
37
29
132

September 2016 -March 2017
ESH Area Facility
Slashing
24
22
Tension
33
0
Use of Force (UOF)
26
0
Assault on Staff
13
0
Fight
6
1
Tension / UOF
3
0
Fight / UOF
2
0
Bomb Threat
0
1
SRG
0
1
Total
107
25

SOURCE: Lockdown i nforma tion i s deri ved from the
Depa rtment’s IRS 24-Hour report da ta ma tched to the
Depa rtment’s 5 a m Da i l y Cens us report to determi ne whi ch
uni ts referenced were ESH uni ts a t the time of the
l ockdown.

SOURCE: Lockdown i nforma tion i s deri ved from the
Depa rtment’s IRS 24-Hour report da ta ma tched to the
Depa rtment’s 5 a m Da i l y Cens us report to determi ne whi ch
uni ts referenced were ESH uni ts a t the time of the
l ockdown.

Table 14

Restraint Desks
The Department has required that young adults housed in the Entry Unit and in ESH Level 1 units remain shackled
at restraint desks during all out-of-cell activities.
Restraint desks or similar apparatus are used in restrictive housing units in some state prisons throughout the
country, including New York, to enable prisoners to engage in congregate programs and activities, such as group
therapy, education and recreational programming. This apparatus is primarily used in multi-level step-down
programs designed to transition inmates out of punitive segregation or similarly restrictive non-disciplinary
segregation and back into general population or the community. These jurisdictions primarily use restraint desks
for no more than 2 hours at a time to offer programming to prisoners housed in restrictive housing settings who
would otherwise spend 23 to 24 hours locked inside their cell.
SOURCES: As s ’n of State Corr. Adm’rs & Ya l e L. Sch., Ai mi ng to Reduce Ti me-In-Cel l : Reports from Corr. Sys . on the Numbers of
Pri s oners i n Res tri cted Hous i ng a nd on the Potentia l of Pol i cy Cha nges to Bri ng About Reforms 59, 63, a nd 70 (Nov. 2016), available
at goo.gl/QFjXhD a nd Ha rol d W. Cl a rke, Virginia Department of Corrections’ Administrative Step-Down Plan , Corrections Toda y 22-5
(Jul y/Aug. 2016), available at goo.gl/S37BFG .

27

Total
46
33
26
13
7
3
2
1
1
132

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION
YOUNG ADULT PERSPECTIVES
Young adults in ESH have told Board staff that they are concerned about being restrained to desks and
not being able to defend themselves against acts of violence. Some individuals housed in ESH have been
able to free themselves and assault and or slash other people who remain restrained to desks. For
example, the most recent slashing in an ESH Level 1 blended unit involved two adults and two young
adults who freed themselves from their restraint desks to slash another young adult who remained
restrained. Board staff have observed that some young adults in the ESH Level 1 units refuse to lock out
if they are not going to be placed in the far-most restraint desks, located in the back of the dayrooms,
where they feel they can safely participate in unit activities.

Some young people have told Board staff that they fear being placed in blended ESH units with
adults. Young adults housed in blended ESH units, where restraint desks are not used, have also
expressed concerns to Board staff about being restrained during school. During a December 2016 visit
to an ESH Level 2 unit, young adults explained that being restrained during school did not make sense
because they are housed in an ESH unit without restraint desks at all other times.

HEALTH & MENTAL HEALTH CARE ACCESS IN YA ESH
The Minimum Standards require medical staff to see all people housed in ESH at least once a day so they
can make referrals to medical and mental health services where appropriate.57 Department policies
further require that all individuals in ESH be locked into their cells at noon so that DOC staff may attend
daily ESH meetings and to enable medical rounds,58 during which an ESH correction officer can escort
clinical staff as they walk through the unit to solicit medical complaints.59

Currently young adults in the ESH blended units (Level 1, 2, and 3) are locked in from noon to 2:00 pm so
that medical staff can make daily rounds and referrals to mental health clinicians.60 Prior to February 1,
2017, mental health staff were also rounding daily in ESH Units but have since stopped doing so.
Patients in ESH and CHS providers have shared concerns that rounding does not allow for confidential
encounters.
Fifty-nine percent (59%, n=27) of all scheduled health encounters61 and 56% (n=74) of all scheduled
mental health encounters62 for ESH patients were completed. CHS rescheduled or services were no
57

See N.Y.C. BOARD OF CORRECTION, CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING § 1-16 (h)(1) (Jan. 23, 2016).
See N.Y.C. DEP’T OF CORRECTION, OTIS BANTUM CORRECTIONAL CENTER, INST’L ORDER NO. 106/16, ENHANCED SUPERVISION
HOUSING (ESH), sec IV(J), at 19 (eff. Nov. 16, 2016).
59
See N.Y.C. DEP’T OF CORRECTION, OTIS BANTUM CORRECTIONAL CENTER, E.S.H. OPERATING MANUAL, para. XXII(A), at 20
(undated).
60
The ESH Entry unit is not locked in from noon – 2:00pm because of the school session taking place 12:30pm to
3:30pm. CHS staff typically make rounds in the mornings.
61
These numbers include all scheduled and add-on medical encounters.
62
These numbers include all mental health service types.
58

28

AN ASSESSMENT OF ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING FOR YOUNG ADULTS
longer indicated for one (1) scheduled health encounter and four (4) scheduled mental health
encounters for young adults in ESH.

Nine percent (9%, n=4) of scheduled health encounters and 13% (n=17) were not completed because
appointments conflicted with an individual’s scheduled court appearance.
The Department did not produce 30% (n=14) of scheduled health encounters, and 23% (n=31) of
scheduled mental health encounters. Reasons for non-production are not known or captured by CHS
staff in their electronic data system. DOC has started to track reasons why patients are not brought to
scheduled encounters to better understand why services are not completed.
Table 15

Outcome of Scheduled Health and Mental Health Encounters
for Young Adult ESH Placements
Status
Seen
Not Produced by DOC
Rescheduled or Services No Longer Indicated
Refused & Verified*
Out to Court
Left without Seen
Total

Health
Mental Health
Number
Percent Number Percent
27
59%
74
56%
14
30%
31
23%
1
2%
4
3%
0
0%
7
5%
4
9%
17
13%
0
0%
0
0%
46
100%
133
100%

SOURCE: Correctiona l Hea l th Servi ces da ta a s of Ma y 24, 2017 ma tched to youth pl a ced i n ESH from September 2016
through Ma rch 2017. Da ta refl ects util i za tion up to the query da te of Ma y 24, 2017 for pa tients currently hous ed i n
ESHU.
NOTES: Metri cs pres ent i nforma tion a va i l a bl e i n da ta s ources a t the tune of query a nd a re s ubject to cha nge ba s ed
on workfl ow. The da ta pres ented refl ects query-s peci fi c l ogi c, pa ra meters , a nd s ources a s outli ned i n the da ta
di ctiona ry a nd / or l egend a nd s houl d not be compa red to s i mi l a rl y noted reports wi thout a ppropri a te cros s wa l ks
to i dentify va ri a tions i n a pproa ch.
"Refus ed a nd Veri fi ed" mea ns tha t the Depa rtment produced the i nma te to cl i ni ca l s taff, cl i ni ca l s taff expl a i ned to
the i nma te the ri s ks of refus i ng cl i ni ca l s ervi ces , a nd the i nma te proceeded to s i gn the refus a l form or, i n
s i tua tions where he refus ed to s i gn the i nformed refus a l form, a wi tnes s wa s pres ent a nd documented s a i d
refus a l .

Young adult patients in ESH receive individual psychotherapy and psychopharmacology treatment
services; however, information on the number of young adults receiving these services were not made
available to the Board due to the small number of patients receiving services and confidentiality
concerns.

EDUCATION
In October 2016, the Department of Education (DOE) began providing a school session for young adults
housed in ESH. Two school study programs were made available to young people: one for students who
are pursuing a high school diploma provided through the East River Academy (“ERA”) and one for
students who wished to pursue a high school equivalency program (i.e., TASC). While students in both
programs may occupy the same physical space for school, their attendance and progress in school is

29

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION
measured differently as each program has its own set of requirements and coursework. School for
young adults in ESH is held in the open floor (“day room”) area of the ESH Entry Unit. The school follows
the same academic calendar year as schools in the community and the ERA. Students sit restrained at
the ankles to restraint desks for the duration of the school period.
Young adults housed in the blended ESH units must be escorted to the ESH Entry Unit every day for
school. During visits in December 2016, corrections officers informed Board staff that when the school
area reached capacity, young adults who wish to go to school could not. Young adults housed in
blended units also reported that students in the blended units would sometimes get sent back if there
were no more available restraint desks in school.
On February 13, 2017, DOE began offering two school sessions in the ESH Entry Unit to accommodate
the number of young adults wishing to attend school. There are now two sessions of school for young
adults in ESH:
(i)
(ii)

8:35 – 11:35 am for young adults in the ESH blended units, and
12:30 – 3:30 pm for young adults in the ESH Entry Unit.

Those who are not enrolled or participating in school remain in their respective blended housing units
or, if they are housed in the ESH Entry Unit, remain locked in their cells between 8:35 am and 3:30 pm,
while the two school sessions are in progress.

During Board staff observations, DOE educators independently reported that afternoon sessions
scheduled to start at 12:30 pm routinely start at least an hour later. Part of the delay is not allowing
enough time for students to be transported from their cells one at a time.63 Educators also noted that
ESU staff who are required to be present in the ESH Entry Unit during all out-of-cell movement and

63

N.Y.C. DEP’T OF CORRECTION, SECURITY MEMORANDUM NO. 013/12, ESHU PHASE I PROCEDURES REVISED, para. III (Feb. 10,
2017).

30

AN ASSESSMENT OF ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING FOR YOUNG ADULTS
during school,64 typically arrive to the Entry Unit by 1 pm or later. On May 10, 2017, staff observed the
ESU Captain arrive at 1:21 pm and the first student secured and seated at the restraint desk for the
afternoon session at 1:34 pm (1 hour and 5 minutes after the start of afternoon school session).
The DOE staff noted that young people experience significant distractions during the school time and
expressed their concerns regarding the presence of a canine during school time. DOE staff report the
barking of the canine is distracting. Board staff observed that even when the K-9 officer and his dog are
positioned at the front of the unit, away from the school area, the barking is loud and echoes
throughout the unit. DOE staff also noted that the young adults who are housed in the Entry Unit
distract the blended unit students who attend the morning school session. Board staff observed young
people restrained to desks yelling across the unit to communicate with the Entry Unit young adults who
are locked in their cells.
Thirty-one (47%, n=31) of the young adults placed in ESH between September 2016 and April 2017 were
enrolled in school while housed in ESH, only 9 of whom were enrolled in school prior to being placed in
ESH. A total of 22 young adults enrolled in school after entering ESH. DOE reports that one young adult
had previously earned a high school equivalency diploma prior to entering ESH and that no students
have obtained a high school diploma or high school equivalency while in ESH. More than half of the
students in ESH (51%, n=16) were students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs),65 and sixteen
percent (16%, n=5) were English language learners.

Figure 10

64

See N.Y.C. DEP’T OF CORRECTION, OTIS BANTUM CORRECTIONAL CENTER, SECURITY MEMORANDUM NO. 016/17, ESU/K9
ASSIGNED TO ESHU PHASE I UNITS, para. II (Mar. 6, 2017).
65
The Individualized Education Program, also called the IEP, is a document that is developed for each public-school
child who needs special education. The IEP is created through a team effort, reviewed periodically.

31

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION
School Attendance
DOE tracks daily attendance in both ESH school sessions in a combined roster making comparison of the
ESH Entry Unit and the ESH blended class sessions’ attendance and educational outcomes difficult. This
summer, in time for the next school year, Board staff will work closely with DOE to design regular
monthly reports for each class session to facilitate regular monitoring of attendance and outcomes of
young adult ESH students in the different units.
Board staff will also work with DOC to address known scheduling conflicts. Currently, if interested in
attending school, young adults in the ESH Level 1 and 2 units must forego religious services which are
scheduled during school time. Furthermore, all young people in the blended units have scheduled lockin time 30 minutes after school is over. The ESH Entry Unit requires multiple staff to be present for
individual escorting and this lengthy process means that young adults often make it back to their units
just in time to lock into their cells. This is a disincentive for young people in blended units who may wish
to attend school. Young people in ESH have complained to DOE and to Board staff that the Department
does not provide them with the additional three hours of free lock-out time that they miss while in
school.66
Figure 11 presents the average per month percent of school sessions attended67 by enrolled young
adults in ESH. These numbers reflect all enrolled young adults in ESH combined (ESH blended & ESH
Entry Unit students) during ESH placement. Due to the relatively small number of young adults enrolled
in school, any change in one young adult’s attendance will cause the average attendance percentages to
fluctuate significantly. Not all young adults were offered the same number of sessions during any given
month due to differences in individuals’ ESH entry and exit dates.68

66

See N.Y.C. DEP’T OF CORRECTION, YOUNG ADULTS IN ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING (ESH), at 7 (Feb. 14, 2017) available
at: goo.gl/y5jKoQ.
67
Calculation based on the total sessions offered to each individual.
68
Board staff were unable to derive average number of students per session from the de-identified data provided
by DOE.

32

AN ASSESSMENT OF ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING FOR YOUNG ADULTS

Figure 11

DOE reports that attendance for students in ESH is not significantly different from attendance
percentages reported for 18 through 21 year olds in other school areas, such as the student attendance
in the Secure Unit or the GMDC facility overall. This is in contrast to 16 and 17 year olds for whom
attendance is compulsory. The attendance percentage for youth ages 16 to 17 is 77% year-to-date.
Nine (9) students in ESH made meaningful gains69 in math and 11 students made meaningful gains in
reading while in ESH.70

69

“Made meaningful gains” in math or English skills refers to the number and percentage of youth who have been
incarcerated for at least 60 days and who made meaningful gains, as determined by DOE based on TABE Math and
Reading tests.
70
Students need to have taken the TABE test twice for DOE to calculate a gain, and students must be enrolled a
minimum of 30 days to re-take the test. Students sometimes refuse to be retested.

33

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION
Table 16
Educational Gains for Students in ESH and Secure
October 2016 - March 2017

ESH
Secure

Students w/
2 Math TABE Scores

Students w/
Meaningful
Gains in Math

Percentage Making
Meaningful
Gains in Math

Students w/ 2
Reading TABE
Scores

Students w/ Meaningful
Gains in Reading

Percentage Making
Meaningful
Gains in Reading

16
9

9
7

56%
78%

18
8

11
5

61%
63%

SOURCE: Depa rtment of Educa ti on.
NOTES: Students need to ha ve ta ken the TABE tes t twi ce for DOE to ca l cul a te a ga i n, a nd s tudents mus t be enrol l ed a mi ni mum of 30 da ys to re-ta ke the tes t.
Students s ometi mes refus e to be retes ted.

Restraint Desks in School
The Department has at various times justified the use of restraint desks as the only way to safely provide
schooling for young adults in ESH. DOE leadership of Riker’s education programs informed Board staff
that DOE has not requested restraint desks as a prerequisite to provide school in the ESH housing area.
DOE has noted that the use of restraint desks leads educators to perceive young people as more
dangerous than their counterparts in other restrictive units such as the TRU, where young adults are not
restrained at desks during school.
To address security concerns regarding the proximity of restraint desks to one another, on April 28,
2017, DOC moved young adults to a new ESH unit with 12 restraint desks spaced further apart from
each other on the floor of the unit.71 However, only 11 desks in this new configuration can be used by
students. According to DOC staff, when young people are restrained to the desks, one of the desks
needs to be occupied by a staff person observing.

RECREATION
Recreation for young adults housed in the ESH Entry Unit and Level 1 is provided in the former Central
Punitive Segregation Unit (CPSU) recreation yard “cages” at OBCC. The recreation yard for young adults
in less restrictive ESH units has basketball hoops, pull-up bars, and other limited recreation equipment
fixed to the paved ground.
The recreation yard for the ESH Entry Unit and Level 1 has 20 individual pens. The ESH unit recreation
cages do not have any exercise equipment, i.e., dip bars, pull up bars, basketball hoops, etc.72 A few of
the pens had makeshift rings, fashioned from what appeared to be bed sheets or pillow cases. ESH

71

The Board was not made aware of the closure of the young adult ESH unit and the transfer of the young people
housed there to the new housing area. The Board found out about these changes only after visiting the Entry Unit
on April 28, 2017 during an observation of Board members.
72
See BOC report on Barriers to Recreation at Rikers Island Central Punitive Segregation Unit, at 16 (July 2014).

34

AN ASSESSMENT OF ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING FOR YOUNG ADULTS
recreation staff informed Board staff that DOC is removing the old steel recreation cages – the same
ones that were used when OBCC housed the CPSU – and replacing them with new cages.
Table 17

Access to Recreation for Young Adults in ESH
September 2016 - March 2017

September
October
November
December
January
February
March

Average Average Daily
Daily
Participation in
Population
Recreation
2
1.3
7
1.6
17
3.9
24
6.4
27
4.7
35
7.0
36
4.5

Average
Recreation
Participation
55%
23%
22%
27%
17%
20%
12%

SOURCE: Da ta from the Depa rtment of Correction ESH Servi ces
Tra cki ng da ta ba s e compi l ed by Boa rd of Correction.

Data from the ESH Services Tracking database suggests that young adult participation in recreation ESH
is very low. On average, only 20% of young adults participated in recreation.73
ESH officers often fill in for recreation escort officers which prevents young adults from accessing
recreation equipment. On Friday May 12, 2017 Board staff observed ESH escort officers escorting
individuals in the lower tier of the ESH Level 2 unit, who receive congregate recreation, to the recreation
area. Two ESH escort officers stayed outside with the young adults. When YAs complained about not
being provided a basketball to play with at recreation, the officers explained that they are not given the
key to the recreation equipment because only recreation staff can have them. Two ESH escort officers
also noted that they “find [themselves] filling in for recreation officers maybe four out of five days per
week.”
According to recreation staff, recreation is perennially understaffed, causing the recreation staff to have
difficulty providing timely-daily recreation to each house. This is an issue DOC has grappled with in the
past, with recreation officers being reassigned to housing areas when those assigned there call in sick or

73

Board staff independently obtained a security memorandum in which the Department communicated to its staff
that they are aware “that the Mandated Services Logbook is not being completed in its entirety” which calls into
question the quality of the data entered, extracted and reported from the Department’s ESH Services Tracking
database. See N.Y.C. DEP’T OF CORRECTION, OTIS BANTUM CORRECTION CENTER, SECURITY MEMORANDUM,
ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING (ESH), (eff. Jan. 27, 2017).

35

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION
are unable to go into work.74 On May 10th only half of the assigned officers stayed on the recreation
post; the rest were reassigned. The recreation officers who eventually afforded recreation in the ESH
Entry Unit were all on overtime. Recreation staff noted that ideally, they would have at least 50% more
staff than currently assigned.

Mandated Services Logbook Review: Recreation
Board staff audited 12 days of recreation for young adults housed in the Entry Unit, from April 3, 2017
through April 14, 2017, based on the Mandated Services Logbook entries made by DOC staff. Recreation
was not afforded for four consecutive days due to lockdowns. According to the logbook records, young
adults in the Entry Unit went to recreation on 6 out of 12 of the days reviewed between 6:40 and 8:30
am. Only one (1) young adult consistently went out to recreation.75 The number attending recreation
ranged between 1 and 5 young adults.
Board staff were unable to review the recreation officers’ legal post assignments to ensure the required
number of recreation officers were present to provide recreation because those records were not
provided to the Board in time for inclusion in this report.

ACCESS TO LEGAL SERVICES – LAW LIBRARY
How incarcerated people in ESH access law library services76 depends on the ESH housing unit to which
they are assigned. There are three ESH units where people in custody conduct legal research on
electronic kiosks located in law library spaces within the unit. If young adults who are housed in the
units with law library kiosks are interested in using a kiosk, they must first inform a legal coordinator and
be cleared by officers to be allowed into the law library space. The other three ESH housing units do not
have in-unit law library space, kiosks, and legal coordinators do not conduct rounds in them. Instead,
correction officers assigned to law library make rounds to collect legal research and document requests
and then bring the requested items back to the unit. These different methods of provision warrant
further investigation.

74

Supra note 72, at 14, noting that “one of the main barriers to recreation is the understaffing of correction
officers to recreation posts.”
75
He went to recreation on each of the six days YAs went to recreation.
76
The Minimum Standards require that incarcerated people have access to law library at least five days per week
including at least one weekend day. On days when the law library is open, individuals must be allowed law library
access for at least two hours. The Department may reduce or eliminate law library hours in ESH as long as it
provides them another way to access legal materials to permit effective legal research. See N.Y.C. BOARD OF
CORRECTION, CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, ACCESS TO COURTS AND LEGAL SERVICES § 1-08(f) (Jan. 23, 2016).

36

AN ASSESSMENT OF ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING FOR YOUNG ADULTS
Table 18

Access to Law Library in ESH
Hours of Operation: Tuesday - Saturday 8 am to 8 pm
ESH Units

Current Level

1st

Level 2

2nd

Level 1
(Restraint Desk in Use)

Legal Coordinator comes to unit. One kiosk in law
library space in unit.

3rd

Level 2

Legal Coordinator comes to unit. One kiosk in law
library space in unit.

4th

Young Adult Entry Unit
(Restraint Desk in Use)

No law library kiosk or law library space in unit. Law
library officer rounds in the unit and collects inmate
requests for law library materials and research.

5th

Level 1
(Restraint Desk in Use)

No law library kiosk or law library space in unit. Law
library officer rounds in the unit and collects inmate
requests for law library materials and research.

Level 2

No law library kiosk or law library space in unit. Law
library officer rounds in the unit and collects inmate
requests for law library materials and research.

6th

Type of Law Library Access
Legal Coordinator comes to unit. Two kiosks in law
library space in unit.

SOURCE: Depa rtment of Correction (June 26, 2017).

IX.

PROGRAMMING

IMPLEMENTATION OF ESH LEVELS & APPROACH TO ESH PROGRAMMING
ESH standards require DOC to provide “programming aimed at facilitating rehabilitation, addressing the
root causes of violence, and minimizing idleness” in ESH housing units. All programming and services
offered to people incarcerated in ESH take place directly in ESH housing units themselves. People
placed in ESH are required to participate in programming to progress to a less restrictive housing unit
and transition back into the general population.
Young adults in the ESH Entry Unit receive different programming from young adults placed in, or
progressing to, blended ESH units (Levels 1, 2, or 3) where young adults and adults are provided the
same programming options based on their ESH level. The options available in ESH Level 1 differ from
the programming options in Levels 2, 3, and 4.77 Table 19 presents the program offerings and

77

In June 2017, the Department started offering interactive journaling in Level 1 units.

37

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION
participation in the ESH Entry Unit and Table 20 presents the programming options and participation in
Blended ESH units.
Program participation is higher in the ESH Entry Unit than in the ESH blended units. Board staff were
unable to determine, from the data provided through the Department’s 60-Day ESH reports, if people
participating in programming in the ESH blended units were young adults or adults. 78 In general,
program participation in ESH blended units appears to be very low.
Program offerings in the ESH Entry Unit include Dialectical Behavioral Therapy, Interactive Journaling,
Youth Communication, and Creative Expression Arts and Crafts. From October 2016 to March 2017, the
average daily population in the ESH Entry Unit ranged from 5.5 young adults to 9 young adults. There
was an average of 5.9 to 7 participants per session offered.79
Program offerings for ESH Level 1 include the Individuals Determined to Overcome Life’s Struggles
(IDOLS), skill building and reentry services program, and the Cage Your Rage anger management
program. While the average daily population in ESH Level 1 ranged 14.1 to 36 (adults and young adults
combined), the average number of IDOLS participants ranged from only 2.5 to 4.8 people per session.
The average number of Cage Your Rage participants was only 0.4 people per session.80
Program Offerings for ESH Levels 2 and 3 include the Individualized Correction Achievement Network
(ICAN) reentry program, Challenge Journal Series, Book Distribution, and Teleconferencing & Family
Reunification. From October 2016 to March 2017, the average daily population in ESH Levels 2 and 3
ranged from 26 to 64.5 (adults and young adults combined). Overall, the average number of ICAN
participants per session ranged from 1.5 to 2.2, the average number of Challenge Journal Series
participants per session ranged from 1.5 to 2.2, the average number of Book Distribution participants
per session ranged from 4.0 - 10.7 participants per session, and the average number of Teleconferencing
& Family Reunification participants per session was one (1) person.81
Board staff observations found, and corrections and programming staff confirm, that there are frequent
disruptions to programming while it is in session.

78

Tracking programming enrollment and participation is particularly challenging because DOC does not have an
information management system designed for this. While DOC’s contracted program providers have their own
case management systems for tracking individual participation, DOC does not. Individual-level program
participation in ESH is captured by hand and recorded on spreadsheets by program staff. DOC does not routinely
record and report programming participation for young adults separately and has only recently started capturing
program participation by ESH level. Reporting programming by ESH level started with the Department’s OctoberNovember 2016 60-Day ESH report to the Board.
79
DOC 60 Day ESH Reports October 2016-March 2017, available at goo.gl/5rEoTJ.
80
Id.
81
Id.

38

AN ASSESSMENT OF ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING FOR YOUNG ADULTS
Table 19
Program Offerings and Participation in ESH Entry Unit
Program Participation
October 2016 - March 2017
2016
Program Offerings
ESH Young Adult/Entry Unit*

2017

October-November

December-January

February-March

YA ESH UNIT ADP

YA ESH UNIT ADP

YA ESH UNIT ADP

5.5

7.5

9

# Sessions
Offered

Average # of
Participants
per Session

# Sessions
Offered

Average # of
Participants
per Session

# Sessions
Offered

Average # of
Participants
per Session

Dialectical Behavioral
Therapy (DBT)

Cognitive behavioral treatment program
focusing on mindfulness, interpersonal skills,
distress tolerance and emotion regulation.

37

5.9

15

6.7

11

7

Interactive Journaling

Assisting young adults move through the stages
of change, while motivating and guiding
participants towards positive life changes.

37

5.9

36

6.5

31

6.7

Youth Communication

Reading/Writing/Verbal expressions and role
playing exercises. Series of short stories and
poems are used to encourage struggling youth
dealing with difficult situations.

37

5.9

36

6.5

31

6.7

Providing the young adults with the opportunity
to express their inner creativity through artistic
creations.

37

5.9

36

6.5

31

6.7

Creative Expression Arts
and Crafts

SOURCE: Informa tion reported i n DOC 60 Da y ESH reports combi ned wi th ADP ca l cul a tions .
* As of Ma rch 1, 2017, the Young Adul t Enha nced Supervi s i on Hous i ng Uni t beca me the Entry Uni t.
** Progra m Couns el ors provi de s ervi ces to young a dul ts fi ve da ys a week.

39

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION
Table 20
Program Offerings and Participation in ESH Blended Units*
Program Participation
October 2016 - March 2017
2016
October-November

Level 1**

Overall
ADP
14.1
# Sessions
Offered

Individuals Determined to
Overcome Life’s Struggles
(IDOLS)
Cage Your Rage

Skill Building / Self Improvement/
Reentry Services

YA
ADP
3
Average # of
Participants
per Session

10

Anger Management and Conflict Resolution

4.8

Overall
ADP
34
# Sessions
Offered

YA
ADP
10
Average # of
Participants
per Session

41

Not Offered

2.5
Not Offered

October-November

Levels 2, 3

2017
December-January

February-March
Overall
ADP
36
# Sessions
Offered

YA
ADP
14.5
Average # of
Participants
per Session

109

2.8

85

0.4

December-January

February-March

Overall
ADP
26

YA
ADP
2.5

Overall
ADP
61

YA
ADP
6.5

Overall
ADP
64.5

YA
ADP
8

# Sessions
Offered

Average # of
Participants
per Session

# Sessions
Offered

Average # of
Participants
per Session

# Sessions
Offered

Average # of
Participants
per Session

Individualized Correction
Achievement Network
(ICAN)

Reentry Services

87

5

85

5.9

83

5.7

The Challenge Journal
Series

Interactive Journaling Behavior Modification

77

2.2

82

1.5

63

2.2

Brooklyn Public Library:
Book Distribution

Book Distribution and Periodic Discussions

24

4.5

12

4.3

4

10.7

Brooklyn Public Library
Teleconferencing and
Family Reunification

Family Reunification

13

1

7

1

12

1

SOURCE: Informa ti on reported i n DOC 60-Da y ESH reports combi ned wi th ADP ca l cul a ti ons .
* Pa rti ci pa ti on numbers i ncl ude a dul ts a nd young a dul ts .
**The fi rs t ESH Level 1 uni t opened on 11/15/2016, the da ta provi ded for October-November onl y covers the peri od of 11/15-11/30/2016 for Level 1.

40

AN ASSESSMENT OF ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING FOR YOUNG ADULTS

X.

INCIDENTS & VIOLENCE IN ESH

To better understand conditions in ESH with respect to incidents and violence, Board staff matched
young adults placed in ESH to incidents appearing in the Department’s 24 Hour Reports during
individuals’ ESH placement.82 The Department of Correction generates the 24 Hour Report daily and it is
used to track unusual incidents,83 such as uses of force (UOF), serious injuries to inmates or staff,84 and
other events that seriously affect normal operations of DOC facilities. The Board also reviewed data on
inmate infractions for inmate-on-inmate fights and assaults and reviewed use of force incidents that are
reported in the DOC’s Monthly Security Reports by housing area. Data on injuries to people
incarcerated in ESH were provided by CHS.

USE OF FORCE
There was a total of 88 UOF incidents occurring in ESH between September 2016 to March 2017,85 81%
(n=71) involved young adults.86 Nearly half of the incidents involving young adults, 47% (n=33) involved
the use of chemical agents. In nearly a quarter (24%, n=17) of the UOF incidents involving young adults,
the reason identified for the use of force was an assault on staff. There were no incidents of serious
injuries to staff or assaults on non-uniform staff involving young adults placed in ESH between
September 2016 and March 2017.
Figure 12 presents the monthly uses of force related to all individuals housed in ESH (adults and young
adults) from September 2016 to March 2017 as reported in the DOC’s Monthly Security Reports. There
was an uptick in uses of force in ESH from October 2016 to January 2017—a period during which DOC
opened a total of five new ESH units.87

82

BOC staff used ESH entry and exit dates based on DOC housing assignments in the inmate information system to
determine individuals’ placement period and only counted events occurring during an individuals’ ESH placement.
83
The Department’s policy on reporting requirements for unusual incidents defines “unusual incident” as “an
event or occurrence that may affect or actually does affect the safety, security and well-being of the Department,
its personnel, visitors and volunteers, as well as the inmates over whom it has custody and control.” N.Y.C. DEP’T OF
CORRECTION, DIRECTIVE No. 5000R-A, REPORTING UNUSUAL INCIDENTS, sec. IV(C), at 4 (eff. Nov. 19, 2004).
84
A “serious injury” to staff is “a physical injury that creates a substantial risk of death or disfigurement or loss of
impairment of a bodily organ” or “any injury sustained as a result of a stabbing, slashing, fire and/or explosion.”
See N.Y.C. DEP’T OF CORRECTION, DIRECTIVE No. 5000R-A, REPORTING UNUSUAL INCIDENTS, Appendix A, at 4 (eff. Nov. 19,
2004). Meanwhile, the types of injuries to inmates that come within the definition of “serious injury” to inmates
include the aforementioned list of serious injuries to staff as well as “a fracture or break to a bone, excluding
fingers or toes” and any injury “defined as serious by a physician.” See id. Appendix A, at 2-3.
85
N.Y.C. DEP’T OF CORRECTION, Monthly Security Statistical Reports – Fiscal Year 2017 (on file).
86
BOC staff matched young adults placed in ESH between September 2016 through March 2017 to incidents
reported in DOC’s 24 Hour Reports through March 2017.
87
Note that the values in the chart are absolute numbers of incidents per month and not a normalized rate per 100
or 1000 inmates per month, as is conventionally reported. That choice is deliberate: both the number of incidents
and the overall number of inmates in ESH in any given month are so low that there is inadequate statistical basis
from which to extrapolate a rate. A change of even one incident more or less in any given month would lead to
the rate jumping or plummeting dramatically. The relative standard error is too high to be statistically confident

41

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION

Figure 12

INFRACTIONS FOR FIGHTS AND ASSAULTS
Overall DOC reported a total of 30 inmate-on-inmate fights in ESH and issued a total of 54 infractions for
inmate-on-inmate fights and assaults in ESH from September 2016-March 2017.88 More than half of the
infractions issued for fights and assaults in ESH were issued to young adults (56%, n=30) for their alleged
involvement in inmate-on-inmate fights and assaults during this period.89 There was a sharp rise in
infractions for inmate-on-inmate fights and assaults from October through December 2016. 90 As noted
earlier, this period corresponds to a significant increase in the ESH young adult population and the
opening of new ESH units.

that any reported rate per 100 inmates would be reproducible. With sample sizes this small, it is more reliable to
focus on the absolute numbers of incidents when formulating interpretations and recommendations.
88
N.Y.C. DEP’T OF CORRECTION, Monthly Security Statistical Reports – Fiscal Year 2017 (on file).
89
BOC staff matched young adults placed in ESH between September 2016 through March 2017 to incidents
reported in DOC’s 24 Hour Reports through March 2017.
90
N.Y.C. DEP’T OF CORRECTION, Monthly Security Statistical Reports – Fiscal Year 2017 (on file).

42

AN ASSESSMENT OF ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING FOR YOUNG ADULTS

Figure 13

DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITY & OTHER VIOLENCE
From September 2016 to March 2017 there were a total of eight slashings in the ESH housing area, six of
which involved young adults in ESH.91 A total of 8 different young adults were involved in these 6
slashings. One young adult was involved in two slashings, both occurring in the same unit. Three of the
6 slashings occurred in units where inmates are restrained to desks during lockout (ESH Level 1). In all
but one of the 6 slashings, young adults attacked adult victims.
During one incident, two young adults manipulated their cuffs, got out of their restraints, and slashed
another young adult who was restrained while using the phone. The victim sustained an abrasion to the
right side of his face, right ear, and to his right back side. No weapon was recovered.92
Another slashing involved a young adult who, while secured to his restraint chair, slashed another young
adult who was being escorted near him at the time. The victim sustained a laceration to the right side of
his face. No weapon was recovered.
Another slashing involved a young adult perpetrator and an adult victim who sustained a laceration to
the head, back, and right thumb area. A weapon was recovered after this slashing.
Three other slashings occurred in units where individuals are not restrained to desks. All incidents
involved young adults walking up to their victims and attacking them. No weapons were recovered.

91

BOC staff matched young adults placed in ESH between September 2016 through March 2017 to incidents
reported in DOC’s 24 Hour Reports through March 2017.

43

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION
In addition, there were eight logbook entries noted in the Department’s 24 Hour Reports that did not
meet the Department’s definition of a “reportable incident” and appear to involve assaults on or harm
to staff. For example, in one incident, a young adult in ESH refused to comply with a search and
threatened staff with a weapon. While being searched, the young adult stuck his hands down his pants
and the weapon punctured the officer in the hand. In a separate incident, a young adult kneed an
officer in the head while the officer was removing leg irons.
In all, there were 28 splashings associated with young adults during this period. Nearly half occurred in
January 2017 and 12 of them involved the same individual in multiple ESH housing areas. There were
also nine occurrences of spitting, six of them occurred in January, five (5) of them involving the same
young adult.

INJURIES
Data reported by CHS indicates that 37% of all placements in ESH (n=23) had one or more injuries
reported during their ESH placement period. Incarcerated people in ESH sustained 56 injuries from
September to March 2017 and only one injury was classified as “serious.” Thirty-four percent of injuries
were due to DOC use of force (n=19), 29% were a result of self-injury (n=16), and 14% were a result of
an inmate-on-inmate fight (n=8).
Table 21

Injury Causes Among Young Adults in ESH
DOC use of force
Self injury
Inmate-on-inmate fight
Gate/Door-related
Recreational
Slips and falls
Environmental and fire
Attack by unknown assailants
Sexual abuse
Occupational
Vehicle
Seizure-related
Other/Unknown
Total

Number*
19
16
8
3
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
4
56

Percent
34%
29%
14%
5%
4%
2%
2%
2%
2%
0%
0%
0%
7%
100%

*One i njury wa s cl a s s i fi ed a s "s eri ous ."
SOURCE: Correctiona l Hea l th Servi ces Da ta a s of Ma rch 31, 2017. Injuri es were
veri fi ed by phys i ca l evi dence or by hi s tory. Metri cs pres ent i nforma tion
a va i l a bl e i n da ta s ources a t the time of query a nd a re s ubject to cha nge ba s ed
on workfl ow. The da ta pres ented refl ect query- s peci fi c l ogi c, pa ra meters , a nd
s ources a s outli ned i n the da ta di ctiona ry a nd/or l egend a nd s houl d not be
compa red to s i mi l a rl y noted reports wi thout a ppropri a te cros s wa l ks to i dentify
va ri a tions i n a pproa ch.

44

AN ASSESSMENT OF ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING FOR YOUNG ADULTS
ARRESTS
Twenty-eight percent (28%, n=15) of the 61 young adults placed in ESH between September 2016 and
March 2017 were arrested during their time in ESH. 93 There were 24 arrests involving young adults; five
young adults were arrested multiple times during their time in ESH.94 Additionally, there was one
incident involving an arrest of a visitor to a young adult in ESH.95

CURRENT DISCIPLINARY OPTIONS IN ESH
Young adults in ESH who are found guilty of an infraction are not subject to punitive segregation, but
there is no separate disciplinary sanction schedule for young adults. Through the DOC adjudication
process, young adults who are found guilty of a grade I or grade II infraction will be subject to a $25
surcharge. In addition, monetary restitution may be applied for damage to DOC property or when
injured staff receive medical treatment (hospital visit). Good time may also be taken for sentenced
young adults.

93

Arrests made between individuals’ ESH entry and exit dates. Determined by matching ESH young adults (placed
between September 2016 to March 2017) to incidents in the DOC’s 24 Hour Reports through March 31, 2017.
94
Determined by matching ESH young adults (placed between September 2016 to March 2017) to incidents in the
DOC’s 24 Hour Reports through March 31, 2017.
95
Id.

45

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank the leadership and staff of the Department of Correction, Health + Hospitals, and the
Department of Education, people in custody, and the public for their knowledge and significant
assistance in supporting our research and analysis. We look forward to working with you in the coming
months to implement the recommendations outlined in this report.
We also acknowledge and thank Board staff, Emily Turner, Andrea Hernandez, Chai Park, Nashla RivasSalas, Jim Bennett, Jemarley McFarlane, Rahzeem Gray, who devoted countless hours to this report and
to furthering our understanding of ESH.

46

AN ASSESSMENT OF ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING FOR YOUNG ADULTS

GLOSSARY

Accelerated
Program Unit
(APU)
Administrative
Segregation
(Admin. Seg.)
Clinical
Alternative to
Punitive
Segregation
(CAPS)

City Sentenced
Detainee
Detox Unit

Enhanced
Restraint Status

English
Language
Learners (ELL)
General
Population
(GP)
Good Time

Hearing
Facilitator
Isolation

A housing model intended to create stability through the use of an advanced inmate
risk level classification system, improved staff training, increased staff levels, and
expanded programming.
Administrative segregation housing is for individuals who are required to be separated
from the general population for security reasons. Individuals placed in these housing
areas have completed classification and new admission processing, including medical
and mental health screening.
A non-punitive unit developed for people with Seriously Mental Illnesses, modeled on
in-patient forensic wards. Clinical staff are available in the units at all times during the
day and evening tours conducting individual and group therapy and offering supervised
activities. Time spent out-of-cell is dictated by the peoples’ ability to engage
successfully with other people in custody and staff. People discharged from CAPS go
back to the most appropriate housing area when they have successfully demonstrated
stability and an ability to maintain good behavior.
A person in custody who has been convicted of a crime and sentenced to a term of
incarceration for one year or less, concurrent terms of one year or less, or two
consecutive terms of one year or less.
A person in custody who is awaiting trial but has not been convicted of a crime(s) or a
person who has been convicted of a crime, but not yet sentenced.
A unit where a person in custody is placed to receive detoxification services from Health
+ Hospitals.
A designation given to a person who, having either exhibited violent behavior during his
or her incarceration or exhibited violent behavior during a prior incarceration within the
last five years, are subject to enhanced security restrictions. Depending on the
individual, said security restrictions or restraints may include security mitts, handcuffs,
waist chains, and leg irons. People with Enhanced Restraint Status must be in enhanced
restraints during movement to and from all service areas and places of escort.
Students whose native language is not English and need support learning English.
Students who score below a State-determined level on the assessment are identified as
ELLs and entitled to ELL services.
General population housing is designated by custody level for people who have
completed classification and new admission processing, including medical and mental
health screening, and for people who do not require special housing.
Section 70.40 of the New York State Penal Law states that a person may earn time
allowances (good time) off his or her maximum term of imprisonment for good
institutional behavior. A good time allowance is granted by DOCS under Section 803 of
the Correction Law.
A civilian or non-uniformed employee of the Department tasked with helping people in
custody understand the hearing process, usually a legal coordinator from the law library
or a counselor.
Specially designed cells for individuals who fail to clear search procedures and are
suspected of possessing metallic contraband. Isolation cells are equipped with an

47

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION
operable sink and a toilet fitted with a mesh device so that objects cannot be flushed
away. Individuals are held in isolation until they pass the contraband or clear the
search procedure.
Individualized
Education
Programs (IEP)
Juvenile
Relational
Inquiry Tool
Mental
Observation
(MO)
National
Institute on
Drug Abuse
(NIDA)
New Admission
(NA)

Protective
Custody (PC)

Punitive
Segregation
(PS)

RAP Sheet
Released on
Own
Recognizance
(ROR)

Red ID Status

Enhanced
Restraint Unit
Restricted
Housing Unit
(RHU)

A document that is developed for each public-school child who needs special education.
The IEP is created through a team effort, and reviewed periodically.
Tool created by Vera Institute that helps “…staff build on incarcerated youth’s strengths
and social connections and build rapport between staff and youth while collecting
information.”
Mental observation housing is designated by custody level for people whose mental
condition requires a higher level of observation than those in general population.
People for whom this type of housing may be appropriate include those whose mental
condition requires close observation by clinical staff and those at increased risk of
suicide.
A drug use screening tool used by Department of Correction to determine substance
use history over the past year.
New admissions housing is designated by custody level where practicable, for newly
admitted individuals who are awaiting completion of classification or new admission
processing, including medical and mental health screening.
Protective custody housing is designated by custody level for people determined to be
too vulnerable for general population housing and who, for their own safety, are
assigned to protective custody housing. People may be assigned to protective custody
housing on a voluntary or involuntary basis. The Department takes into account the
reasons for a person’s placement into protective custody and whether the individual
has been placed voluntarily or involuntarily into protective custody.
Punitive segregation is designated for individuals found guilty of violent Grade I
infractions or Department rules or for those who are in pre-hearing detention status.
individuals are locked in their cells for up to 23 hours per day, with one hour of
recreation, while they serve a specific sentence imposed as a result of a disciplinary
hearing.
Official criminal history as recorded by the New York State Department of Criminal
Justice Services.

An individual who is released on bail or without bail (ROR) by the arraignment
court.
A designation given to a person who has used or been found in possession of a weapon
or other dangerous instrument while in Department custody and is subject to enhanced
security restrictions. When an individual with Red ID Status is moved to and from a
facility, he is restrained with handcuffs, security mitts, and waist chains. Unlike those
with Enhanced Restraint Status, they are not, however, subject to enhanced restraints
within the facility.
A housing area where all individuals have enhanced restraint status (see Enhanced
Restraint Status definition).
Restricted Housing Units are designated for people found guilty of an infraction and
sentenced to a disciplinary penalty of punitive segregation or are in pre-hearing
detention status and who cannot, because of their mental condition, be housed in

48

AN ASSESSMENT OF ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING FOR YOUNG ADULTS

Second Chance
Housing Unit
(SCHU)
Securing Order

Secure Unit

Sentence
Commitment
Order

Serious Mental
Illness (SMI)

Splashing
Test of Adult
Basic Education
(TABE)
Transitional
Restorative
Unit (TRU)

standard punitive segregation units. Mental health services and treatment programs
are provided to help people assimilate back into general population or a non-punitive
segregation mental observation housing. Though individuals cannot opt out of
assignment to an RHU, they are encouraged to participate in the non-mandatory threelevel incentive program through which they can earn increased lock-out time and a
reduction in their punitive segregation term upon successfully fulfilling all requirements
of the program.
A housing unit designed for adolescents and young adults who exhibit behavioral
challenges requiring individualized interventions prior to reintegration into general
population. The SCHU can also serve as a step-down from TRU. The behaviors of youth
housed in this unit will be addressed through an individualized behavior support plan
developed, supported, and monitored by a multidisciplinary treatment team.
A court order directing how an individual should be held or released from custody.
A housing unit for selected young adults age eighteen (18)
through twenty-one (21) that shall be used to ensure the safe and secure management
of young adults who demonstrate a persistent history of violent and/or assaultive
behaviors directed towards staff, the public, or other young adults or whose violent
actions result in a serious injury to others.
A court order outlining the authority to execute a sentence.
Individuals, aged 18 or older, who currently have, or at any time during the
past year have had a diagnosable mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder
of sufficient duration to meet diagnostic criteria specified within the DSM-5.
In order to receive an SMI designation, a person’s diagnosable disorder must
result in functional impairment that substantially interferes with or limits
one or more major life activities. Individuals with SMI may not be placed in
punitive segregation or Enhanced Supervision Housing.
Any incident wherein an individual intentionally causes an employee to come in contact
with any fluid or fluid like substance.
An assessment conducted by DOE that is used to measure basic academic skills
commonly found in adult education curricula taught in high school and adult
instructional programs.
A housing unit designed for adolescents and young adults who pose an imminent
security threat to others and/or may be deemed a security risk to the operation of the
facility. The behavior of youth housed in this unit is addressed through an individualized
behavior support plan developed by and supported by the facility’s Treatment Team. As
youth begin to demonstrate readiness for return to the general population, they can be
stepped down to the SCHU.

49

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A

Timeline Footnotes
1

See N.Y.C. BD. OF CORR., BD. OF CORR. MEETING, YOUTUBE, (Jan. 13. 2015), available at
https://youtu.be/IG13glSTsnk.

2

See N.Y.C. BD. OF CORR., NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF RULES, 142 THE CITY RECORD 215 (2015).

3

See RECORDS OF VARIANCE ACTION, N.Y.C. BD. OF CORR. (Nov. 10, 2015), available at https://goo.gl/iDxhtR.

4

See RECORDS OF VARIANCE ACTION, N.Y.C. BD. OF CORR. (Jan. 12, 2016), available at https://goo.gl/d1JfgW.

5

See RECORDS OF VARIANCE ACTION, N.Y.C. BD. OF CORR. (May 10, 2016), available at https://goo.gl/YEzyE2.

6

See RECORDS OF VARIANCE ACTION, N.Y.C. BD. OF CORR. (May 26, 2016), available at https://goo.gl/rJw8BV.

7

See NOTICE OF VIOLATION OF MINIMUM STANDARDS FROM STANLEY BREZENOFF, CHAIR, N.Y.C. BD. OF CORR., TO JOSEPH
PONTE, COMMISSIONER, N.Y.C. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION (Jul. 7, 2016), available at https://goo.gl/uJWRXK.

8

See RECORDS OF VARIANCE ACTION, N.Y.C. BD. OF CORR. (Jul. 12, 2016) available at https://goo.gl/vzM6ai.; See
RECORDS OF VARIANCE ACTION, N.Y.C. BD. OF CORR. (Jul. 12, 2016) available at https://goo.gl/kb54wK.

9

See RECORDS OF VARIANCE ACTION, N.Y.C. BD. OF CORR. (Oct. 11, 2016), available at https://goo.gl/fpqKxb and
https://goo.gl/tFsvXt.

10

See RECORDS OF VARIANCE ACTION, N.Y.C. BD. OF CORR. (Nov. 15, 2016) available at https://goo.gl/uNiiaF.

11

See NOTICE OF VIOLATION OF MINIMUM STANDARDS FROM DERRICK D. CEPHAS, CHAIR, N.Y.C. BD. OF CORR., TO JOSEPH
PONTE, COMMISSIONER, N.Y.C. DEP’T OF CORR. (Jan. 20, 2017).

12

N.Y.C. DEP’T OF CORRECTION, SECURITY MEMORANDUM NO. 013/12, ESHU PHASE I PROCEDURES REVISED, para. III
(Feb. 10, 2017).

13

See RECORDS OF VARIANCE ACTION, N.Y.C. BD. OF CORR. (Feb. 14, 2017), available at https://goo.gl/AFGt9W
and https://goo.gl/JJe35M.

14

N.Y.C. DEP’T OF CORRECTION, DEPUTY WARDEN MEMORANDUM, DWO #15/17, EMERGENCY SERVICE UNIT /K9 (FEB. 24,
2017).

15

N.Y.C. DEP’T OF CORRECTION, SECURITY MEMORANDUM NO. 016/17, ESU / K9 ASSIGNED TO ESHU PHASE I UNITS,
(MAR. 6, 2017).

16

See N.Y.C. BD. OF CORR., AN ASSESSMENT OF THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION’S IMPLEMENTATION OF
ADULT ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING, (APR. 26, 2017), available at https://goo.gl/278xdT.

17

See RECORDS OF VARIANCE ACTION, N.Y.C. BD. OF CORR. (May 10, 2017), available at https://goo.gl/fvCmJo.

18

See RECORDS OF VARIANCE ACTION, N.Y.C. BD. OF CORR. (Jun. 12, 2017), available at https://goo.gl/L9rg7A.

19

See RECORDS OF VARIANCE ACTION, N.Y.C. BD. OF CORR. (Jul. 11, 2017), available at https://goo.gl/Ndh4wT

50

AN ASSESSMENT OF ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING FOR YOUNG ADULTS
Attachment B
§ 1-16 Enhanced Supervision Housing.
(a) Purpose. The primary objective of enhanced supervision housing (ESH) is to protect the safety and
security of inmates and facilities, while promoting rehabilitation, good behavior, and the psychological
and physical well-being of inmates. To accomplish these objectives, ESH is designed to separate from the
general population those inmates who pose the greatest threats to the safety and security of staff and
other inmates. It additionally seeks to promote the rehabilitation of ESH inmates by incentivizing good
behavior and by providing necessary programs and therapeutic resources.
(b) Policy. An inmate may be confined in ESH if the inmate presents a significant threat to the safety
and security of the facility if housed elsewhere. Such a determination shall only be supported by a
finding that one of the following has occurred:
(1) the inmate has been identified as a leader of a gang and has demonstrated active involvement in
the organization or perpetration of violent or dangerous gang-related activity;
(2) the inmate has demonstrated active involvement as an organizer or perpetrator of a gangrelated assault;
(3) the inmate has committed a slashing or stabbing, has committed repeated assaults, has seriously
injured another inmate, visitor, or employee, or has rioted or actively participated in inmate
disturbances while in Department custody or otherwise incarcerated;
(4) the inmate has been found in possession of a scalpel or a weapon that poses a level of danger
similar to or greater than that of a scalpel while in Department custody or otherwise incarcerated;
(5) the inmate has engaged in serious or persistent violence; or
(6) the inmate, while in Department custody or otherwise incarcerated, has engaged in repeated
activity or behavior of a gravity and degree of danger similar to the acts described in paragraphs (1)
through (5) of this subdivision, and such activity or behavior has a direct, identifiable and adverse impact
on the safety and security of the facility, such as repeated acts of arson. Provided, however, that, where
the Department is permitted to consider an inmate's activity occurring or actions committed at a time
when the inmate was incarcerated, such activity or actions must have occurred within the preceding five
(5) years. Where the Department is permitted to consider an inmate's activity occurring or actions
committed at a time when the inmate was not incarcerated, such activity or actions must have occurred
within the preceding two (2) years.
(c) Exclusions.
(1) The following categories of inmates shall be excluded from ESH placement:
(i) inmates under the age of 18;

51

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION
(ii) as of January 1, 2016, inmates ages 18 through 21, provided that sufficient resources are made
available to the Department for necessary staffing and implementation of necessary alternative
programming; and
(iii) inmates with serious mental or serious physical disabilities or conditions.
(2) Medical staff shall be permitted to review ESH placements and participate in placement review
hearings. Consistent with these regulations, when ESH assignment would pose a serious threat to an
inmate's physical or mental health, medical staff shall have the authority to determine that the inmate
shall be barred from ESH placement or shall be moved from ESH to a more appropriate housing unit.
This determination may be made at any time during the inmate's incarceration.
(3) Any inmate placed in ESH who evidences a mental or emotional disorder shall be seen by mental
health services staff prior to or immediately upon ESH placement.
(4) The total number of inmates housed in ESH shall not exceed 250 at any time.
(d) Conditions, Programming and Services.
(1) To the extent the Department imposes restrictions on an ESH inmate that deviate from those
imposed on inmates in the general population, such restrictions must be limited to those required to
address the specific safety and security threat posed by that individual inmate.
(2) To the extent the Department seeks to limit an ESH inmate's access to contact visits, a hearing
shall be held, as required by subdivision (g) of this section, which shall address the criteria set forth in
subdivision (h) of section 1-09 of this chapter with regard to both the inmate and any individual visitors
with whom the Department wishes to limit contact.
(3) No later than July 1, 2015, the Department shall provide ESH inmates with both voluntary and
involuntary, as well as both in- and out-of-cell, programming aimed at facilitating rehabilitation,
addressing root causes of violence, and minimizing idleness.
(4) All inmates in ESH shall be seen at least once each day by medical staff who shall make referrals
to medical and mental health services where appropriate.
(e) Staffing.
(1) Correction officers assigned to ESH shall receive forty (40) hours of special training designed to
address the unique characteristics of ESH and its inmates. Such training shall include, but shall not be
limited to, recognition and understanding of mental illness and distress, effective communication skills,
and conflict de-escalation techniques.
(2) At least twenty-five (25) percent of correction staff assigned to ESH shall be assigned to steady
posts.
(f) Notice of ESH Placement.

52

AN ASSESSMENT OF ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING FOR YOUNG ADULTS
(1) When it is determined that an inmate should be confined in ESH, that inmate shall be given
written notice of such determination within twenty-four (24) hours of placement. Inmates who are
unable to read or understand such notice shall be provided with necessary assistance. Such notice shall:
(i) state the grounds relied on and the facts that support the inmate's ESH placement; (ii) inform
the inmate of the individual restrictions the Department intends to impose during the inmate's ESH
confinement;
(iii) notify the inmate of the upcoming ESH placement review hearing; and
(iv) inform the inmate of the right to review, prior to the placement hearing, the evidence relied
upon by the Department, to appear at the hearing in person, to submit a written statement for
consideration, to call witnesses, and to present evidence.
(2) Reserved.
(g) Placement Review Hearing.
(1) Within three (3) business days of service of notice on an inmate of initial ESH placement and
related restrictions, the Department shall conduct a hearing to adjudicate the inmate's ESH placement
and the individual restrictions proposed. The hearing may not be adjourned except, in extenuating
circumstances, by the inmate's documented request and may in no event be adjourned for longer than
five (5) days.
(2) One or more hearing officers shall conduct the placement review hearing. Department staff who
initially recommended the inmate for ESH placement or otherwise provided evidence to support the
inmate's ESH placement shall not be eligible to serve as hearing officers at the inmate's placement
review hearing.
(3) The placement review hearing shall consist of [the] following:
(i) a review of the facts upon which the Department relies to place the inmate in ESH pursuant to
subdivision (b) of this section, and a determination of whether such facts exist and whether they
support, by a preponderance of the evidence, the conclusion that the inmate presents a current
significant threat to the safety and security of the facility such that ESH is appropriate;
(ii) consideration of the time that has elapsed since the occurrence of the activity or behavior
relied on by the Department to support ESH placement;
(iii) a review of the individual restrictions proposed by the Department and a determination of
whether each is supported by evidence of the legitimate safety and security concerns related to that
individual inmate;
(iv) consideration of any relevant information provided by medical staff;
(v) consideration of any credible and relevant evidence submitted or statements made by the
inmate at the hearing; and

53

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION
(vi) consideration of any other evidence deemed relevant to the ESH status determination or
imposition of individual restrictions.
(4) The inmate shall be permitted to appear at the hearing in person, submit a written statement,
call witnesses, and present evidence.
(5) In the following circumstances, the inmate shall be entitled to the assistance of a hearing
facilitator, who shall assist the inmate by clarifying the charges, explaining the hearing process, and
assisting the inmate in gathering evidence:
(i) the inmate is illiterate or otherwise unable to prepare for or understand the hearing process; or
(ii) the inmate has otherwise been unable to obtain witnesses or material evidence.
(6) If it is determined that the ESH placement and each related restriction are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, the placement and each supported restriction may be continued.
Written notice shall be provided to the inmate outlining the bases for such determinations. If it is
determined that ESH placement or imposition of any individual restrictions is unsupported by a
preponderance of the evidence, ESH status or unsupported individual restrictions shall be terminated
immediately.
(h) Periodic Review of Placement.
(1) The placement of an inmate in ESH shall be reviewed every forty-five (45) days to determine
whether the inmate continues to present a significant threat to the safety and security of the facility if
housed outside ESH such that continued ESH placement is appropriate.
(2) At least twenty-four (24) hours prior to such periodic review, inmates shall be notified of the
pending review in writing and of the right to submit a written statement for consideration. Inmates who
are unable to read or understand such notice shall be provided with necessary assistance.
(3) Periodic review of an inmate's ESH status shall consider the following, with conclusions recorded
in a written report made available to the inmate within seven (7) days of the review: (i) the justifications
for continued ESH placement;
(ii) the continued appropriateness of each individual ESH restriction and whether any such
individual restrictions should be relaxed or lifted;
(iii) information regarding the inmate's subsequent behavior and attitude since ESH placement
began, including participation in and availability of programming;
(iv) information regarding the effect of ESH placement or of individual ESH restrictions on the
inmate's mental and physical health;
(v) any written statement submitted by the inmate for consideration;

54

AN ASSESSMENT OF ENHANCED SUPERVISION HOUSING FOR YOUNG ADULTS
(vi) any other factors that may favor retaining the inmate in or releasing the inmate from ESH or
any other factors that may favor the lifting of individual ESH restrictions or continuing to impose
individual ESH restrictions; and
(vii) if the inmate's ESH placement is to continue, any actions or behavioral changes that the
inmate might undertake to further rehabilitative goals and facilitate the lifting of individual ESH
restrictions or ESH release.
(4) At any time when deemed appropriate, an inmate may be evaluated and recommended for
placement in a more appropriate housing unit outside ESH.
(i) Board Review of ESH Implementation.
(1) No later than sixty (60) days after ESH implementation and every sixty (60) days thereafter, the
Department shall submit to the Board information related to implementation of ESH and the inmates
housed there. This information shall include, but shall not be limited to:
(i) the number of inmates housed in ESH, both currently and since implementation;
(ii) the frequency with which each of the criteria set forth in subdivision (b) of this section is used
to support ESH placement;
(iii) rates of violence in both ESH and the general population since implementation of ESH and
rates of violence for comparable time periods prior to ESH implementation;
(iv) rates of use of force in both ESH and the general population since implementation of ESH;
(v) programming and mental health resources available to ESH inmates and the extent of inmate
participation in each program and resource;
(vi) training received by correction officers assigned to ESH and the number of steady posts
created in ESH;
(vii) the number of inmates initially assigned to ESH but whose ESH status was terminated in a
placement review hearing;
(viii) the number of inmates released from ESH into the general population through periodic
review or other ESH status review mechanisms; and
(ix) any other data the Department or the Board deems relevant to the Board's assessment of ESH.
(2) The Board shall review the information provided by the Department and any other information
it deems relevant to the assessment of ESH. Eighteen (18) months after implementation of ESH and no
later than two (2) years after implementation of ESH, the Board shall meet to discuss the effectiveness
and continued appropriateness of ESH.

55