CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
INSPECTION COMMITTEE REPORT:
INVESTIGATOR DATA REVIEW

PREPARED AND SUBMITTED
BY CIIC STAFF
June 6, 2006

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I.

Introduction………………………………………………………………

6

II.

ODRC Policy 09-INV-04: Institutional Investigator……………………

8

III.

2004 Chief Inspector Annual Report Summary………………….……

11

IV.

Initiated Investigations……………………………………………………
Table 1. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Initiated Investigations……
Table 2. 2003/2004 Comparison of Initiated Investigations………..
Table 3. 2004 Initiated Investigations by Subcategory………………

12
12
13
14

V.

Drug Investigations………………………………………………………… 15
A. Positive Urinalysis……………………………………………………… 18
Table 4. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Positive Urinalyses………… 19
Table 5. 2003/2004 Comparison of Positive Urinalyses……………… 20
B. Drugs (Other)…………………………………………………………… 21
Table 6. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Drug Investigations: Other… 21
Table 7. 2003/2004 Comparison of Drug Investigations: Other…… 21
C. Drugs (Inmate/Visitor)………………………………………………… 22
Table 8. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Drug Investigations:
Inmate/Visitor………………………………………………… 22
Table 9. 2003/2004 Comparison of Drug Investigations:
Inmate/Visitor……………………………………………… 23
D. Drugs (Staff/Inmate)…………………………………………………. 23
Table 10. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Drug Investigations:
Staff/Inmate………………………………………………… 23
Table 11. 2003/2004 Comparison of Drug Investigations:
Staff/Inmate………………………………………………… 24
E. Drugs (Mail/Packages)…………………………………………………. 25
Table 12. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Drug Investigations:
Mail/Packages……………………………………………….. 25
Table 13. 2003/2004 Comparison of Drug Investigations:
Mail/Packages………………………………………………. 25
F. Drugs (Staff)……………………………………………………………. 26
Table 14. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Drug Investigations: Staff…. 26
Table 15. 2003/2004 Comparison of Drug Investigations: Staff…….. 26

3
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
PAGE
VI.

Assault Investigations……………………………………………………… 27
A. Assault (Inmate on Inmate)…………………………………………… 28
Table 16. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Assault Investigations:
Inmate on Inmate…………………………………………… 28
Table 17. 2003/2004 Comparison of Assault Investigations:
Inmate on Inmate…………………………………………… 29
Table 18. Comparison of Reported Number of Inmate on Inmate
Assaults in January through June of 2005 and the Number
of Initiated Investigations Regarding Inmate on Inmate
Assaults in 2003 and 2004………………………………….. 30
B. Assault (Inmate on Staff)……………………………………………… 30
Table 19. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Assault Investigations:
Inmate on Staff……………………………………………… 31
Table 20. 2003/2004 Comparison of Assault Investigations:
Inmate on Staff……………………………………………… 31
Table 21. Comparison of Reported Number of Inmate on Staff
Assaults from November of 2004 through October of 2005
and the Number of Initiated Investigations regarding
Inmate on Staff Assaults in 2003 and 2004…………………32
C. Sexual Assault Investigations………………………………………… 32

Table 22. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Assault Investigations:
Sexual Assault………………………………………… 36
Table 23. 2003/2004 Comparison of Assault Investigations:
Sexual Assault………………………………………… 37
VII.

Professional Misconduct Investigations……………………………. 38
A. Staff Misconduct…………………………………………………. 38
Table 24. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Professional
Misconduct Investigations: Staff
Misconduct……………………………………………….. 38
Table 25. 2003/2004 Comparison of Professional Misconduct
Investigations: Staff Misconduct………………………… 38
B. Staff/Inmate Relationships………………………………………. 39
Table 26. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Professional
Misconduct Investigations: Staff/Inmate Relationships 39
Table 27. 2003/2004 Comparison of Professional Misconduct
Investigations: Staff/Inmate Relationships …………….. 40

4
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
PAGE

VIII. "Other" Investigations…………………………………………….
Table 28. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by "Other"
Investigations……………………………………….
Table 29. 2003/2004 Comparison of "Other" Investigations.

45

IX.

Searches, Shakedowns, Drugs and Alcohol Confiscated…………

46

A. Canine Searches……………………………………………….
Table 30. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Canine Searches…..
Table 31. 2003/2004 Comparison of Canine Searches………

46
46
46

45
45

B. Employee Strip/Patdowns……………………………………... 47
Table 32. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Employee
Strip/Patdowns……………………………………… 47
Table 33. 2003/2004 Comparison of Employee
Strip/Patdowns……………………………………… 48
C. Visitor Strip/Patdowns………………………………………… 49
Table 34. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Visitor
Strip/Patdowns……………………………………… 49
Table 35. 2003/2004 Comparison of Visitor
Strip/Patdowns………………………………………. 50
D. Major Shakedowns…………………………………………….. 50
Table 36. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Major Shakedowns… 50
Table 37. 2003/2004 Comparison of Major Shakedowns……. 51
E. Marijuana……………………………………………………….. 52
Table 38. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Amount of
Marijuana Confiscated………………………………. 52
Table 39. 2003/2004 Comparison of Confiscated
Marijuana……………………………………………… 53
F. Crack/Cocaine……………………………………………………. 54
Table 40. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Confiscated
Crack/Cocaine………………………………………… 54
Table 41. 2003/2004 Comparison of Confiscated
Crack/Cocaine………………………………………… 55
G. Heroin…………………………………………………………… 56
Table 42. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Confiscated Heroin… 56
Table 43. 2003/2004 Comparison of Confiscated Heroin…….. 57

5
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
PAGE
H. Illicit Pills………………………………………………………… 57
Table 44. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Confiscated
Illicit Pills…………………………………………… 57
Table 45. 2003/2004 Comparison of Confiscated Illicit Pills.. 59
I.

Hooch…………………………………………………………… 59
Table 46. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Confiscated Hooch… 59
Table 47. 2003/2004 Comparison of Confiscated Hooch……. 60

X.

Resources……………………………………………………………… 61

XI.

Recommendations…………………………………………………… 63
Appendix A.

Institution Abbreviations…………………………………………………….. 64
Institution Classifications……………………………………………………. 65
Institution Populations………………………………………………………. 67

Appendix B.

Extended Tables(All Institutions)…………………………………………… 68
2004 Initiated Investigation Caseload…………………………………………. 68
2003/2004 Comparison of Initiated Investigations……………………………. 69
Positive Urinalysis…………………………………………………………….. 70
Drugs (Other)………………………………………………………………….. 72
Drugs (Inmate/Visitor)……………………………………………………….. 74
Drugs (Staff/Inmate)………………………………………………………….. 76
Drugs (Mail/Packages)………………………………………………………… 78
Drugs (Staff)…………………………………………………………………… 80
Assault (Inmate on Inmate)……………………………………………………. 82
Assault (Inmate on Staff)……………………………………………………… 84
Sexual Assaults………………………………………………………………. 86
Staff Misconduct…………………………………………………………………88
Staff/Inmate Relationships…………………………………………………….. 90
Other Investigations……………………………………………………………. 92

Appendix C. Searches, Shakedowns, Drugs, Alcohol Confiscated: …………………………… 94
Canine Searches………………………………………………………………… 94
Employee Strip/Patdowns………………………………………………………. 96
Visitor Strip/Patdowns………………………………………………………….. 98
Major Shakedowns…………………………………………………………… 100
Marijuana……………………………………………………………………… 102
Crack/Cocaine………………………………………………………………….. 104
Heroin………………………………………………………………………… .. 106
Illicit Pills………………………………………………………………………. 108
Hooch……………………………………………………………………………110

6
I. INTRODUCTION
The following report is an analysis of the statistics presented in the 2003 and 2004
Annual Reports of the Office of the Chief Inspector released in June 2004 and June 2005
respectively. Although the Annual Reports include statistics on the grievances
investigated by the ODRC Inspectors, as well as DRC Investigators, for CIIC evaluation
and report purposes, it was decided to provide two separate reports, with one on the
Investigators’ data, and one on Inspectors’ and their grievance procedure data.
The Chief Inspector is the administrative head of all Institutional Inspectors and
Investigators within the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (ODRC).
The Chief Inspector’s Annual Reports present a compilation of data from all Investigators
in the 32 state prisons in operation in 2004. The data consists of raw numbers, and results
of investigations undertaken at each correctional institution, but the Annual Reports do
not provide any additional details or analysis.
Institutional Investigators work as counterparts to the Institutional Inspectors. While
Inspectors investigate and report findings on inmate grievances, Investigators are
generally focused on illegal substances, assaults, or professional misconduct. In the past,
Investigators have also monitored Security Threat Group (STG, aka "gang") activity.
While Investigators serve on the STG committee, the ODRC has moved toward hiring
STG Coordinators to provide greater attention to security threats and activity.
The Annual Reports include data on the number of initiated investigations in the
following areas:
•

•

•
•

Drugs
o Positive Urinalyses
o Staff/Inmate
o Inmate/Visitor
o Mail/Packages
o Staff
o Other
Assaults
o Inmate on Inmate
o Inmate on Staff
o Sexual
Professional Misconduct
o Staff Misconduct
o Staff/Inmate Relationships
Other

According to follow-up communication from the DRC Chief Inspector’s Office, the
Investigator does not conduct all investigations at any given institution, nor are
Investigators even always aware of other investigations being done by custody. The

7
Investigators only report the cases that they personally investigate. As such,
institution numbers may vary from Investigator numbers.
In addition to the initiated investigations, the Annual Reports also provide data pertaining
to Searches, Shakedowns, and Drugs and Alcohol Confiscated. Specifically, the
following areas are covered:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Canine Search
Visitor Strip/Patdown
Employee Strip/Patdown
Major Shakedown
Marijuana
Crack/Cocaine
Heroin
Illicit Pills
Hooch

For the purposes of this report, most tables within the body of this report only include the
“Top Ten” institutions or subject area. The extended tables for all such "Top Ten" lists
may be found in the Appendix.
In addition, for brevity’s sake, many times institutions will be referred to by their
abbreviations. These abbreviations may be found in Appendix A. For quick comparison
and reference purposes, tables ranking all institutions by population and by security level
may also be found in Appendix A.
All statistics found within this report that are not otherwise denoted were taken directly
from the Chief Inspector’s Report on CY 2003 and 2004. Any other statistics are
calculated based on those numbers.

8
II.

ODRC POLICY 09-INV-04: INSTITUTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

ODRC policy 09-INV-04 defines an Institution Investigator as "an employee of the DRC
or employee of a private company assigned at a state correctional institution controlled
by the department, whose primary duties include the investigations of alleged violations
of administrative rules, policies, and procedures."
Policy
It is the policy of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction that all allegations of
and other possible incidents of violations of administrative rules, polices and procedures
by staff shall be promptly investigated in a thorough and fair manner.
Procedures
•

Each institution shall have at least one employee identified as the Institution
Investigator. The Institution Investigator shall report directly to the Warden with
functional supervision being maintained by the Chief Inspector or designee. Their
duties shall include the investigation of allegations of, or incidents of serious
violations of administrative rules, policies and/or procedures. The Investigator
shall have sufficient authority, clerical support, and unfettered access to all
records and areas of the institution required to carry out the duties of the office.
The Warden may also assign the Investigator additional responsibilities, which do
not conflict with or detract from their ability to conduct thorough, fair and timely
investigations.

•

The Institution Investigator shall serve as the central clearinghouse for
information/intelligence gathered within the institution and shall be responsible
for providing regular briefings to the Warden.

•

The Institution Investigator shall serve on the institution STG committee as
specified by DRC policy 310-SEC-12.

•

The Institution Investigator shall submit a monthly report to the Warden, the
Chief Inspector, and the Office of Prisons by the tenth of each month following
the report month.

•

The Institution Investigator shall be LEADS and CCH certified.

•

The Institution Investigator shall control the ITMS system as specified by
applicable DRC policy.

Investigations
•

The Warden and/or the Chief Inspector shall evaluate incident reports, allegations,
and unusual occurrences to determine if an investigation is warranted.

9
•

In the event that an investigation becomes necessary, the Warden or the Chief
Inspector in consultation with the Warden shall identify the appropriate individual
to conduct the investigation. Investigations that require special skills, knowledge
or expertise should be referred to the Institution Investigator, such as:
o
o
o
o

Drug Use/Trafficking
Staff/Inmate Relationships
Significant Staff Misconduct
Multi-Agency Investigations

•

The Institution Investigator may also independently initiate investigations in cases
where information has been received via monitored telephone calls, "tips," and
other communications that indicate a serious violation of administrative rules,
policies or procedures has occurred. All investigations initiated by the Institution
Investigator shall be communicated to the Warden as practicable or reasonable.

•

All investigations, which are conducted by the Institutional Investigator, shall be
assigned a case number and logged on an investigation log and maintained for
review by the Warden and the Chief Inspector.

•

When practicable, an investigation shall be initiated within the next business day
after the incident is reported or made known. Investigations shall be completed
without undue delay. The Institution Investigator shall conduct a thorough,
objective, and confidential investigation. The Institution Investigator shall attempt
to resolve issues of fact, consistent with the scope of the investigation. To this
purpose, the Institution Investigator will:
o Collect relevant physical and documentary evidence from person(s) who
possess it and other locations;
o Assess the credibility of person(s) reporting information;
o Assess the reliability of the documentary and/or physical evidence; and
o Draw objective and logical conclusions from the reliable information
collected to the extent that such conclusions are warranted.

•

During the course of the investigation, the Institutional Investigator may employ
the use of hand writing analysis, photographs, polygraph reports, CVSA reports,
electronic surveillance recordings, fingerprints, interviews, interrogations, records
or documents and other forms of la wfully obtained evidence. The use of such
devices shall be in conformity with DRC policy 09-INV-01 and/or any other
relevant policies, rules, or statutes.

•

The Institutional Investigator shall issue a report of the findings to the Warden
and/or the Chief Inspector. The report shall include, at a minimum, a summary of
the allegation(s), investigation, and a conclusion with respect to all facts of the
alleged violation(s).

10
•

The Institutional Investigator shall collect and preserve any evidence obtained
during the investigation in a manner consistent with law enforcement rules of
evidence (chain of evidence) and be in accordance with applicable DRC policies
and procedures. Investigation files and evidence shall be maintained in a secure
location. All on-going investigative information is considered to be confidential.

•

The Institutional Investigator shall be the liaison between the institution, the Ohio
State Highway Patrol, and other law enforcement agencies.

•

The Institutional Investigator may participate in investigations or join operations
with other agencies, on prison grounds or in the community, with the prior
approval of the Warden and/or the Chief Inspector, when such operation is related
to the official business of the department.

11
III.

2004 CHIEF INSPECTOR ANNUAL REPORT SUMMARY

The Chief Inspector's 2004 Annual Report provides the following summary regarding the
Investigator data:
•

During CY 2004, Investigators initiated 6,678 cases with only 675 or 10.1% of
their cases, including those still active from 2003, remaining under investigation
by the end of the year. Excluding background checks and undefined cases (other),
Investigators reported initiating 2,719 cases in 2004.

•

The highest number of investigations initiated in 2004 concerned inmates testing
positive for drugs (937), followed by the categories of drugs--other (383), inmateon- inmate assaults (262), drugs- inmate/visitor (249), staff misconduct (247), and
staff- inmate relationships (175).

•

A total of 127 canine searches of institutional grounds occurred during CY 2004.
Investigators were also involved in 52 major shakedowns within the institution.

•

Investigators reported that 80 inmate visitors and 85 Department staff members
were either strip searched or patted down during the calendar year for possible
drug or other contraband conveyance.

•

In CY 2004, Institutional Investigators seized over 6 lbs of marijuana, 1.16
ounces of crack and powder cocaine, 1.17 ounces of heroin, and approximately
447 illicit pills such as Zanex, Oxycontin, Valium, and Darvocet. Although a
wide variation in the recording of “hooch” seizures exists across institutions, the
approximate amount confiscated was roughly 784 gallons, based upon only those
Investigators reporting.

12
IV. INITIATED INVESTIGATIONS
Table 1. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Initiated Investigations
Institution
Ohio State Penitentiary
Madison Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
Corrections Medical Center

Initiated Investigations
583
538
436
416
357
352
342
293
287
270

"Initiated Investigations" refers to the total number of investigations initiated during CY
2004.
OSP, Ohio’s only Level 5 “supermax” facility, had the highest number of initiated
investigations, with a grand total of 583. This is somewhat remarkable considering its
low population (455). The high number of initiated investigations may be due to two
factors—both the high amount of activity that necessitates an investigation as well as the
obvious diligence of the Investigator in pursuing an investigation. By demonstrating to
the inmates that illegal activity will be addressed by institutional staff, it sets a positive
zero-tolerance example that hopefully decreases an inmate’s belief that he will “get
away” with illicit behavior.
Similarly, MaCI, which is a level three (close) security facility, reports the second highest
number of investigations. The Sex Offender Risk Reduction Center (SORRC) is located
at the Madison Correctional Institution. All reception inmates who have committed a sex
offense are first sent to MaCI for assessment and Basic Education classes pertaining to
sex offender treatment before they are sent to their parent institutions.
The bulk of the investigations are reported as “Other.” For example, of OSP’s reported
583 initiated investigations, 555 (95.2%) are classified as “Other.” It is likely that the
vast majority of these "Other" investigations actually are background checks. Based on
the large number of investigations in the "Other" category, the suggestion was relayed
that perhaps additional categories (such as a category specifically for Background
Checks) should be considered in order to provide greater and more useful information. In
follow-up communication from the Chief Inspector’s Office in that regard, it was relayed
that the Investigator’s Monthly Report does contain a section for listing “Background”
investigations separately from the “Other” category, and has done so for at least three
years. However, since CIIC does not receive the Investigator’s Monthly Reports from the
institutions, the only Investigator activity data available for review is contained in the

13
Chief Inspector’s Annual Reports. The Chief Inspector’s Office further relayed that the
“Background” investigation category will be included in the annual report.
Also notable are the institutions that did not make the top ten list. SOCF, the only
maximum security prison, houses a high number of violent and mentally ill, some who
may be at the Ohio State Penitentiary if not for their serious mental illness. SOCF also
has a concentration of several of the state’s leading gangs. Further, SOCF inmate letters
report a high level of sexual activity. However, SOCF reports a mere 62 initiated
investigations for the entire CY 2004. This is the sixth lowest number in the entire
prison system. According to the reported numbers, even Franklin Pre -Release Center,
a minimum security facility for females that houses half the number of inmates as
SOCF, conducted more investigations during the year. Furthermore, as opposed to the
other institutions, SOCF has two full- time Investigators, plus a full-time Security Threat
Group Coordinator.
Table 2. 2003/2004 Comparison of Initiated Investigations
Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Ohio State Penitentiary
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Corrections Medical Center
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution

2003
519
435
427
391
337
328
257
237
230
223

2004
342
436
583
164
416
270
134
142
352
357

As shown above in 2003, the two leading institutions for initiated investigations are Level
1/2 (minimum/medium) security facilities. Inmate letters have reported that medium
security prisons often have a greater drug culture than the higher security facilities, due to
the fact that inmates are generally “short-timers.” Reportedly, many of these inmates are
in prison for non- violent drug offenses, and they continue to carry on drug-trafficking and
drug use within the correctional system.
Reviewing the data, although BeCI's total number of initiated investigations dropped by
177, it doubled its number of positive urinalyses during the same time period (more
discussion of positive urinalyses will follow).
ORW's reported number of initiated investigations dropped by half over the biennium for
reasons unknown. ORW has both a large population (1,955) and also is the only facility
in the entire ODRC system to house inmates of all security classification levels for
extended periods of time. Yet in CY 2004, it dropped to the bottom half of institutions for
the reported total number of initiated investigations.

14
Ohio State Penitentiary, Trumbull CI, Ross CI, and Warren CI all increased their number
of initiated investigations. This could indicate a problem at the institutions (which cannot
be identified due to the bulk of the investigations falling under “Other”). However, it is
hoped that the increase will enhance the security of the institution, as the Investigator’s
presence and diligence will be more apparent to the inmates and staff. Institutions need
to develop a zero-tolerance policy in which any hint of drugs or staff misconduct
prompts an investigation.
Table 3. 2004 Initiated Investigations by Subcategory
Type of Investigation
Drug-Related
- Positive Urinalysis
- Other
- Inmate/Visitor
- Staff/Inmate
- Mail/Packages
- Staff

Number of Investigations
1,727
936
353
272
72
69
25

Assault-Related
- Inmate on Inmate
- Inmate on Staff
- Sexual Assault

566
254
188
124

Professional Misconduct-Related
- Staff Misconduct
- Staff/Inmate Relationship

428
242
186

Other Investigations

3,160

15
V. DRUG INVESTIGATIONS
Of the number of investigations that are identified by a particular subcategory, Drug
Investigations by far are the most prevalent, with good reason. Studies have reported a
major increase in the number of persons incarcerated during the 1990s due to stricter drug
enforcement laws. Thus, many of the persons currently in prison were incarcerated for
illegal substance abuse. Persons who are addicted to illegal substances are likely to seek
out opportunities to continue abusing substances even while in prison.
On March 1, 2006, DRC South Regional Director Steve Huffman provided the following
testimony pertaining to Drug investigations:
It is the policy of the Department to increase public safety, provide for
inmate accountability, institutional control and order by establishing a zero
tolerance of inmate drug use within our prisons. We strive to achieve this
through a variety of methods.
All staff, visitors, and contractors are subject to search by a metal detector
upon entrance to any of our institutions, and all of their personal items are
searched as well. Inmates working outside of the institution are subject to
search before leaving and are strip-searched when they reenter the
institution. Inmates are currently permitted to receive packages containing
food from their family and friends, which are thoroughly searched for
illegal drugs and other forms of contraband.
Each institution has a full-time investigator that spends a considerable
amount of time trying to identify those involved in the introduction of
illegal drugs. This is done through the gathering of intelligence
information by monitoring inmate telephone calls, interviewing inmates,
visitors, and staff. They also follow up on leads from these sources. The
institution investigators work in conjunction with the Ohio State Highway
Patrol investigators and county prosecutors to ensure that all of the
necessary information for prosecution is gathered during the investigative
stages.
Five percent of the inmate population is randomly drug tested each month.
We also perform for cause testing when there is a reasonable suspicion of
drug use. Inmates involved in specific recovery service programs or work
sites are subjected to testing as well. In addition, each year we complete a
saturation testing of approximately 20 percent of the inmate population.
The Department tests inmates for the following substances: Cocaine,
THC,
Opiates,
PCP,
Amphetamines,
Methamphetamines,
Benzodiazepines and alcohol.
Lastly, DRC has developed an enforcement unit comprised of parole
officers and institution investigators. The focus of this unit is to stop the

16
introduction of drugs into the prisons by working with local law
enforcement agencies to identify the sources and make arrests.
In the past two years, Department staff have deterred over 200 visitors and
50 staff from bringing drugs or attempting to bring drugs into our
prisons…Appropriate disciplinary or legal action is taken in all such
[staff] cases based upon the available evidence and investigation. It is
important to note that in Amended Substitute Senate Bill 111, in the 122nd
General Assembly, conveyance of drugs onto the grounds of a correctional
facility by a DRC employee requires imposition of a mandatory prison
term. The Department strongly advocated for this change in the law.
The number of drugs found in food packages has continued to rise over
the last few years. In 2003 there were 29 food packages containing drugs,
31 in 2004, and 32 through October of 2005. We are still compiling the
final numbers for 2005.
We are encouraged, however, that our drug testing results have decreased.
In 2003, the number of positive drug tests was 2.35 percent of inmates
tested. In 2004, the number was 2.24 percent of inmates tested and 2.18
percent in 2005.
While DRC has worked to eliminate dugs in our prisons, those desiring to
convey the drugs have become increasingly adept at concealing their
efforts. Food packages are a significant source of drugs…Drugs have
been sent in using re-canned soup, resealed candy bars, hollowed out
bagels, inside of sweetener and seasoning packets, and resealed pudding
cups. These are only a few examples of the items intercepted through the
tremendous efforts of our staff and the Ohio State Highway Patrol.
As a result of this growing issue, last year a leadership training team was
assigned the task of reviewing our inmate package operation,
benchmarking with other state correctional agencies and exploring an
alternative method for inmates to be able to receive food packages through
the use of a vendor. Their findings resulted in a committee being
established to further investigate the need for such a system. Currently,
the committee is obtaining information from potential vendors to identify
how they would operate their system, what products would be offered, and
ensuring that family members—and even the inmates themselves—would
be able to order food items. The ordering would be done by mail, fax,
telephone or the internet and would eliminate the costly and time
consuming efforts to return unauthorized food items to the sender which
would enable us to utilize our available custody staff in other areas of the
prison operation. We plan to survey inmates and their families this month
to establish support for this program.

17
While this would be a change to our current system, we believe that it
would continue to allow inmates to receive the desired food items from
their loved ones and greatly enhance our ability to stop the obvious flow
of drugs through the current system.
Further, on April 28, 2006, the DRC Director relayed information on the DRC
preparations pertaining to a change to a vendor only system for inmate packages. On May
16, 2006, the CIIC staff met with the team that has been working on the proposed
amendments to the AR on packages (5120-9-33). Per the DRC Director, the idea was first
researched as a group project of their Executive Leadership class in 2005. DRC has
conducted research, family surveys, and benchmarking with other state correctional
agencies. Ohio is one of the last to allow packages from home. Because of the continued
increase in drugs coming in via packages, changes were regarded as necessary. The
change to packages provided via outside vendors is regarded as beneficial to all parties. It
increases packages for some, especially high security levels and the separate
classification of Death Row. It is anticipated that it will result in improvements for the
family as one of the requirements of the vendor will be to have on- line ordering, fax
ordering or mail ordering for the family. The change is regarded as an improvement in
prison operations not only in terms of security, but for families and the inmate
population.
Further testimony was provided to CIIC regarding the “Enforcement Unit,” briefly
mentioned by South Regional Director Huffman, which allows for the collaboration of
parole officers and institution investigators:
…With this new approach, investigations are primarily conducted at their
community level. This creates a safer and more secure method for the
prison, since many times the drugs or contraband do not reach the facility.
An added benefit for the community is that other criminal activity may be
revealed. Furthermore, this allows for the unit to interact and assist with
outside law enforcement agencies. This strengthens relationships between
agencies, informa tion sharing occurs and communities and prisons benefit
from this arrangement.
The unit has been very successful with 25 staff arrests and/or terminations
for institutional drug conveyance or other types of inappropriate
relationship with offenders. They have been instrumental with helping
solve other crimes along with confiscating large amounts of drugs, guns
and stolen property as a result of DRC based investigations. They are
committed to assisting other agencies with investigative support.
Currently, the unit consists of two investigators, which operate in central
Ohio. In March, two additional investigators will be added to cover the
Cleveland area. Our goal is to also start an additional unit in Cincinnati in
the near future…

18
A. POSITIVE URINALYSIS
DRC policy 70-RCV-03, Inmate Drug Testing, provides for the testing of every inmate
within the DRC system at least annually. The policy’s stated purpose is to “deter inmate
drug use and trafficking by providing uniform guidelines for inmate drug testing, as well
as sanctions and programming for inmates found guilty of [Conduct] Rule 39Unauthorized Possession, Manufacture or Consumption of Drugs or any Intoxicating
Substance, Rule 41-Unauthorized Possession of Drug Paraphernalia or Rule 43-Refusal
to Submit Urine Sample or Otherwise Cooperate with Drug Testing.”
In pertinent part, the policy provides for inmates to be tested as follows:
1.

2.
3.

4.

Randomly: Each month five percent (5%) of each institution’s
population will be randomly selected for drug testing. Inmates will
be selected by computer assignment via the institution’s Central
Inmate Management System (CIMS).
For Cause: Inmates will be tested when there is a reasonable
suspicion of drug use.
Programs: This category will include all other tests where a particular
inmate sub-population is to be tested to include, but not limited to the
following:
a. Before and after transitional control;
b. Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Programs once every two
months in addition to any other testing category;
c. Once every two months 5% of the inmates who leave the
secured perimeter of the institution as part of their job
responsibility will be randomly selected for testing in addition
to any other testing category;
d. Before and after parole board hearings;
e. Inmates under medication treatment for Hepatitis C as
requested by the physician;
f. As indicated by the Warden.
Saturation Level testing is to be completed once a year.
a. A statistically valid, as determined by the Office of Policy,
Bureau of Research, sampling of each institutio n’s population
will be selected for testing. This process provides a basis for
comparison of drug levels annually at each institution.

The policy also provides for the appointment of a Drug Testing Coordinator, collection
procedures, a drug testing kit, method of reporting results, mandatory substance abuse
programs, and sanctions. Sanctions for positive urinalyses or refusal to participate
include mandatory time in Local Control, as well as the following possibilities:

19
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

15 days Disciplinary Control
Alternative dress
Special housing
Loss of Good time
Visit restrictions (within ACA guidelines)
Loss of audio/video equipment (storage at institution)
Loss of sundry
Adjustment C (Pay Category C - $9.00 per month)
Restricted commissary (except for hygiene items, writing materials
and legal kits)
10. Loss of phone privileges (except for emergency or attorney calls)
11. Drug test one time per month
12. Restricted movement as a group
13. Restrictions on inmate funds incoming/outbound
14. Internal community service
15. Institutional work assignment.
Local Control placement may be suspended if the inmate successfully completes the
Mandatory Substance Abuse Program (MSAP). In addition to MSAP, a range of
treatment options are also provided per the policy.
It is unfortunate that the "Saturation" testing covers only 20% of the inmate population.
The goal of reducing inmate drug abuse would be much more furthered if every inmate
knew for certain that he or she would be tested not just annually, but more frequently. As
it stands now, it is purely chance as to whether an inmate's drug use will be detected.
Table 4. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Positive Urinalyses
Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution

# Of Investigations
202
96
92
78
59
54
46
46
35
33

As shown above, NCCI reported the highest number of positive urinalyses by a wide
margin. However, this is possibly due to greater diligence on the part of the Investigator
in testing inmates to better ensure that drug use within the institution is fully monitored.
With the exception of ManCI and TCI, all of the above institutions are primarily Level
1/2 (minimum/medium) security facilities. Is the greater amount of drug use due to more

20
lax security or to the higher population of inmates who may be in prison due to drug
offenses rather than the more serious convictions (murder, rape, robbery, etc)? In
addition to the deterrence facet of performing a systemwide, "saturation" testing, the
institutional numbers could be more accurately compared.
In addition, while OSP, the Level 5 "supermax" facility, reports 7 positive
urinalyses, and our Level 3 facilities (LeCI, LorCI, ManCI, RCI, ToCI, TCI, and
WCI) report on average 22 positive urinalyses, SOCF, the Level 4 facility, reports
zero.
Table 5. 2003/2004 Comparison of Positive Urinalyses
Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Dayton Correctional Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution

2003
141
130
102
100
48
45
41
36
33
29

2004
0
16
31
23
202
92
96
78
46
59

Change
-141
-114
-71
-77
+154
+47
+55
+42
+13
+30

The contrast in numbers between the two years is striking. RCI went from being the
leader of the pack in 2003 to having zero positive tests in 2004. It is hoped that the lower
number implies that the 2003 crackdown resulted in a fewer number of inmates using
drugs within the institution. Surely, having been made aware of a drug issue within the
institution in 2003, the institution would not have failed to comprehensively test inmates
in 2004.
The other institutions are equally a mystery—why the sudden decrease in the top four
institutions and the sudden increase in the subsequent six? Suffice it to say that clearly,
up to 10% of an institution’s population can be presumed to be using drugs at any given
time. As that is the case, it is to be hoped that random drug testing—if not a sweeping
testing of the entire institution—is made a priority and that penalties are swiftly imposed
for evidence of drug use. Only by making inmates aware that drug usage absolutely will
be found out and punished is there any hope in limiting the trafficking. If inmates know
that there is a high chance that drug use will not be found out and/or punished, the inmate
is most likely going to risk the chance and continue abusing the substance.
The total number of reported initiated investigations pertaining to Positive Urinalyses
was 898 in CY 2003 and 936 in CY 2004.

21
B. DRUGS (OTHER)
This category pertains to drug investigations that do not fall under the other categories
(Staff/Inmate, Inmate/Visitor, Mail/Packages, or Staff). Drugs that are caught being
passed from one inmate to another or that are found on an inmate’s person or in his
possessions, for example, would qualify as “Other.”
Table 6. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Drug Investigations:
Other
Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution

# Of Investigations
49
45
33
25
25
21
20
18
17
17

Table 7. 2003/2004 Comparison of Drug Investigations:
Other
Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution

2003
49
17
17
17
16
15
13
13
13
12

2004
47
45
17
17
11
18
16
11
7
25

Change
-2
+28
0
0
-5
+3
+3
-2
-6
+13

The total number of reported initiated investigatio ns in the category of Drugs (Other) was
260 in CY 2003 and 356 in CY 2004. As stated previously, this category is difficult to
analyze, as there are no defining characteristics on which to make an evaluation.

22
C. DRUGS (INMATE/VISITOR)
Table 8. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Investigations:
Inmate/Visitor
Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution

# Of Investigations
82
34
21
20
14
11
10
9
8
8

This table is most interesting in comparison with the other drug investigation tables.
LeCI reports 82 investigations regarding the transfer of drugs between inmates and
visitors, yet only 23 positive urinalyses are reported. If 82 inmates are suspected to be
involved with the trafficking of drugs, it is extremely likely that more than 23 inmates are
using drugs. Even if just those 82 inmates who were involved with the investigations
were tested, it is probable that more than 23 inmates would test positive. Similarly, WCI
reports 34 investigations pertaining to inmates and visitors, but a mere 9 reported positive
urinalyses.
In fact, including a mandatory urinalysis for all inmates involved in a drug
investigation could be a positive move toward catching and limiting inmate use.
In addition, although there is a healthy representation of the Level 2 and 3
institutions, neither SOCF nor OSP report even a single drug investigation
pertaining to visitors. Either the visitors to SOCF and OSP are much less involved
with illegal substances than the inmates they came to see, or there is not sufficient
monitoring of visitors.
NCCI reported 202 positive urinalyses and yet only reported two investigations
involving visitors.
The reported numbers in the other categories of drug
investigations do not yield any reasonable substitute explanation for the high
number of positive urinalyses.

23
Table 9. 2003/2004 Comparison of Drug Investigations:
Inmate/Visitor
Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Dayton Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Madison Correctional Institution

2003
53
53
20
13
11
10
9
9
8
7

2004
82
34
20
10
2
11
21
3
14
7

Change
+29
-19
0
-3
-9
+1
+12
-6
+6
0

The number of Inmate/Visitor Drug Investigations in 2003 is equally surprising,
considering the number of 2003 positive urinalyses. RCI reported 141 positive urinalyses
in 2003, but only three drug investigations regarding visitors. SCI reported 130 positive
urinalyses, but only ten visitor investigations; the other institutions follow a similar
pattern. The drugs have to enter the institutions in some manner. In addition, as
previously discussed, the number of positive urinalyses does not even report the total
number of inmates involved in drug use.
The total number of reported initiated investigations pertaining to Drug Investigations of
Inmate/Visitor was 244 in CY 2003 and 272 in CY 2004.
D. DRUGS (STAFF/INMATE)
Table 10. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Drug Investigations:
Staff/Inmate
Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Grafton Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution

# Of Investigations
20
17
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
2

As can be seen by the sudden decrease in the numbers, LeCI and PCI are the exceptions
rather than the norm. On the positive side, it is good that institutions are recognizing that
staff may be culpable in the spread of drugs in the institutions. On the negative side, 20

24
investigations, unless some of the investigations pertained to the same staff person,
involve a sizeable chunk of an institution's staff. It is conjecture if the problem is
adequately addressed through the investigations and whether the suspected transfer of
drugs between staff and inmates has slowed due to the investigations.
As relayed above, the DRC South Regional Director reported to the CIIC that
Department staff have deterred "50 staff from bringing drugs or attempting to bring drugs
into our prisons…Appropriate disciplinary or legal action is taken in all such [staff] cases
based upon the available evidence and investigation." Appropriate legal action could
include the imposition of a mandatory prison term.
After the top ten, all other institutions report either one or zero investigations of
drugs passed between staff and inmates.
Table 11. 2003/2004 Comparison of Drug Investigations:
Staff/Inmate
Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
Ross Correctional Institution
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

2003

2004

9
7
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1

17
4
20
3
3
0
0
0
0
0

As can be seen, the numbers for 2003 were far lower. With the exception of the top six
institutions, all other institutions reported at most one or, more likely, zero investigations
into staff/inmate drugs. Again, it is not necessarily a red flag if an institution is
performing more investigations; rather, the positive urinalyses would show that the
inmates are getting the drugs from somewhere, and more investigations performed would
hopefully reveal the source of the drugs.
In CY 2003, a total of 36 investigations were initiated into Staff/Inmate drug trafficking.
In CY 2004, 72 investigations were initiated into the same.

25
E. DRUGS (MAIL/PACKAGES)
Table 12. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Drug Investigations:
Mail/Packages
Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
Lorain Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution

# Of Investigations
13
10
7
6
5
5
4
4
3
2

Table 13. 2003/2004 Comparison of Drug Investigations:
Mail/Packages
Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
London Correction Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Dayton Correctional Center

2003
11
8
7
5
5
4
3
3
3
3

2004
7
10
6
5
4
2
13
2
1
0

As shown above, the average number of investigations that an institution performs
pertaining to drugs conveyed via mail or packages tends to be quite low. As relayed
above, DRC staff reported in a recent meeting of the CIIC that the option of a third party
vendor for all food packages is being considered so as to reduce the amount of drug
trafficking via mail/packages. Presumably, food packages will still need to be checked
for contraband, so it is currently uncertain as to how much staff time it will actually save.
In addition, DRC staff need to ensure that adequate tracking measures of the prepared
packages are in place in case contraband is found to better ensure proper investigation
and prosecution.

26
In CY 2003, 66 investigations were initiated into Drugs (Mail/Packages). In CY 2004,
69 investigations were initiated into the same.
F. DRUGS (STAFF)
Table 14. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Drug Investigations:
Staff
Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
Franklin Pre Release Center
Lorain Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Madison Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
Grafton Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution

# Of Investigations
8
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1

Table 15. 2003/2004 Comparison of Drug Investigations:
Staff
Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Madison Correctional Institution
Corrections Medical Center
Hocking Correctional Facility
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
Franklin Pre Release Center
Lorain Correctional Institution

2003
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0

2004
8
1
1
0
0
0
4
3
2
2

Change
+7
0
0
-1
-1
-1
+4
+3
+2
+2

At first glance, the numbers are almost positive in that they are low. However, the
National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) reports that 14.4% of Ohio residents
12 and older reported illicit drug use in the past year; 8.0% reported illicit drug use in the
past month. 1 Lest one thinks that these numbers only pertain to the homeless, the
impoverished, or the underemployed, a report on Drug Use by the Department of Justice's
Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that 70% of illicit drug users were employed fulltime. The overall rate of full- time employee illicit drug use was 7.7% in 1997. 2
1

National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Fifty States report. http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/StatesList.htm
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. "Drug Use." Found at:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/du.htm
2

27

Given that DRC employees are in a prison environment, it is possible that the rates of
prevalence among DRC employees are higher than state averages. Regardless, the
number of investigations reported by the institutions does not correlate to 14.4%, 8%, or
even 1% of the staff population. Thus, not only are the inmates using drugs, but it is
possible that a larger number of DRC staff are also using drugs while employed than is
detected in the number of investigations.
We share the reported hope of DRC staff that the new DRC Enforcement Unit will result
in increased surveillance of both inmates and staff. As DRC staff relayed that 50 staff
had already been identified and action of some form had been taken, we look forward to
reviewing the CY 2005 numbers.
In CY 2003, a total of 6 investigations were initiated in Staff Drug use. In CY 2004, that
number jumped to 25.
VI. ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS
Inmate assaults are seemingly a regrettable fact of institutional life. Prison is a stressful
environment. Correctional facilities include a mix of the mentally ill, illegal substance
abusers, and persons with poor anger management skills, not to mention the others who
are simp ly upset at their current circumstances. Some inmates act out in aggression
toward one another and toward staff.
Data pertaining to the following areas is reported in the Chief Inspector's Annual Reports
of 2003 and 2004: Inmate on Inmate Assault, Inmate on Staff Assault, and Sexual
Assault.
In response to questions from the state legislators who serve on the CIIC, information
was requested regarding the assault statistics over the past decade. According to the
information provided by the ODRC, a total of 4,726 Inmate-on-Staff assaults, including
physical and sexual assaults, occurred system-wide from 1997 to 2005. Recent attention
has been brought to the issue due to the near- fatal attack of a corrections officer by an
inmate at SOCF.
A few changes in perspective have taken place in recent years. In 2003, Congress passed
the Prison Rape Elimination Act, which focuses on sexual assault. In accordance with
PREA, the ODRC recently adopted new Sexual Assault Investigation policies (79-ISA01 and -02) to outline correct procedures to be followed in any investigation of a sexual
assault.
In addition, greater penalties, including outside prosecution, have been sought for the
inmates who throw feces and urine on corrections staff as well as on other inmates.
Beyond the general disgust factor of the act, bodily fluids cause a greater concern in the
modern day with the rising attention given to sexually transmitted diseases, such as HIV
and AIDS.

28

More information pertaining to assaults may be found in the CIIC report, "Review of
Assault Data," which may be accessed from the following website:
http://www.ciic.state.oh.us/publications/assaultdata06.pdf.
A. ASSAULT (INMATE ON INMATE)
Table 16. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Assault Investigations:
Inmate on Inmate
Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Madison Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Belmont Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution

# Of Investigations
41
21
21
18
17
15
15
13
13
11

NCI, a medium security institution, is the number one institution for reported inmate on
inmate assault investigations. A possible explanation is the high population of NCI.
However, while it does have a high population compared to the other institutions, CCI,
ManCI, and RCI, which each have higher populations than NCI, report an average of 6.3
investigations of inmate on inmate assault.
Even more surprising is that inmate letters to CIIC do not report a high incidence of
inmate on inmate assault at NCI. There is not a high volume of letters from NCI in
general. On the other hand, inmates at both CCI and SOCF have sent numerous letters to
CIIC reporting high tension between inmates. Of these two, CCI reports four
investigations into inmate on inmate assault; SOCF reports zero.
Thus, it is possible that rather than an indication of a problem, the high number of
investigations into inmate on inmate assault is indicative of Investigator diligence. The
lower numbers are more questionable.

29
Table 17. 2003/2004 Comparison of Assault Investigations:
Inmate on Inmate
Institution
Madison Correctional Institution
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution

2003
29
26
23
20
20
17
14
12
12
10

2004
18
15
21
41
17
13
13
15
4
21

Once again, the numbers are interesting for the institutions that are not represented. With
the exception of ORW, which houses inmates of all security classifications, and RCI, a
Level 3 institution, the rest are all Level 2 (medium) security institutions. SOCF, for
example, reported zero investigations of inmate on inmate assaults for two straight
years. Are the higher numbers due to greater population size, less strict security, or
lesser Investigator involvement in investigating inmate assaults? Are institutions
correctly reporting the numbers? Given the serious nature of the offense—inmate on
inmate assault—it would seem that a greater examination should be performed of
these numbers to determine whether the amount of investigation is sufficient to the
need.
Although SOCF is reported as having initiated zero investigations in 2004, information
relayed to this office from the ODRC regarding inmate on inmate assaults states that
SOCF experienced 55 inmate on inmate assaults during the first six months of 2005.
Obviously, these numbers do not correlate. It may be fruitful for the Chief Inspector to
inquire into the discrepancy between the number of reported inmate on inmate
assaults and the number of initiated investigations .
The following table provides a comparison between the number of inmate on inmate
assaults reported by institutions (top ten only) during the period of January to June of
2005 and the number of investigations initiated in 2003 and 2004 pertaining to inmate on
inmate assaults. Although it is clear that the time periods do not match, there is a strong
possibility that the number of investigations in 2005 will tend to correlate with the
number of investigations initiated in 2003 and 2004.

30
Table 18. Comparison of Reported Number of Inmate on Inmate Assaults in
January through June of 2005 and the Number of Initiated Investigations
Regarding Inmate on Inmate Assaults in 2003 and 2004
Institution

Southern Ohio CF
North Central CI
Oakwood CF
Southeastern CI
Noble CI
Mansfield CI
Richland CI
Ross CI
Lake Erie CI
Madison CI

Reported Number
of Inmate on
Inmate Assaults in
January through
June of 2005
55
20
18
17
15
14
13
13
9
9

Reported Number
of Initiated
Investigations in
CY 2003

Reported Number
of Initiated
Investigations in
CY 2004

0
0
2
23
20
3
14
17
10
29

0
0
2
24
41
2
13
13
21
18

Viewing the above chart, it appears that some institution, such as SCI, NCI, and MaCI,
are investigating most incidents of inmate on inmate assaults. The extreme discrepancy
between the numbers for SOCF, NCCI, OCF, and even ManCI, is not understood.
According to the numbers reported in the Annual Reports, there were 258 total
investigations initiated pertaining to inmate on inmate assault in 2003 and 254 such
investigations in 2004.
B. ASSAULT (INMATE ON STAFF)
“Assault” refers to a variety of actions, including the typical punch, slap, or kick, as well
as spitting or throwing urine. If the assault is of a serious nature, the Investigator may
initiate an investigation, as the following tables portray. Officers may also write a
conduct report for the inmate, which will be heard by a Rules Infraction Board. If the
inmate is found guilty of the rule infraction, he may be subject to a number of penalties,
including segregation placement, an increase in security classification, transfer, etc. Of
course, depending on the severity of the assault, inmates may also be subject to outside
prosecution. Currently, the “throwing of bodily fluids” is considered a fifth degree
felony.

31
Table 19. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Assault Investigations:
Inmate on Staff
Institution
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Madison Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Lorain Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Oakwood Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
Ohio State Penitentiary
Lebanon Correctional Institution

# Of Investigations
22
16
14
12
10
10
9
9
9
8

Table 20. 2003/2004 Comparison of Assault Investigations:
Inmate on Staff
Institution
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Madison Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution

2003
26
12
12
11
11
9
8
7
7
6

2004
22
8
6
10
8
4
10
16
14
7

Change
-4
-4
-6
-1
-3
-5
+2
+9
+7
+1

The reported totals for 2003 and 2004 were 146 and 188, respectively.
ORW, on the other hand, has the highest number of assaults for both years. On the
positive side, it does show that assaults are given formal consideration by DRC staff. On
the opposite side, it would also immediately beg the question as to what steps are being
taken by institutional staff to confront a problem that is clearly serious and ongoing.
Once again, information provided, at the request of the CIIC, by the ODRC pertaining to
inmate on staff assault data during the time period of November 2004 through October
2005 allows for a useful comparison. As in the previous sectio n, it is understood that the
time periods do not quite match; however, certain disturbing trends do become obvious.

32
Table 21. Comparison of Reported Number of Inmate on Staff Assaults from
November of 2004 through October of 2005 and the Number of Initiated
Investigations Regarding Inmate on Staff Assaults in 2003 and 2004
Institution

Southern Ohio CF
Ohio Reformatory
for Women
Ohio State Pen.
Mansfield CI
North Central CI
Chillicothe CI
Lebanon CI
Oakwood CI
Belmont CI
Madison CI

Reported Number
of Inmate on Staff
Assaults from Nov
2004 to Oct 2005
166
44

Reported Number
of Initiated
Investigations in
CY 2003
0
26

Reported Number
of Initiated
Investigations in
CY 2004
0
22

37
34
29
29
24
22
18
15

0
1
0
12
11
3
1
7

9
1
0
6
8
9
5
16

It is understood that "assault" covers a wide range of behavior and not every assault may
require an investigation.
However, this possibility cannot explain the huge
discrepancy in the numbers of SOCF, OSP, ManCI, NCCI, OCF, and BeCI. In fact,
according to further information provided by the ODRC, SOCF reported 130 total inmate
on staff assaults in 2003 and 119 total inmate on staff assaults in 2004, yet not a single
initiated investigation was reported.
If these numbers are accurate, it is extremely disturbing that 166 assaults on staff
have the likelihood of not resulting in a single initiated investigation. If the numbers
are not accurate, corrective action is needed to increase accuracy in the reporting of
the official numbers.
C. SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS
There is reason to believe that sexual assaults have been taken more seriously since the
passage of the Prison Rape Elimination Act in 2003. The DRC enacted two new policies
on Sexual Assault Investigations (79-ISA-01 and –02) to delineate procedures that should
be put in place after any allegation of sexual assault is made. In addition, the policy
ensures that the Ohio State Highway Patrol is brought in to investigate the claims and to
report findings to the local prosecutor.
In follow- up communication from the ODRC Chief Inspector’s Office, it was relayed that
DRC has provided training with respect to sexual assaults for Investigators/OSHP
via Joann Archambault, Training Director, SATI, Inc. at the DRC Best Practices
Institute in March 2006. Actually, two days of training were provided on March 9
and 10, 2006 on the following:

33
•

Sexual Assault Dynamics :
o Effectively Recognizing and Responding to Sexual Assault.
o Developing Skills to Interview Sexual Assault Survivors
o Documenting Sexual Assault – Effective Report Writing

•

Investigating Sexual Assault:
o
o
o
o
o

A Multi-Disciplinary Collaborative Approach
Overcoming Challenges to Collaboration
Impact of DNA on the Sexual Assault Investigation
Sex Offenders: Who Are They?
Tying It All Together

The training also included information on “Dangerous Liaisons,” Victim Interviews,
Investigating Sexual Assault: A Multi- Disciplinary Collaborative Approach,
Collaboration, Community SART Assessment Tool, Impact of DNA on the Sexual
Assault Investigation, Sexual Assault Training and Investigations, Clothing
Documentation, Drug Facilitated Sexual Assault Guide for Forensic Examiners,
Toxicology Requests, Lab Preliminary Rape Case Information and Service, Pretext
Phone Calls, Evidence Assessment, Interpretation and Case Impact, and ODRC Policies
on Inmate Sexual Assault and Misconduct effective July 1, 2005, and Sexual Assault
Committee effective July 1, 2005.
A Sexual Assault Awareness pamphlet distributed by the ODRC states:
Sexual assault as defined by DRC Policy 79-ISA-01 is "Any contact
between the sex organ of one person and the sex organ, mouth or anus of
another person, or any intrusion of any part of the body of one person, or
of any object into the sex organ, mouth or anus of another person, by the
use of force or threat of force." The offender uses sex as a weapon to
assault the body, the mind, psyche and spirit.
Sexual assault affects everyone, either directly or through the experiences
of those we care about. It is not only a women's issue as it can affect
persons of any gender, age, race, ethnic group, socioeconomic status,
sexual orientation, or disability.
The statistics are proof of this problem: According to the National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS), in 2002 there were 247,730 victims of rape
(this number does not include victims 12 or younger), seven out of every
eight rape victims were female, and one in every eight rape victims was
male. A 1998 study indicates that about 2.78 million American men have
experienced an attempted or completed rape and one out of every six
American women have experienced an attempted or completed rape.

34
RAPE AVOIDANCE
The only way rape can be prevented is when a potential rapist chooses
NOT to rape. However, you may avoid an attack by keeping the
following safety guidelines in mind:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Be aware of situations that make you feel uncomfortable. Trust
your instincts. If it feels wrong, LEAVE.
Don't let your manners get in the way of keeping you safe. Don't
be afraid to say "NO" or "STOP IT NOW."
Walk and stand with confidence. Many rapists choose victims
who look like they won't fight back or are emotionally weak.
Avoid talking about sex, and casual nudity. These things may be
considered a come on, or make another inmate believe that you
have an interest in a sexual relationship.
Do not accept commissary items or other gifts from other inmates.
Placing yourself in debt to another inmate can lead to the
expectation of repaying the debt with sexual favors.
Avoid secluded areas. Position yourself in plain view of staff
members. If you are being pressured for sex, report it to a
supervisor immediately.

WHAT TO DO IF YOU ARE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED
If the attack has just happened…
Get to a safe place. REPORT THE ATTACK TO A STAFF
MEMBER IMMEDIATELY. The longer you wait to report the attack
the more difficult it is to obtain the evidence necessary for a criminal
and/or administrative investigation.
Request immediate medical attention. You may have serious injuries that
you are not aware of, and any sexual contact can expose you to sexually
transmitted diseases.
Do not shower, brush your teeth, use the restroom, or change your clothes.
You may destroy important evidence.
If you have been attacked or witness an attack, but you are unwilling to
report it to institutional staff, then you may call (614) 995-3584 from an
inmate telephone to leave a message for central office staff. This line will
be checked daily for messages.

35
Later on…
Seek the support of a trusted friend, family member, or staff member, such
as the chaplain or the victim services coordinator. The days ahead can be
traumatic and it helps to have people who care about you supporting you.
Seek professional help. Mental Health staff is available for crisis care 365
days a year, to listen and offer support.
FACTS FOR THE INMATE THAT SEXUALLY ASSAULTS
OTHER INMATES:
You will be issued a conduct report. If found guilty, sanctions will be
harsh. In addition, your supervision level will be reviewed and likely
increased, which could mean a transfer to a higher security prison or unit
with significantly less freedom of movement and limited privileges. If
you have family, how will this affect them and/or how will it affect their
ability to visit you?
All cases of sexual assault are also referred to the Ohio State Highway
Patrol for criminal investigation. You may be prosecuted and if found
guilty of a felony, any additional prison time will be added to your current
sentence, per the Ohio Revised Code.
Consider that regardless of how you choose to characterize it, sex with a
member of the same sex is a homosexual act. And these acts significantly
increase your risk of HIV infection, along with exposing you to other
sexually transmitted diseases.
If you have trouble controlling your actions, seek help from mental health
staff and/or consider participating in programs designed to control anger
or reduce stress. To reduce immediate feelings of anger or aggression, try
talking to or writing a friend, meditate or do breathing exercises to relax,
work on a hobby, or engage in some type of exercise.

36
Table 22. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Assault Investigations:
Sexual Assault
Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Madison Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
Lorain Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Northeast Pre Release Center
Allen Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution

# Of Investigations
21
13
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
6

The total number of sexual assault investigations in 2004 was 39.
The top ten list of institutions, with the exception of ManCI and CRC, are all Level 1/2
(minimum/medium) security institutions. Making the (perhaps rash) assumption that all
institutions are investigating all allegations that come to them, certain questions are
raised. The general prison rape stereotype is that of being locked in a cell with an
abusive cellie. The greater incidence of sexual assaults in Level 2 institutions, which
mostly house inmates in dorms, leads one to wonder where the assaults occur, given that
a greater number of inmates are together at any given time. More eyes would logically
seem to result in fewer sexual assaults, but the numbers would indicate otherwise. Once
a particular location has been identified as dangerous, what steps have been taken by the
institution to address the issue? Are there any similarities that can be identified to
decrease the incidence rate?
One possibility is that inmates in lower security prisons feel more comfortable in telling
authorities, as their sentences may be shorter. In one particular incident relayed to the
CIIC, an inmate reported a sexual assault after he was released—it may be that inmates
who are still within the system do not feel safe in reporting. Steps need to be taken to
combat this fear and to promote reporting.
Further, it has been suggested in the greater society that men are far less likely than
women to report a rape. If that is the case, all allegations of rape need to be investigated
from the standpoint that the inmate is telling the truth, with a high level of empathy and
counseling. Inmate separations may need to be more amply used, as even
investigations that cannot substantiate the allegations may result in enmity and
reprisals between the inmates.

37
Table 23. 2003/2004 Comparison of Assault Investigations:
Sexual Assault
Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Madison Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Northeast Pre Release Center

2003
6
5
5
5
4
3
2
2
2
1

2004
5
10
9
2
13
7
8
2
1
8

Change
-1
+5
+4
-3
+9
+4
+6
0
-1
+7

The total number of sexual assault investigations jumped from 39 in 2003 to 124 in 2004.
However, the increase in the number of investigations is a positive move, rather than
indicative of a problem. The fact is that sexual assaults do happen in prison. Institutions
need to ensure that each and every allegation is fully investigated, which will obviously
result in a greater number overall of sexual assault investigations.
LaECI jumped from zero reported sexual assault investigations in 2003 to 21 in 2004.
Overall, almost all institutions either stayed the same or increased the number of sexual
assault investigations.
Related to the above note that Level 2 institutions had the lion’s share of the
investigations, OSP and SOCF both reported zero investigations of sexual assaults over
both 2003 and 2004. Once again, SOCF's reported number of initiated investigations
runs counter to the information provided by the ODRC to the CIIC. According to the
information, SOCF reported two "completed sexual assaults" in 2004. Either the assaults
were deemed completed, but were not investigated, or the numbers reported by SOCF to
the Chief Inspector are not accurate.

38
VII. PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS
A. STAFF MISCONDUCT
Table 24. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Professional Misconduct Investigations:
Staff Misconduct
Institution

# Of Investigations

Ohio Reformatory for Women
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Madison Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
Franklin Pre Release Center
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Richland Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution

37
20
20
17
15
14
13
10
8
8

The total number of staff misconduct investigations in 2004 was 237.
Without further details as to what constitutes each of these incidents of staff misconduct,
it is difficult to evaluate this category. Staff misconduct can range from the very serious
to the trivial. CIIC has received letters alleging staff sexual misconduct, staff
embezzlement, and staff sleeping on the job. It is unknown the extent to which an
internal investigation involves an outside investigation by the Highway Patrol, or what
would trigger an outside investigation. Allegations of criminal contact are reported to the
Patrol.
Table 25. 2003/2004 Comparison of Professional Misconduct Investigations:
Staff Misconduct
Institution

2003

2004

Change

Ohio Reformatory for Women
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Richland Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility

40
34
21
14
13
13
11
10
10
10

37
13
7
15
20
6
10
8
6
6

-3
-21
-14
+1
+7
-7
-1
-2
-4
-4

39
The total number of staff misconduct investigations in 2003 was 274, presenting a
decrease of 37 staff misconduct investigations from 2003 to 2004. Hopefully, one may
infer that the number of incidents of staff misconduct similarly fell over the biennium.
ORW is the leading institution for staff misconduct investigations for two straight years.
Although this may indicate a particular problem at this institution, the high number of
investigations is promising in that it implies that action is taken in response to allegations
of staff misconduct. Hopefully the increased Investigator diligence will aid in deterring
staff misconduct.
OCF’s presence as the number two institution is extremely disturbing. OCF is a
facility specifically for the mentally ill within the correctional system. This
population is extremely vulnerable to victimization, and they are handicapped in
terms of credibility when they report such incidents. It may be more difficult for
inmates to make reports—both in coherently forming the allegation as well as simply
realizing that an allegation needs to be made—and it probably is more difficult to obtain
corroborating testimony. It is hoped that all allegations, no matter how potentially
unlikely, are investigated.
CRC’s presence on the top ten list is also interesting as CIIC does not receive many
letters from the institution and the inmates did not report high use of the grievance
procedure during CIIC’s inspection. Thus, although they are apparently unwilling to use
the grievance procedure, they may perhaps still feel able to air concerns pertaining to
staff misconduct.
B. STAFF/INMATE RELATIONSHIPS
Table 26. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Professional Misconduct Investigations:
Staff/Inmate Relationships
Institution
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Madison Correctional Institution
Lorain Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
Franklin Pre Release Center
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution

# Of Investigations
21
16
13
12
9
8
7
7
7
6

Clearly, the above numbers demonstrate that allegations of staff/inmate relationships are
investigated. Numerous inmate letters report names, places, and dates in intimate detail.
It should not need to be said that staff/inmate relationships are perilous to the security of
the institution.

40

In addition, it is a concern on which side the burden falls more heavily. In conduct
reports and appeals sent to CIIC by inmates, the record seems to show that most
investigations conclude that no relationship existed, but the inmate is given a conduct
report for attempting to establish a relationship and is rode out to a higher security
institution.
Table 27. 2003/2004 Comparison of Professional Misconduct Investigations:
Staff/Inmate Relationships
Institution
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Franklin Pre Release Center
Madison Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
Northeast Pre Release Center
Allen Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution

2003
37
22
18
14
13
13
12
11
9
9

2004
21
4
7
16
8
7
3
6
7
3

Change
-16
-18
-11
+2
-5
-6
-9
-5
-2
-6

ORW outnumbers the other institutions. Thirty-seven investigations of staff/inmate
relationships serve as a red flag that there is a problem at the institution. After a year of
37 investigations, one would think that the number would drastically reduce, if the
institution had made a point that relationships would not be tolerated. It is hoped that the
high number of investigations is an indication of the institution attempting to make this
point.
Female-only institutions have a strong presence. ORW, FPRC, and NEPRC rank in
the top ten on this list, as they rank together on no other list. The potential for male and
female officers to abuse the authority given to them is huge and clearly needs to be
addressed on a system- wide basis.
Rather than single investigations of illicit behavior, it may be necessary to engage in
extensive staff training on the dangers of staff/inmate relationships . Institutions need
to increase the peer pressure against the behavior.
In follow-up communication from the DRC Chief Inspector’s Office regarding
staff/inmate relationships, it was relayed that unauthorized relationships are covered in
pre-service, in-service, etc. It was also noted that both inmates and staff are advised
of the seriousness of this issue as is noted by the fact that DRC has several Standards
of Employee Conduct including #46 that re late to this area.
The actual content of the Employee Standards of Conduct is not in any DRC
Administrative Rule or in any DRC Policy. The most recent ODRC Standards of

41
Employee Conduct became effective on October 17, 2004. The 18 page document
includes the following subheadings: Purpose, Responsibilities, Personal Conduct,
Responsiveness, Illegal Activities, Conveying or Trafficking in Contraband,
Investigations, Confidentiality, Government Property, Outside employment, Schedule of
Rule Violations and Penalties, Progressive Discipline, Penalties within the Discipline
Process, and Disciplinary Grid Absenteeism Track.
Number 46 cited above by the ODRC staff as relevant to the subject, is titled
“Unauthorized Relationships” in the “Disciplinary Grid Performance Track” and is
itemized as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

The exchange of personal letters, pictures, phone calls, or information with any
individual currently under the supervision of the Department or friends of family
of same, without express authorization of the Department
Engaging in any other unauthorized personal or business relationship(s) with any
individual currently under the supervision of the Department or friends or family
of same.
Visiting with any individual under the supervision of the Department without
express authorization of the Department.
Residing with any individual currently under the supervision of the Department
without express authorization of the Department.
Committing any sexual act with any individual under the supervision of the
Department.
Engaging in any other sexual contact or misconduct with any individual under the
supervision of the Department.
Aiding and abetting any unauthorized relationships.
For APA employees, without the express authorization of the appropriate
supervisor, engaging in any personal or business relationship(s) with any
individual currently under the supervision of the department or with any
individual under the supervision of any other criminal justice agency.

There is a DRC policy titled “Employee Standards of Conduct,” (31-SEM-02) which
requires DRC employees “to conduct themselves in a professional, law-abiding manner,”
and to “follow the Standards of Employee Conduct.” It further states that, “Failure to
comply with the Standards of Employee Conduct shall result in discipline, up to and
including removal.” The policy states that:
Upon employment, all employees will receive a copy of the Employee
Standards of Conduct during pre-service training. The standards will be
reviewed with all employees at that time. The employee shall sign an
acknowledgement form stating that a copy of the standards was received
and reviewed. It is the responsibility of the employee to further familiarize
themselves with the contents of the standards.

42
In addition, the DRC follow- up communication noted that several Inmate Rule Violations
including rule # 24, are specific to this area. Administrative Rule 5120-9-06 titled,
“Inmate Rules of Conduct,” presents rule # 24 as “Establishing or attempting to
establish a personal relationship with an employee, without authorization from the
managing officer, including but not limited to:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Sending personal mail to an employee at his or her residence or another address
not associated with the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.
Making a telephone call to or receiving a telephone call from an employee at his
or her residence or other location not associated with the Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction.
Giving to, or receiving from an employee, any item, favor, or service.
Engaging in any form of business with an employee; including buying, selling, or
trading any item or service.
Engaging in, or soliciting sexual conduct, sexual contact or any act of a sexual
nature with an employee.
For purposes of this rule “employee” includes any employee of the Depart6ment
and any contractor, employee of a contractor, or volunteer.

Further, in follow-up communication from the DRC Chief Inspector’s office, it was
relayed that DRC Policy 31-SEM-07 on Unauthorized Relationships has reportedly been
in effect for approximately 10 years. The policy defines Sexual Misconduct, Sexual
Contact, Sexual Assault, and Unauthorized Relationship. An Unauthorized Relationship
is defined as:
A relationship with any individual under the supervision of the
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (department) and in the case
of an APA employee, a relationship with any individual under the
supervision of any criminal justice agency, which has not been approved
by the Managing Officer/APA Regional Administrator in writing.
The policy itself states that:
Department employees, independent contractors and volunteers will
maintain appropriate authorized relationships with offenders in order to
assure fairness, integrity, credibility and security in the work place. All
employees, volunteers and independent contractors are expected to have a
clear understanding that the department considers any type of
unauthorized relationship with an individual under department
supervision to be a serious breach of the standards of employee
conduct and these relationships will not be tolerated. Engaging in an
unauthorized relationship may result in employment termination and
or termination of the contractual or volunteer status.

43
Prohibitions cited in the policy consist of the following:
•

Engaging in any personal or business relationship(s) with any individual currently
under the supervision of the department, or in the case of APA employees,
engaging in same with an individual under the supervision of the department or
any other criminal justice agency i.e. “offenders”, as defined by this policy.

•

Prohibited activities include but are not limited to:
o Exchange of personal letters, pictures, telephone calls, or personal
information with an offender;
o Visiting with any offender;
o Entering into a business enterprise with an offender;
o Residing with an offender;
o Committing any sexual act with an offender;
o Engaging in any other sexual contact or misconduct with an offender;
o Aiding and abetting any unauthorized relationship.

The above referenced policy on unauthorized relationships also addresses staff training as
follows:
The Corrections Training Academy (CTA) will develop and utilize
standardized lesson plans for pre-service and in-service to address
inappropriate staff/offender relationships. All lesson plans or material used
for the training shall be approved by the Superintendent of the CTA. Each
work location will reinforce the importance of this policy during the
orientation phase of their training for new employees, independent
contractors, and volunteers. Each work location will further address this
topic during annual in-service training.
Regarding offender education, the policy states:
•

Inmates will be advised during orientation that unauthorized relationships
are prohibited. They will be instructed on the procedure for reporting
unauthorized relationships. This information will also be included in the
inmate handbook/manual.

•

During the initial meeting with their supervising officers, offenders under
the supervision of the Adult Parole Authority will be advised that
unauthorized relationships with department employees are prohibited.
Offenders under supervision will be instructed on the procedure for
reporting unauthorized relationships.

44
The policy provides the following on the reporting of potential unauthorized
relationships:
Any employee, contractor or volunteer who becomes aware of or
reasonably suspects that another employee, contractor or volunteer is
involved in an unauthorized relationship has an affirmative duty to
immediately report any such knowledge or suspicion to their
Appointing Authority/DPCS Section Chief or APA Regional
Administrator for appropriate action.
Inmates may report any knowledge or suspicion of an unauthorized
relationship to any staff member. This information shall immediately be
communicated to one of the following: the Inspector of Institutional
Services, the Investigator, or the Managing Officer. Offenders under APA
supervision shall report this information to the Unit Supervisor or
Regional Administrator.
Employees who fail to report knowledge of a potential unauthorized
relationship or withhold information concerning a potential
unauthorized relationship may be subject to disciplinary action, up to
and including removal. In the case of contractors or volunteers, they may
be subject to suspension of their volunteer status or termination of their
contract.
The total number of staff/inmate relationship investigations reported by the 2003 and
2004 Annual Reports is 229 and 186, respectively.

45
VIII. “OTHER” INVESTIGATIONS
Table 28. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by "Other" Investigations
Institution

# Of
Investigations

Ohio State Penitentiary
Madison Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Corrections Medical Center
Belmont Correctional Institution
Lorain Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution

555
430
315
301
276
264
259
206
186
183

Percent of Total
Number of Initiated
Investigations
95.2
79.9
75.7
69.0
77.3
75.0
95.9
60.2
70.7
62.5

The title of "Other" is purposefully vague to provide a "miscellaneous" category for
Investigators. For general knowledge and clarification, Lorain Correctional Institution
reported that in CY 2005, its "Other" investigations included: Escape Plans, BWC Fraud,
Attempted Suicide, STG Problem, STG Homeland Security, and Inmate Death. This
small sampling gives a taste for the possible topics involved at the other institutions. In
addition, it appears that the vast majority of "Other" investigations pertain to background
checks. In CY 2005, for example, Lorain Correctional Institution reported that of its 498
total "Other" investigations, 489 were background checks.
This is probably
representative of other institutions.
Table 29. 2003/2004 Comparison of "Other" Investigations
Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Ohio State Penitentiary
Noble Correctional Institution
Corrections Medical Center
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Southern Ohio Correctio nal Facility
Ohio Reformatory for Women

2003
436
416
378
314
246
187
157
124
119
103

2004
206
555
301
259
315
83
183
276
56
29

Change
-230
+139
-77
-55
+69
-104
+26
+152
-63
-74

The totals reported in the Chief Inspector Annual Reports for "Other" Investigations are
3,147 initiated investigations in 2003 and 3,959 initiated investigations in 2004.

46
IX. SEARCHES, SHAKEDOWNS, DRUGS AND ALCOHOL CONFISCATED
The following sections present the data provided pertaining to Searches, Shakedowns,
and Drugs and Alcohol confiscated during CY 2003 and 2004. The following areas are
covered: Canine Searches, Visitor Strip/Patdown, Employee Strip/Patdown, Major
Shakedown, Marijuana, Crack/Cocaine, Heroin, Illicit Pills, and Hooch.
In addition to the above contraband, the 2003 Report states that other contraband
confiscated in CY 2003 included: four cellphones, 14 rounds of ammunition,
$1,210.25 in cash, 14 tattoo guns, and three syringes. The 2004 Report states that
other contraband confiscated included: 1 cellphone, 1 handgun and ammunition,
$40.98 in cash, 109 shanks, and 14 syringes.
A. CANINE SEARCHES
Table 30. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Canine Searches
Institution
Lorain Correctional Institution
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Belmont Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Grafton Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution

# Of Searches
13
13
11
8
8
8
8
6
6
5

Table 31. 2003/2004 Comparison of Canine Searches
Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Lorain Correctional Institution
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Warren Correctional Institution
Grafton Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Allen Correctional Institution
Dayton Correctional Institution

2003
12
12
12
12
11
6
5
5
4
4

2004
6
13
13
8
8
11
8
4
2
0

Change
-6
+1
+1
-4
-3
+5
+3
-1
-2
-4

Although the issue of canine searches is not often raised with CIIC, it may be that canine
searches are an asset not sufficiently employed. As will be discussed in later tables,

47
institutions need to be encouraged to perform more searches for illegal substances so as
to best limit the flow of drugs into the facilities. Institutions may wish to consider using
canines more often. Prison staff recommended to the CIIC years ago that canines posted
as the entry building as a deterrent to drug smuggling attempts.
B. EMPLOYEE STRIP/PATDOWNS
Table 32. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Employee Strip/Patdowns
Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
Lorain Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Grafton Correctional Institution

# Of Strip/Patdowns
51
12
5
4
3
3
3
2
1
1

For the record, the “top ten” institutions are also the only institutions that reported
performing any employee strip/patdowns. All other institutions reported zero initiated
investigations for CY 2004.
NCCI far and away has the most reported employee strip/patdowns in 2004. This is most
likely related to the reported 202 positive urinalyses. Clearly, a drug issue was identified
at NCCI and it is being addressed. Given the previously quoted percentage of full-time
employed Americans who abuse illegal drugs (7.7%), it is far more likely that NCCI is on
the right track than that the other institutions do not have any problems. It is better to be
more assertive and to have investigations prove inconclusive or unwarranted than to
allow the presence of drugs to increase and infect any institution.
An inmate wrote to the CIIC,
[One way to bring in drugs is with a] thermos…You know that bottle
guards bring hot coffee in to work. Then you got the heel of a shoe. COs
bring it in. No one checks their heels. And the best way I've known is the
belt…Staff and COs bring it in. The females never get checked in their
vagina, never, unless she's hot, meaning under investigation. But that's
almost unheard of. The only way she will get caught is because some
jealous inmate tells on her…
Of course, DRC employees most likely do not want to be subjected to random, frequent
strip or patdowns. Yet the institutions have an obligation to provide a “secure”
environment—this includes limiting the entry of illegal drugs into the institution.

48

Compared to the other tables, it is very surprising that there are not more strip/patdowns
conducted. PCI, which in 2004 reported eight investigations for staff drug use and
17 investigations for drug movement between staff and inmates, only reports two
employee strip/patdowns during the entire year. Likewise, LeCI reported 20
investigations regarding drugs pertaining to staff/inmates, and yet reportedly
performed absolutely no employee strip/patdowns. If the number of investigations
indicates that there is an issue with staff and drug trafficking, it may prove fruitful
for the institution to check staff as they enter and leave the institution.
Table 33. 2003/2004 Comparison of Employee Strip/Patdowns
Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Corrections Medical Center

2003

2004

Change

3
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0

4
5
0
0
2
1
3
12
0
0

+1
+4
-1
-1
+1
0
+3
+12
0
0

The 2003 numbers are even lower than the 2004 numbers. As shown above, the highest
number of employee strip/patdowns conducted was three. Again, PCI, as just one
example, reported nine investigations regarding conveyance of drugs between staff
and inmates, and yet only reported one employee strip/patdown for the entire year.
If strip searches and patdowns are too uncomfortable and provoke sincere staff
discontent, institutions need to find other ways to check their employees. Perhaps the
previously discussed canine searches could be used to check staff and staff possessions.

49
C. VISITOR STRIP/PATDOWNS
Table 34. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Visitor Strip/Patdowns
Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
Lebanon Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution

# Of Strip/Patdowns
21
10
6
5
5
4
4
4
3
3

This table is also somewhat enigmatic in comparison with the other tables. LeCI, for
example, reported a grand total of 82 drug investigations pertaining to inmates and
visitors in 2004, and yet only performed a reported six visitor strip/patdowns. WCI is
closer to the mark—34 inmate/visitor drug investigations and 21 visitor strip/patdowns.
Still, even that seems low, given the higher security level of the institution.
Understandably, strip searches are extremely intrusive on a person’s sense of privacy—
but why not perform more patdowns?
An inmate wrote to CIIC:
A lot of girlfriends and/or wife get caught. How they do this is they bring
it in by putting it in their vagina. First, they buy some small package of
balloons at a party store [and] pack it full of coke, weed, and/or pills. I've
known women [who] packed heroin. Once she has packed the small
balloons and tied it tight, she puts them into her vagina and walks in. She
can put, I'm told, up to 10-15 small balloons. These balloons are very
small. So when the man she is seeing comes over to her table, she buys a
bag of popcorn and a Coke for him to drink. She slips the balloons into
the bag one by one and he pretends to eat popcorn when in fact he is
swallowing the balloons and taking a drink to make it go down easy.
Afterwards, he goes back to his block or dorm and throw it up by drinking
shampoo. Now he has a street value of maybe some 6-8 thousand dollars
worth of drugs…
Similar to LeCI, other institutions report low numbers of strip/patdowns. PCI
reports 21 investigations of inmate/visitor drug conveyance, yet only one
strip/patdown; RiCI, 20 inmate/visitor drug investigations and three visitor
strip/patdowns; ManCI, 14 inmate/visitor drug investigations and four visitor
strip/patdowns.

50
As with the employees, if strip searches and patdowns are considered to be too intrusive
to the privacy of the visitor, then other creative means needs to be used to ensure that
illegal substances—which threaten lives, rehabilitation, and the security of the
institution—are not entering the institution through visitors.
Table 35. 2003/2004 Comparison of Visitor Strip/Patdowns
Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Dayton Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution

2003

2004

Change

7
6
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
2

6
21
5
2
0
4
3
3
4
3

-1
+15
0
-2
-4
0
0
0
+1
+1

Similar objections can be made to the 2003 numbers. In fact, the highest number of
visitor strip/patdowns fell to a mere seven. LeCI and WCI both reported 53
investigations pertaining to visitor/inmate drug trafficking, yet only seven and six,
respectively, visitor strip/patdowns.
D. MAJOR SHAKEDOWNS
Table 36. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Major Shakedowns
Institution
Madison Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Ohio State Penitentiary
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Richland Correctional Institution
Grafton Correctional Institution
Lorain Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution

# Of Major
Shakedowns
8
7
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
2

Shakedowns are an important institutional tool. Shakedowns ensure that inmates
do not become complacent, that inmates are aware that the rules are going to be
enforced, and that stockpiled weapons and drugs will be found and confiscated.
MaCI is to be praised for committing the time and staff resources to performing

51
eight shakedowns during one year. In fact, all of the top ten institutions are to be
praised—even just two shakedowns a year will surely have an effect upon inmate
weapon and drug stockpiling.
More surprising is the fact that 13 institutions reported zero shakedowns for the
entire calendar year, including SOCF (the maximum security facility) and six Level
3 facilities (CRC, LeCI, ORW, RCI, ToCI, and WCI).
Table 37. 2003/2004 Comparison of Major Shakedowns
Institution
Madison Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Ohio State Penitentiary
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
Hocking Correctional Facility
Dayton Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution

2003

2004

Change

8
7
5
5
4
3
3
3
2
2

8
7
5
1
0
0
4
0
0
2

0
0
0
-4
-4
-3
+1
-3
-2
0

MaCI showed consistent dedication to performing shakedowns, as did LoCI, OSP,
ACI, and ManCI. It is interesting that an institution would perform four
shakedowns in one year and none in the next, such as CCI. It is also interesting that
while MaCI had eight shakedowns in a year, a facility dedicated to substance
abusers such as NCCTF reports only one in 2003 and two in 2004.
Regrettably, the following institutions reported zero major shakedowns for two years
consecutivle:
• LeCI
• ORW
• WCI
• MCI
• CRC
• MEPRC
Why two Level 3 facilities (LeCI and WCI) and two facilities that cater to all
security levels (ORW and CRC) performed no shakedowns in two years or did not
report any shakedowns is not understood.

52
E. MARIJUANA
Table 38. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Amount of Marijuana Confiscated
Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution

Marijuana Confiscated (oz.)
23.24
13.11
13.0
12.77
10.69
8.76
8.0
2.72
2.25
1.57

The Chief Inspector’s 2004 Report states that a total of 99.68 oz. (6.23 lbs) were
confiscated during CY 2004. The Report also notes that several institutions also reported
the confiscation of marijuana joints and balloons that were not weighed.
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s 2006 Ohio factsheet reports:
Marijuana continues to be the most widely abused and readily available
illicit drug throughout the state of Ohio. The available supply of marijuana
ranges from pound to multi- hundred pound quantities. Ohio is a source
area for marijuana. The rural areas of Ohio provide an adequate
environment for the outdoor cultivation of cannabis, most of which occurs
in the southern part of the state. In northern Ohio, the use of hydroponics
and other sophisticated indoor growing techniques that produce sinsemilla
with a high THC content continues to increase. Mexican marijuana is also
frequently encountered in the state of Ohio. The marijuana is shipped from
the southwest border states. Large quantities are shipped into Ohio mainly
overland, and smaller quantities through package delivery services and the
mail. Mexican criminal groups are the dominant wholesale suppliers of
marijuana in Ohio. They supply multi- hundred kilogram quantities of
marijuana to most districts throughout the state. Local independent and
Jamaican criminal groups also are responsible for shipping and
distributing wholesale amounts of marijuana into Ohio in multi-kilogram
quantities. Ounce quantities of marijuana sell between $100-$250, pound
quantities $800-$4000… 3
NCCI continues to lead the pack in terms of drug investigations, but whether that is due
to greater institutional diligence in confiscating the drugs or due to a greater presence of
3

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration 2006 Ohio Factsheet. Accessed at:
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/states/ohio.html

53
illegal substances is currently unknown. Also, it should be noted that of the top ten
institutions, all but two are Level 2 (medium) security institutions.
Using the numbers provided by the DEA, the street price range of the confiscated
marijuana ranges from $4,984 to $24,920. And, considering the fact that all commodities
tend to be more expensive in prison, especially those that are illegal, it is likely that the
total utility value of the assets exchanged verges toward the high end of the economic
estimate. An inmate reported to CIIC that one joint could be sold for $10.00.
Table 39. 2003/2004 Comparison of Confiscated Marijuana
Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution

2003
24.46
13.5
9.5
8.37
8.04
7.67
6.7
6.0
5.84
3.09

2004
0.76
0.21
8.67
2.72
2.25
13.11
0.0
13.0
23.24
0.80

The Chief Inspector’s Report states that a total of 103.465 oz. (6.47 lbs) were confiscated
during CY 2003. Again, this number does not take into account the confiscation of
marijuana joints and balloons that were not weighed. The street value of the marijuana
confiscated, again using the DEA 2006 numbers, ranges from $5,176 to $25,880.
Viewing the above numbers, SCI had a sudden drop in the amount of marijuana
confiscated, dropping from 24.46 oz. to 0.76 oz. LeCI also experienced a similar drop.
No reason is given for this decrease. Certainly, as previously viewed, it is not due to the
number of shakedowns that LeCI performs, as it performed no ne. However, LeCI was
the leader in inmate/visitor drug investigations over both years. Perhaps the higher
profile of the investigations reduced inmates’ willingness to engage in illegal drug
conveyance. That said, it is surprising that given the increase in investigations from 2003
to 2004, LeCI dropped from 13.5 oz. to 0.21 oz. Logic would dictate that more
investigations would result in more drugs confiscated.

54
F. CRACK/COCAINE
Table 40. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Confiscated Crack/Cocaine
Institution
Crack/Cocaine Confiscated (Grams)
Ross Correctional Institution
15.44
North Central Correctional Institution
7.6
Pickaway Correctional Institution
3.0
London Correctional Institution
2.0
Noble Correctional Institution
1.0+
Mansfield Correctional Institution
1.0
Lebanon Correctional Institution
1.0
Richland Correctional Institution
0.901
Lorain Correctional Institution
0.56
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
0.4
The Chief Inspector’s Report states that a total of 32.901 grams of cocaine were
confiscated during CY 2004. The following excerpt is from the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration’s 2006 Ohio factsheet:
Cocaine HCL and crack combined constitute the greatest drug threat in
Ohio. Cocaine is transported into Ohio from the southwest border,
including California and Texas, as well as from Miami, Florida and New
York City. Detroit, Michigan and Chicago, Illinois serve as transshipment
points and distribution centers for cocaine shipped from the southwest
border and transported throughout Ohio. Mexican and Dominican criminal
groups and to a lesser extent other ethnic criminal groups are the principal
transporters and wholesale distributors of multi-kilogram quantities of
powdered cocaine in Ohio. Gram quantities sell between $100-$120,
ounce quantities, $750-$1400, and kilograms $22,500 - $32,000. The
purity levels for cocaine HCL range from 32.54 to 72.75 percent. Purity
levels for crack cocaine range from 19 to 63.7 percent. The Ohio
Department of Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services data indicates that
the number of treatment admissions for cocaine abuse for 2003 was 9,879.
Although RCI tops the list for the amount of crack/cocaine confiscated, NCCI continued
to portray significant drug problems, as it is second on the list. PCI, as with marijuana
confiscated, reports a high amount of crack/cocaine in comparison with the other
institutions.
According to the above price range reported by the DEA, the street price range of the
amount of crack/cocaine confiscated ranges from $3,290 to $3,948. As with the other
drugs, the street price range is most likely lower than the actual economic value of assets
exchanged for the illegal substances in prison. An inmate reported to CIIC that one small
rock could be sold for $25.00-50.00.

55
The reported Latino concentration of the drug traffickers is particularly interesting in that
Latino gangs have not been big players in the Ohio corrections system until the most
recent years. In a recent CIIC meeting that included testimony from the DRC Central
Office STG Coordinator, the top six identified gangs within the DRC by population do
not include a Latino-affiliated group. 4
The current relationship between Latino
traffickers and the other ethnic-based gangs is not known. However, inmate letters have
reported that Latino groups are accepted by both black and white groups, as Latinos are
reportedly viewed as belonging to neither and thus are not “tainted” by the race war.
As the DEA reports a Latino connection to crack/cocaine trafficking, a quick survey of
the ethnic populations of the institutions was performed. The ethnic populations do not
correlate to the reported amount of crack/cocaine confiscated. As of March 18, 2006, the
ODRC website reports the following Hispanic population numbers for the above
institutions:
Institutions
Hispanic Population
Mansfield Corr. Inst.
83
Lorain Corr. Inst.
80
Lebanon Corr. Inst.
72
North Central Corr. Inst.
72
London Corr. Inst.
28
Pickaway Corr. Inst.
27
Ross Corr. Inst.
24
North Coast Corr. Treatment Facility
14
Noble Corr. Inst.
0
Richland Corr. Inst.
0
Table 41. 2003/2004 Comparison of Confiscated Crack/Cocaine (grams)
Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution

2003
44.4
19.55
12.07
6.54
5.0
3.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.6

2004
0.0
0.0
15.44
0.901
0.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
Trace

As shown above, WCI reported a large amount of crack/cocaine confiscated in 2003.
The subsequent 2004 report is therefore significant. Perhaps the strict treatment by the
4

The top six identified Security Threat Groups (gangs) in the ODRC are: Aryan Brotherhood, White
Supremacist, FOLKS, People, Crips, and Bloods.

56
institution in 2003 resulted in a brief lapse in trafficking in 2004. ToCI reports a similar
sudden decrease.
The Chief Inspector reported a total of 95.1 grams confiscated in CY 2003. Using the
DEA’s 2006 price ranges, the street price of the crack/cocaine confiscated in 2003 ranged
from $9,510 to $11,412.
G. HEROIN
Table 42. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Confiscated Heroin
Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Trumbull Correctional Institution

Heroin Confiscated (Grams)
8.5
8.5
8.5
3.0
2.0
1.6
1.1
1 packet
Trace
0.0

The Chief Inspector reports a total of 33.2 grams of heroin confiscated in CY 2004. It
should be noted that the rest of the institutions not listed above reported that they did not
confiscate any heroin during CY 2004. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration 2006
Ohio fact sheet reports:
Heroin distribution and abuse are increasing in Ohio. Heroin signature
analysis indicates that South American and Mexican black tar are
prevalent in the northern Ohio region. In the southern Ohio region
Mexican black tar heroin is predominant. Dominican criminal groups
control the distribution of South American heroin, while Mexican criminal
groups control the distribution of Mexican black tar heroin. At the retaillevel, African-American, Dominican, and Mexican criminal groups are
involved in heroin distribution. Heroin is shipped into Ohio from major
distribution centers such as Chicago, Detroit, New York and various cities
along the southwest border. Heroin is also transported on commercial
airline flights into Ohio. Wholesalers use major Ohio cities such as
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Toledo as distribution centers for
smaller cities in and outside the state. Gram quantities sell between $140$250 and ounce quantities $2400-$7000. The purity levels range from 23.5
to 57 percent . The Ohio Department of Alcohol and Drug Addiction
Services data indicates the number of treatment admissions for heroin
abuse increased overall from 6,878 in 2002 to 7,416 in 2003.

57
According to the DEA reported price range, the
ranges from $4,648 to $8,300. As stated with all
to the limited ability to traffick drugs into the
exchanged for the substances probably verges on
even higher.

street price of the heroin confiscated
other illegal substances discussed, due
prison, the total value of the assets
the high end of the price range, if not

Given the DEA note that the trafficking of heroin tends to be concentrated in Latinoaffiliated ethnic groups, an analysis of the population of that particular subgroup could be
interesting. However, as the institutions are primarily the same as discussed in the
trafficking of crack/cocaine, it can be surmised that the Hispanic inmate population
numbers also do not correlate to the amount of reported heroin confiscated.
Table 43. 2003/2004 Comparison of Confiscated Heroin
Institutions

2003

2004

Mansfield Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institut ion
Toledo Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution

8.5
8.0
5.9
4.97
4.0
3.2
2.0
1.0
0.3
0.0

8.5
0.0
3.0
1.6
8.5
8.5
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Reviewing the above numbers, it is interesting that ManCI reported confiscating the exact
same amount of heroin from one year to the next.
H. ILLICIT PILLS
Table 44. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Co nfiscated Illicit Pills
Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
London Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Grafton Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution

Illicit Pills Confiscated
349
76
6
5
5
4
2
0
0
0

58
Clearly, RCI tops the chart with the number of illicit pills confiscated. It should be noted
that all other institutions not listed above reported confiscating zero illicit pills in CY
2004. However, it seems extremely doubtful that RCI would have a massive
proliferation of illicit pills while the vast majority of the other institutions would have no
illicit pill problem whatsoever.
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration reported the following on club drugs and
Oxycontin in its 2006 Ohio factsheet:
The use of Club Drugs such as Ecstasy (MDMA), GHB, Ketamine, and
LSD has steadily increased in Ohio. Club Drugs are growing in popularity
among young adults and juveniles, particularly in most urban areas of the
state where “Rave” parties are also increasing. MDMA is the club drug of
choice and represents the greatest future threat to Ohio’s youth. Most
MDMA available in Ohio is produced outside the United States, typically
in laboratories in the Netherlands and Belgium and transported through
express mail services and by couriers on commercial airlines through
distribution centers such as Miami, New York City, Philadelphia, and
Washington, D.C. MDMA also reaches Ohio from Canada via New York
and is transported via the interstate highways and public modes of
transportation. Most traffickers of MDMA are loose-knit independent
entrepreneurs. Retail dealers typically are suburban teenagers, usually high
school or college students. The pills are sold at an average of $25 per pill.
The diversion and abuse of OxyContin represent a significant drug threat
in Ohio. OxyContin, a powerful pain reliever whose effects are the same
as other opiate derivatives, is obtained legally through prescriptions as
well as illegally on the street. Formerly seen as a drug of abuse primarily
among the Caucasian population, law enforcement officials in Ohio report
increasing abuse among African Americans. According to the Ohio
Department of Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services, youth abusers of
OxyContin have begun abusing heroin since they can no longer obtain or
afford OxyContin. Continued incidents of overdoses and drug-related
deaths were reported throughout the state during 2003. Also, a direct
connection between abuse of this drug and drug-related robberies has been
established.
The Chief Inspector reported a total of 447 illicit pills confiscated in CY 2004. Given the
above estimate of $25 per pill of Ecstasy, it is possible that the 447 pills have a total
estimated value of $11,175. However, the illicit pills are not delineated by type of drug
and thus cannot truly be estimated.
Given the above stated possibility that the pills exist in the prison system but are not
being confiscated, as well as the high lucrative potential and the ease of transporting pills
that can be easily disguised as legal substances, it is hoped that the ODRC works toward

59
improving its ability to identify and confiscate any illicit pills currently available to
inmates.
Table 45. 2003/2004 Comparison of Confiscated Illicit Pills
Institutions
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Ross Correctional Institution
Grafton Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Corrections Medical Center

2003
152
137
128
60
23
22
15
10
7
6

2004
0
349
0
0
0
5
0
0
5
0

As previously noted, the sudden drop in the numbers from one year to the next—for
example, SOCF reported 152 pills confiscated in 2003 and 0 in 2004—is disturbing. It is
hoped that the high number of pills confiscated in one year would have dissuaded the
inmates from trafficking. However, given the chemical dependency that illegal
substances engender, it seems unlikely; it seems more likely that the inmates became
more crafty in their methods of distributing the pills.
In CY 2003, the Chief Inspector reported 565 illicit pills confiscated in the ODRC
system. Given the $25 per pill estimate, the total estimated value of the pills is $14,125.
However, again, this estimate is extremely rough as the exact nature of the confiscated
pills is unknown.
I. HOOCH
Table 46. 2004 Top Ten Institutions by Confiscated Hooch
Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution

Hooch Confiscated (Gallons)
243.0
224.0
126.0
82.34
55.0
38.3
8.5
6.0
1.75
0.0

60
The Chief Inspector’s Report makes note that the confiscation and destruction of hooch
varies across institutions and may have not included Investigator involvement. As such,
a zero may only indicate that the Investigator did not have any involvement in the
confiscation and destruction.
According to the Report, a total of 784.86 gallons of hooch were confiscated. It
should be noted that all other institutions not listed above reported confiscating 0
gallons of hooch.
An SOCF inmate writes,
The inmates in this block are cooking prison wine. I hear they need 150
packs of sugar. To make good wine, you need sugar, orange juice, prunes,
bread (rice will be okay), and saltine crackers. Why crackers? Crackers
have yeast in it. And that's the main thing you need, is yeast. You put all
this stuff in a plastic bag. You must keep it hot and burp it at least two
times a day. After seven to ten days, the wine has cooked and if you keep
it cooking for about 14-17 days, you have wine that is 100% proof. One
glass is enough to get you drunk. Back in the day when I learned how to
make wine…we sold it for two packs a glass.
Verbally, SOCF staff reported hooch confiscation to CIIC, indiciating that it was quite
frequent. However, in the Chief Inspector's Report of 2003 and 2004, SOCF reported
confiscating zero gallons of hooch in both years.
Table 47. 2003/2004 Comparison of Confiscated Hooch
Institutions
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution

2003 2004
224.0 224.0
150.0 243.0
113.3 55.0
92.5 82.34
58.5
6.0
34.0
0.0
32.3 38.3
30.0
0.0
22.5 1.75
16.5
8.5

As with the amount of heroin confiscated between 2003 and 2004, it is interesting that
ManCI reports confiscating the exact same amount of hooch, to the gallon, in both 2003
and 2004. The accuracy is therefore questionable.

61
X. RESOURCES
Correctional Institution Inspection Committee. "Review of Assault Data." Accessed at:
http://www.ciic.state.oh.us/publications/assaultdata06.pdf.

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. "Drug Use." Found at:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/du.htm

National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Fifty States report. Accessed at:
http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/StatesList.htm

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. Ohio 2006 Factsheet. Accessed at:
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/states/ohio.ht ml.

62
XI. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Chief Inspector's Office needs to perform its own evaluation of the Institutional
Investigators' reported numbers. From the Annual Reports, it does not appear that any
real analysis is performed, nor does it provide any recommendations for improvement, or
really any sentiment of expectation of improvement. Questions need to be asked and
answered regarding the discrepancy in numbers, both between institutions as well as
between years. If the low numbers of some institutions are in fact accurate, then the
institutions deserve praise and their methods should be examined for best practices
recommendations. If the low numbers are in fact the result of non-reporting, then the
Chief Inspector's Office needs to take action to ensure that future years' numbers are
more accurate.
Further, greater analysis needs to be made of the large number of investigations that fall
under the "Other" category. Perhaps additional categories need to be added to provide
greater detail.
The following areas need improvement:
•

Accurate Reporting : The overall conclusion generated in reviewing the numbers
of both 2003 and 2004 is that there is a real lack of accurate reporting. As relayed
in the report, one institution reported the exact same amount of heroin (grams)
and hooch (gallons) confiscated in both 2003 and 2004. Institutions that are
known for problems report no problems whatsoever. Numbers jump by the
hundreds from one year to the next. If, on the other hand, the numbers are
accurate, lessons can be learned from the dramatic differences.

•

Urinalyses: "Saturation testing" needs to include the entire institutional
population to obtain accurate numbers of drug usage within the institution.
Performing at least annual testing of every inmate should be considered. Efforts
should be made to demonstrate that drug usage will most definitely be monitored,
and most likely will be detected. Drug testing costs can be justified for the safety
and security of the institution.

•

Staff Drug Use: Accurate assessment of DRC employee drug use needs to be
made. Prison staff have questioned the extent to which truly random tests are
conducted.

•

Strip/Patdowns : To truly limit the flow of drugs into and out of the institution,
institutions need to become more vigilant of both staff and visitors. The
infrequent use of strip/patdowns indicates that their potential is not being fully
used.

•

Assaults: The discrepancy between the number of reported assaults and the
reported initiated investigations regarding those assaults needs to be closely

63
examined. It makes no sense to report 166 incidents of assault and zero initiated
investigations.
•

Sexual Assault: In conjunction with the new DRC policies, staff should examine
ways to encourage reporting of sexual assault and explore methods of improving
inmates' willingness to report sexual assault. Staff training may be a primary
need.

•

Staff/Inmate Relationships : This is an area of true concern. In-service staff
training most definitely needs to be included regarding the hazards and
consequences of staff/inmate relationships.

•

Major Shakedowns : Institutions should have at least one major shakedown
every year to improve institution security and to best ensure that weapons and
drugs can not be used, held, and stockpiled with impunity.

64
APPENDIX A
INSTITUTION ABBREVIATIONS
Allen Correctional Institution

ACI

Belmont Correctional Institution

BeCI

Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
Corrections Medical Center

CCI
CRC
CMC

Dayton Correctional Institution

DCI

Franklin Pre-Release Center

FPRC

Grafton Correctional Institution

GCI

Hocking Correctional Facility

HCF

Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
London Correctional Instit ution
Lorain Correctional Institution

LaECI
LeCI
LoCI
LorCI

Madison Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Montgomery Education Pre-Release Center

MaCI
ManCI
MCI
MEPRC

Noble Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Northeast Pre-Release Center

NCI
NCCI
NCCTF
NEPRC

Oakwood Correctional Facility
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Ohio State Penitentiary

OCF
ORW
OSP

Pickaway Correctional Institution

PCI

Richland Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution

RiCI
RCI

Southeastern Correctional Institution
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Toledo Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution

SCI
SOCF
ToCI
TCI

Warren Correctional Institution

WCI

65
INSTITUTION SECURITY CLASSIFICATION LEVELS
Levels 1 and 2 (Minimum/Medium)
ACI
BeCI
CCI
DCI
FPRC
GCI
HCF
LaECI
LoCI
MaCI*
MCI
MEPRC
NCCI
NCCTF
NCI
NEPRC
PCI
RiCI
SCI

66

Level 3 (Close)
CRC**
LeCI
LorCI
ManCI
RCI
TCI
ToCI
WCI
Level 4 (Maximum)
SOCF
Level 5 (Supermax)
OSP
All Security Levels
CMC
OCF
ORW
*MaCI, the home of the Sex Offender Risk Reduction Center (SORRC), also houses Level 3 sex offenders
for the purpose of the Basic Education Sex Offender Treatment Program.
**CRC is the reception and intake center for inmates and houses inmates of all security levels until they are
assigned a parent institution. However, CRC is also the parent institution for approximately 300 Level 2
work cadre inmates.

67
INSTITUTIONS RANKED BY 2004 POPULATION
Institutions
Chillicothe Corr. Inst.
Mansfield Corr. Inst.
Richland Corr. Inst.
North Central Corr. Inst.
Ross Corr. Inst.
Belmont Corr. Inst.
Noble Corr. Inst.
London Corr. Inst.
Pickaway Corr. Inst.
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Lebanon Corr. Inst.
Madison Corr. Inst.
Marion Corr. Inst.
Correctional Reception Center
Southeastern Corr. Inst.
Lorain Corr. Inst.
Grafton Corr. Inst.
Lake Erie Corr. Inst.
Allen Corr. Inst.
Trumbull Corr. Inst.
Warren Corr. Inst.
Southern Ohio Corr. Facility
Toledo Corr. Inst.
North Coast Corr. Treatment Facility
North East Pre-Release Center
Hocking Corr. Facility
Franklin Pre-Release Center
Ohio State Penitentiary
Dayton Corr. Inst.
Mont. Education and Pre-Release Center
Oakwood Corr. Facility
Corrections Medical Center

Population
2,690
2,371
2,319
2,272
2,253
2,153
2,084
2,071
2,038
1,955
1,937
1,901
1,847
1,649
1,560
1,463
1,409
1,380
1,302
1,097
1,034
958
791
546
530
464
455
455
424
327
125
122

68
APPENDIX B
INVESTIGATIONS
2004 INITIATED INVESTIGATION CASELOAD
Institution

Initiated Investigations

Ohio State Penitentiary
Madison Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
Corrections Medical Center
Lorain Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
Northeast Pre Release Center
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Correctional Reception Center
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Franklin Pre Release Center
Marion Correctional Institution
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Toledo Correctional Institution
Hocking Correctional Facility
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
London Correctional Institution
Grafton Correctional Institution
Dayton Correctional Institution
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
TOTALS

583
538
436
416
357
352
342
293
287
270
263
257
256
240
212
164
145
143
142
134
123
104
99
82
75
75
69
62
60
43
41
15
6,678

69
2003/2004 COMPARISON OF INITIATED INVESTIGATIONS
Institution

2003

2004

Belmont Correctional Institution
519
342
Noble Correctional Institution
435
436
Ohio State Penitentiary
427
583
Southeastern Correctional Institution
391
164
Trumbull Correctional Institution
337
416
Corrections Medical Center
328
270
Ohio Reformatory for Women
257
134
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
237
142
Ross Correctional Institution
230
352
Warren Correctional Institution
223
357
Lebanon Correctional Institution
219
212
Mansfield Correctional Institution
215
293
Richland Correctional Institution
180
257
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
156
240
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
148
62
Madison Correctional Institution
126
538
Dayton Correctional Institution
124
41
Hocking Correctional Facility
114
69
Allen Correctional Institution
113
145
Pickaway Correctional Institution
112
256
Oakwood Correctional Facility
97
104
North Central Correctional Institution
88
287
London Correctional Institution
87
60
Marion Correctional Institution
83
82
Franklin Pre Release Center
81
99
Toledo Correctional Institution
67
75
Lorain Correctional Institution
60
263
Correctional Reception Center
60
123
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
57
75
Grafton Correctional Institution
36
43
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
28
15
Northeast Pre Release Center
23
143
Totals
5,658 6,678

70
POSITIVE URINALYSES
Institution
# Of Investigations
North Central Correctional Institution
202
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
96
Richland Correctional Institution
92
Belmont Correctional Institution
78
Allen Correctional Institution
59
Trumbull Correctional Institution
54
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
46
Mansfield Correctional Institution
46
Noble Correctional Institution
35
Pickaway Correctional Institution
33
Dayton Correctional Institution
31
Marion Correctional Institution
25
Lebanon Correctional Institution
23
Southeastern Correctional Institution
16
Correctional Reception Center
15
Madison Correctional Institution
13
Grafton Correctional Institution
13
Lorain Correctional Institution
12
Toledo Correctional Institution
11
Warren Correctional Institution
9
Ohio State Penitentiary
7
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
7
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
6
Northeast Pre Release Center
3
Ohio Reformatory for Women
2
Hocking Correctional Facility
2
London Correctional Institution
0
Ross Correctional Institution
0
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
0
Franklin Pre Release Center
0
Oakwood Correctional Facility
0
Corrections Medical Center
0
TOTAL
936

71
2003/2004 COMPARISON OF POSITIVE URINALYSES
Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Dayton Correctional Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Madison Correctional Institution
Grafton Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Toledo Correctional Institution
Ohio State Penitentiary
Correctional Reception Center
Marion Correctional Institution
Lorain Correctional Institution
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Hocking Correctional Facility
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
Northeast Pre Release Center
Franklin Pre Release Center
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Corrections Medical Center
Totals

2003 2004
141
130
102
100
48
45
41
36
33
29
28
25
19
19
14
12
11
10
10
9
9
7
5
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
898

0
16
31
23
202
92
96
78
46
59
54
0
46
33
13
13
9
35
2
11
7
15
25
12
7
2
0
6
3
0
0
0
936

72
DRUGS (OTHER)
Institution

# Of Investigations

Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Lorain Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
Madison Correctional Institution
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Dayton Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Northeast Pre Release Center
Corrections Medical Center
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Franklin Pre Release Center
Grafton Correctional Institution
Hocking Correctional Facility
Lebanon Correctional Institution
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Ohio State Penitentiary
TOTAL

49
45
33
25
25
21
20
18
17
17
16
12
11
11
9
7
6
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
356

73
2003/2004 COMPARISON OF DRUGS (OTHER)
Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
North Central Correctional Institution
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Madison Correctional Institution
Dayton Correctional Institution
Grafton Correctional Institution
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
Warren Correctional Institution
Lorain Correctional Institution
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Corrections Medical Center
Northeast Pre Release Center
Franklin Pre Release Center
Hocking Correctional Facility
Lebanon Correctional Institution
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Oakwood Correctional Institution
Ohio State Penitentiary
Totals

2003 2004
47
17
17
17
16
15
13
13
13
12
11
11
10
9
9
8
6
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
260

49
45
17
17
11
18
16
11
7
25
25
20
6
21
9
33
2
3
2
0
4
1
12
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
356

74
DRUGS (INMATE/VISITOR)
Institution

# Of Investigations

Lebanon Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Lorain Correctional Institution
Grafton Correctional Institution
Madison Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
Dayton Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
Northeast Pre Release Center
Marion Correctional Institution
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
Hocking Correctional Facility
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Corrections Medical Center
Franklin Pre Release Center
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Ohio State Penitentiary
Total

82
34
21
20
14
11
10
9
8
8
7
7
7
7
5
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
272

75
2003/2004 COMPARISON OF DRUGS (INMATE/VISITOR)
Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Dayton Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Madison Correctional Institution
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
Grafton Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
Belmont Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Lorain Correctional Institution
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Toledo Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Allen Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
Northeast Pre Release Center
Corrections Medical Center
Hocking Correctional Facility
Franklin Pre Release Center
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Ohio State Penitentiary
Totals

2003 2004
53
53
20
13
11
10
9
9
8
7
7
6
6
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
244

82
34
20
10
2
11
21
3
14
7
1
7
3
8
8
7
0
7
5
3
2
2
9
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
272

76
DRUGS (STAFF/INMATE)
Institution

# Of Investigations

Lebanon Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Grafton Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Madison Correctional Institution
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Lorain Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Ohio State Penitentiary
London Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
Ross Correctional Institution
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Corrections Medical Center
Dayton Correctional Institution
Franklin Pre Release Center
Hocking Correctional Facility
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
North Central Correctional Institution
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Northeast Pre Release Center
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Total

20
17
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
72

77
2003/2004 COMPARISON OF DRUGS (STAFF/INMATE)
Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
Ross Correctional Institution
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Grafton Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Madison Correctional Institution
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Lorain Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Ohio State Penitentiary
Corrections Medical Center
Dayton Correctional Institution
Franklin Pre Release Center
Hocking Correctional Facility
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
North Central Correctional Institution
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Northeast Pre Release Center
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Totals

2003 2004
9
7
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36

17
4
20
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
1
1
1
1
5
4
3
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
72

78
DRUGS (MAIL/PACKAGES)
Institution

# Of Investigations

Ross Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
Lorain Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Dayton Correctional Institution
Madison Correctional Institution
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Grafton Correctional Institution
Hocking Correctional Facility
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
Allen Correctional Institution
Corrections Medical Center
Franklin Pre Release Center
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Northeast Pre Release Center
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Ohio State Penitentiary
Toledo Correctional Institution
Total

13
10
7
6
5
5
4
4
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
69

79
2003/2004 COMPARISON OF DRUGS (MAIL/PACKAGES)
Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
London Correction Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institut ion
Dayton Correctional Center
Madison Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
North Central Correctional Institution
Lorain Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Grafton Correctional Institution
Hocking Correctional Facility
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
Correctional Reception Center
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
Corrections Medical Center
Franklin Pre Release Center
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Northeast Pre Release Center
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Ohio State Penitentiary
Toledo Correctional Institution
Totals

2003 2004
11
8
7
5
5
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
66

7
10
6
5
4
2
13
2
1
0
0
3
0
5
4
2
1
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
69

80
DRUGS (STAFF)
Institution

# Of Investigations

Pickaway Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
Franklin Pre Release Center
Lorain Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Madison Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
Grafton Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
Corrections Medical Center
Hocking Correctional Facility
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Belmont Correctional Institution
Dayton Correctional Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
Noble Correctional Institution
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
North Central Correctional Institution
Northeast Pre Release Center
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Ohio State Penitentiary
Richland Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Total

8
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25

81
2003/2004 COMPARISON OF DRUGS (STAFF)
Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Madison Correctional Institution
Corrections Medical Center
Hocking Correctional Facility
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
Franklin Pre Release Center
Lorain Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
Grafton Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Dayton Correctional Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
Noble Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Northeast Pre Release Center
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Ohio State Penitentiary
Richland Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Totals

2003 2004
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6

8
1
1
0
0
0
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25

82
ASSAULT (INMATE ON INMATE)
Institution

# Of Investigations

Noble Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Madison Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Belmont Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Toledo Correctional Institution
Ohio State Penitentiary
London Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
Franklin Pre Release Center
Hocking Correctional Facility
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Grafton Correctional Institution
Northeast Pre Release Center
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Dayton Correctional Institution
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
Corrections Medical Center
Lorain Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Total

41
21
21
18
17
15
15
13
13
11
11
10
7
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
254

83
2003/2004 COMPARISON OF ASSAULT (INMATE ON INMATE)
Institution
Madison Correctional Institution
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Franklin Pre Release Center
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Allen Correctional Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Hocking Correctional Facility
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Grafton Correction Institution
Northeast Pre Release Center
Corrections Medical Center
Lorain Correctional Institution
Ohio State Penitentiary
Montgomery Education and Pre Release
Dayton Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Totals

2003 2004
29
26
23
20
20
17
14
12
12
10
10
9
9
9
8
6
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
258

18
15
21
41
17
13
13
15
4
21
10
11
3
2
7
11
2
5
4
2
2
3
2
2
2
0
0
5
1
2
0
0
254

84
ASSAULT (INMATE ON STAFF)
Institution

# Of Investigations

Ohio Reformatory for Women
Madison Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Lorain Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Oakwood Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
Ohio State Penitentiary
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Belmont Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Grafton Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Corrections Medical Center
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Franklin Pre Release Center
Northeast Pre Release Center
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Dayton Correctional Institution
Hocking Correctional Facility
North Central Correctional Institution
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Total

22
16
14
12
10
10
9
9
9
8
8
7
6
6
6
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
188

85
2003/2004 COMPARISON OF ASSAULT (INMATE ON STAFF)
Institution
2003 2004
Ohio Reformatory for Women
26
22
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
12
8
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
12
6
Pickaway Correctional Institution
11
10
Lebanon Correctional Institution
11
8
Richland Correctional Institution
9
4
Southeastern Correctional Institution
8
10
Madison Correctional Institution
7
16
Noble Correctional Institution
7
14
London Correctional Institution
6
7
Lorain Correctional Institutio n
5
12
Ross Correctional Institution
5
6
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
5
5
Allen Correctional Institution
4
4
Marion Correctional Institution
4
4
Oakwood Correctional Facility
3
9
Toledo Correctional Institution
2
6
Corrections Medical Center
2
2
Franklin Pre Release Center
2
0
Belmont Correctional Institution
1
5
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
1
2
Mansfield Correctional Institution
1
1
Northeast Pre Release Center
1
0
Trumbull Correctional Institution
1
0
Correctional Reception Center
0
9
Ohio State Penitentiary
0
9
Warren Correctional Institution
0
5
Grafton Correctional Institution
0
4
Dayton Correctional Institution
0
0
Hocking Correctional Facility
0
0
North Central Correctional Institution
0
0
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
0
0
Totals
146 188

86
SEXUAL ASSAULTS
Institution

# Of Investigations

Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Madison Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
Lorain Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Northeast Pre Release Center
Allen Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Grafton Correctional Institution
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Warren Correctional Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Corrections Medical Center
London Correctional Institution
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Dayton Correctional Institution
Franklin Pre Release Center
Hocking Correctional Facility
Montgome ry Education and Pre Release Center
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Ohio State Penitentiary
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Toledo Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Total

21
13
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
5
5
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
124

87
2003/2004 COMPARISON OF SEXUAL ASSAULTS
Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Madison Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Northeast Pre Release Center
Allen Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Lorain Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Corrections Medical Center
London Correctional Institution
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Dayton Correctional Institution
Franklin Pre Release Center
Grafton Correctional Institution
Hocking Correctional Facility
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Ohio State Penitentiary
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Toledo Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Totals

2003 2004
6
5
5
5
4
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39

5
10
9
2
13
7
8
2
1
8
7
5
3
2
21
9
6
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
124

88
STAFF MISCONDUCT
Institution

# Of Investigations

Ohio Reformatory for Women
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Madison Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
Franklin Pre Release Center
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Richland Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Belmont Correctional Institution
Grafton Correctional Institution
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Lorain Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Ohio State Penitentiary
Northeast Pre Release Center
Corrections Medical Center
Allen Correctional Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Hocking Correctional Institution
Dayton Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
TOTALS

37
20
20
17
15
14
13
10
8
8
7
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
237

89
2003/2004 COMPARISON OF STAFF MISCONDUCT
Institution
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Richland Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Corrections Medical Center
Allen Correctional Institution
Franklin Pre Release Center
Grafton Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Northeast Pre Release Center
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Madison Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Hocking Correctional Facility
Ohio State Penitentiary
Lorain Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Dayton Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Totals

2003 2004
40
34
21
14
13
13
11
10
10
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
7
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
0
274

37
13
7
15
20
6
10
8
6
6
2
1
14
6
17
8
0
5
4
5
3
3
1
20
3
1
3
5
4
0
0
4
237

90
STAFF/INMATE RELATIONSHIPS
Institution

# Of Investigations

Ohio Reformatory for Women
Madison Correctional Institution
Lorain Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
Franklin Pre Release Center
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
Hocking Correctional Facility
Warren Correctional Institution
Corrections Medical Center
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Grafton Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
Northeast Pre Release Center
Marion Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Ohio State Penitentiary
Noble Correctional Institution
Dayton Correctional Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
Belmont Correctional Institution
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
TOTAL

21
16
13
12
9
8
7
7
7
6
6
6
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
0
0
186

91
2003/2004 COMPARISON OF STAFF/INMATE RELATIONSHIPS
Institution
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Franklin Pre Release Center
Madison Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
Northeast Pre Release Center
Allen Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Hocking Correctional Facility
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Grafton Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Dayton Correctional Institution
Lorain Correctional Institution
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Correctional Reception Center
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
Belmont Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Corrections Medical Center
Ohio State Penitentiary
Ross Correctional Institution
Totals

2003 2004
37
22
18
14
13
13
12
11
9
9
8
8
7
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
229

21
4
7
16
8
7
3
6
7
3
12
9
6
5
0
5
4
2
13
11
4
3
1
0
6
3
2
3
2
5
3
3
186

92
‘OTHER’ INVESTIGATIONS
Institution

# Of Investigations

Ohio State Penitentiary
Madison Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Corrections Medical Center
Belmont Correctional Institution
Lorain Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Northeast Pre Release Center
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Franklin Pre Release Center
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Hocking Correctional Facility
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Correctional Reception Center
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Richland Correctional Institution
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Allen Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Dayton Correctional Institution
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
Grafton Correctional Institution
Total

555
430
315
301
276
264
259
206
186
183
121
112
83
74
74
73
58
56
53
47
39
38
37
29
25
18
17
17
11
2
0
0
3,959

•

The “Other Investigations” category also includes background checks.

93
2003/2004 COMPARISON OF ‘OTHER’ INVESTIGATIONS
Institution

2003

2004

Belmont Correctional Institution
436
206
Ohio State Penitentiary
416
555
Noble Correctional Institution
378
301
Corrections Medical Center
314
259
Trumbull Correctional Institution
246
315
Southeastern Correctional Institution
187
83
Mansfield Correctional Institution
157
183
Warren Correctional Institution
124
276
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
119
56
Ohio Reformatory for Women
103
29
Hocking Correctional Facility
96
58
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
92
11
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
57
47
Oakwood Correctional Facility
52
74
Marion Correctional Institution
43
17
Lebanon Correctional Institution
40
73
Lorain Correctional Institution
39
186
Madison Correctional Institution
39
430
Ross Correctional Institution
36
264
Richland Correctional Institution
36
37
Allen Correctional Institution
35
25
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
28
38
Franklin Pre Release Center
26
74
North Central Correctional Institution
26
39
London Correctional Institution
21
17
Toledo Correctional Institution
16
18
Correctional Reception Center
13
53
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
6
0
Northeast Pre Release Center
2
121
Pickaway Correctional Institution
0
112
Dayton Correctional Institution
0
2
Grafton Correctional Institution
0
0
Totals
3,147 3,959

*The “Other Investigations” category also includes background checks.

94
APPENDIX E
SEARCHES, SHAKEDOWNS, DRUGS, AND ALCOHOL CONFISCATED
CANINE SEARCHES
Institution
# Of Searches
Lorain Correctional Institution
13
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
13
Belmont Correctional Institution
11
Warren Correctional Institution
8
Grafton Correctional Institution
8
Noble Correctional Institution
8
Ross Correctional Institution
8
Lebanon Correctional Institution
6
London Correctional Institution
6
North Central Correctional Institution
5
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
5
Ohio State Penitentiary
4
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
4
Southeastern Correctional Institution
4
Correctional Reception Center
4
Trumbull Correctional Institution
4
Ohio Reformatory for Women
3
Richland Correctional Institution
3
Toledo Correctional Institution
2
Allen Correctional Institution
2
Marion Correctional Institution
2
Franklin Pre Release Center
1
Madison Correctional Institution
1
Mansfield Correctional Institution
1
Pickaway Correctional Institution
1
Dayton Correctional Institution
0
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
0
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
0
Northeast Pre Release Center
0
Hocking Correctional Facility
0
Corrections Medical Center
0
Oakwood Correctional Facility
0
Total
127

95
2003/2004 COMPARISON OF INSTITUTIONS BY CANINE SEARCHES
Institutions

2003

2004

Lebanon Correctional Institution
Lorain Correctional Institution
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Warren Correctional Institution
Grafton Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Allen Correctional Institution
Dayton Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
Ohio State Penitentiary
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Northeast Pre Release Center
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Hocking Correctional Facility
Correctional Reception Center
Madison Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Corrections Medical Center
Franklin Pre Release Center
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Total

12
12
12
12
11
6
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
116

6
13
13
8
8
11
8
4
2
0
6
0
4
0
5
2
5
2
0
4
0
4
1
1
0
1
0
3
1
3
8
4
127

96
EMPLOYEE STRIP/PATDOWNS
Institution
# Of Strip/Patdowns
North Central Correctional Institution
51
Belmont Correctional Institution
12
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
5
Toledo Correctional Institution
4
Allen Correctional Institution
3
Lorain Correctional Institution
3
Trumbull Correctional Institution
3
Pickaway Correctional Institution
2
Warren Correctional Institution
1
Grafton Correctional Institution
1
Lebanon Correctional Institution
0
London Correctional Institution
0
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
0
Corrections Medical Center
0
Correctional Reception Center
0
Dayton Correctional Institution
0
Franklin Pre Release Center
0
Hocking Correctional Facility
0
Madison Correctional Institution
0
Mansfield Correctional Institution
0
Marion Correctional Institution
0
Montgomery Ed ucation and Pre Release Center
0
Noble Correctional Institution
0
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
0
Northeast Pre Release Center
0
Oakwood Correctional Facility
0
Ohio Reformatory for Women
0
Ohio State Penitentiary
0
Richland Correctional Institution
0
Ross Correctional Institution
0
Southeastern Correctional Institution
0
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
0
Total
85

97
2003/2004 COMPARISON OF EMPLOYEE STRIP/PATDOWNS
Institutions
Toledo Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Corrections Medical Center
Correctional Reception Center
Dayton Correctional Institution
Grafton Correctional Institution
Franklin Pre Release Center
Hocking Correctional Facility
Lorain Correctional Institution
Madison Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
Noble Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Northeast Pre Release Center
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Ohio State Penitentiary
Richland Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Total

2003 2004
3
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8

4
5
0
0
2
1
3
12
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
51
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
85

98
VISITOR STRIP/PATDOWNS
Institution

# Of Strip/Patdowns

Warren Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
Lebanon Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Lorain Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Grafton Correctional Institution
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Dayton Correctional Institution
Hocking Correctional Facility
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
Corrections Medical Center
Franklin Pre Release Center
Madison Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
Northeast Pre Release Center
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Ohio State Penitentiary
Total

21
10
6
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
80

99
2003/2004 COMPARISON OF VISITOR STRIP/PATDOWNS
Institutions
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Dayton Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
Lorain Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
Allen Correctional Institution
Corrections Medical Center
Franklin Pre Release Center
Grafton Correctional Institution
Hocking Correctional Facility
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Madison Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Northeast Pre Release Center
Oakwood Correctional Institution
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Ohio State Penitentiary
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Total

2003 2004
7
6
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
49

6
21
5
2
0
4
3
3
4
3
0
0
0
3
10
4
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
5
1
80

100
MAJOR SHAKEDOWNS
Institution

# Of Major
Shakedowns
Madison Correctional Institution
8
London Correctiona l Institution
7
Ohio State Penitentiary
5
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
4
Allen Correctional Institution
4
Oakwood Correctional Facility
3
Richland Correctional Institution
3
Grafton Correctional Institution
2
Lorain Correctional Institution
2
Mansfield Correctional Institution
2
Noble Correctional Institution
2
North Central Correctional Institution
2
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
2
Belmont Correctional Institution
1
Corrections Medical Center
1
Franklin Pre Release Center
1
Pickaway Correctional Institution
1
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
1
Toledo Correctional Institution
1
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
0
Correctional Reception Center
0
Dayton Correctional Institution
0
Hocking Correctional Facility
0
Lebanon Correctional Institution
0
Marion Correctional Institution
0
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
0
Northeast Pre Release Center
0
Ohio Reformatory for Women
0
Ross Correctional Institution
0
Southeastern Correctional Institution
0
Trumbull Correctional Institution
0
Warren Correctional Institution
0
Total
52

101
2003/2004 COMPARISON OF MAJOR SHAKEDOWNS
Institutions
Madison Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Ohio State Penitentiary
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
Hocking Correctional Facility
Dayton Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Northeast Pre Release Center
Corrections Medical Center
Grafton Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Lorain Correctional Institution
North Coast Correctio nal Treatment Facility
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
Franklin Pre Release Center
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Montgome ry Education and Pre Release Center
North Central Correctional Institution
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Richland Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Toledo Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Total

2003 2004
8
7
5
5
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
52

8
7
5
1
0
0
4
0
0
2
2
0
1
2
4
2
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
3
0
3
0
1
1
0
52

102
MARIJUANA
Institution
Marijuana Confiscated (oz.)
North Central Correctional Institution
23.24
Richland Correctional Institution
13.11
Noble Correctional Institution
13.0
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
12.77
Belmont Correctional Institution
10.69
London Correctional Institution
8.76
Pickaway Correctional Institution
8.0
Ross Correctional Institution
2.72
Toledo Correctional Institution
2.25
Marion Correctional Institution
1.57
Grafton Correctional Institution
0.81
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
0.80
Southeastern Correctional Institution
0.76
Lorain Correctional Institution
0.64
Correctional Reception Center
0.35
Lebanon Correctional Institution
0.21
Mansfield Correctional Institution
0.05
Madison Correctional Institution
0.04
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Trace
Ohio State Penitentiary
Trace
Northeast Pre Release Center
Trace
Allen Correctional Institution
0.0
Trumbull Correctional Institution
0.0
Warren Correctional Institution
0.0
Corrections Medical Center
0.0
Dayton Correctional Institution
0.0
Franklin Pre Release Center
0.0
Hocking Correctional Facility
0.0
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
0.0
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
0.0
Oakwood Correctional Facility
0.0
Ohio Reformatory for Women
0.0
Total
*99.47 oz.
6.22 lbs.
*Data taken from 2004 Chief Inspector Annual Report. Figures should read 99.68
oz. and 6.23 lbs.
** It should also be noted that several institutions also reported the confiscation of
marijuana joints and balloons that were not weighed.

103
2003/2004 COMPARISON OF MARIJUANA CONFISCATED
Institutions

2003

2004

Southeastern Correctional Institution
24.46
0.76
Lebanon Correctional Institution
13.5
0.21
London Correctional Institution
9.5
8.67
Ross Correctional Institution
8.37
2.72
Toledo Correctional Institution
8.04
2.25
Richland Correctional Institution
7.67
13.11
Allen Correctional Institution
6.7
0.0
Noble Correctional Institution
6.0
13.0
North Central Correctional Institution
5.84
23.24
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
3.09
0.80
Pickaway Correctional Institution
2.08
8.0
Belmont Correctional Institution
1.47
10.69
Mansfield Correctional Institution
1.29
0.05
Grafton Correctional Institution
1.25
0.81
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
1.23
12.77
Madison Correctional Institution
1.11
0.04
Trumbull Correctional Institution
0.81
0.0
Correctional Reception Center
0.60
0.35
Marion Correctional Institution
0.26
1.57
Warren Correctional Institution
0.14
0.0
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
0.05
Trace
Ohio State Penitentiary
0.005
Trace
Corrections Medical Center
0.0
0.0
Dayton Correctional Institution
0.0
0.0
Franklin Pre Release Center
0.0
0.0
Hocking Correctional Facility
0.0
0.0
Lorain Correctional Institution
0.0
0.64
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
0.0
0.0
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
0.0
0.0
Northeast Pre Release Center
0.0
Trace
Oakwood Correctional Facility
0.0
0.0
Ohio Reformatory for Women
0.0
0.0
Total
103.465 oz. *99.47 oz.
6.47 lbs.
6.22 lbs.
*Data taken from 2004 Chief Inspector Annual Report. Figures should read 99.68 oz. and
6.23 lbs. ** It should also be noted that several institutions also reported the confiscation
of marijuana joints and balloons that were not weighed.

104
CRACK/COCAINE
Institution

Crack/Cocaine Confiscated (Grams)

Ross Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctiona l Institution
London Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Lorain Correctional Institution
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
Grafton Correctional Institution
Corrections Medical Center
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Dayton Correctional Institution
Franklin Pre Release Center
Hocking Correctional Facility
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Madison Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
Northeast Pre Release Center
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Ohio State Penitentiary
Total

15.44
7.6
3.0
2.0
1.0+
1.0
1.0
0.901
0.56
0.4
Trace
Trace
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
32.901 g.
1.16 oz.

105
2003/2004 COMPARISON OF CRACK/COCAINE CONFISCATED
Institutions
Warren Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Pickaway Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Grafton Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Corrections Medical Center
North Central Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Dayton Correctional Institution
Franklin Pre Release Center
Hocking Correctional Facility
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Lorain Correctional Institution
Madison Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Northeast Pre Release Center
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Ohio State Penitentiary
Total

2003

2004

44.4
19.55
12.07
6.45
5.0
3.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.10
5 rocks
3 rocks
Trace
Trace
Trace
0.0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
95.1 g.
3.35 oz.

0.0
0.0
15.44
0.901
0.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
Trace
0.0
1.0+
0.0
0.0
0.0
Trace
0.0
7.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.56
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
32.901g
1.16 oz.

106
HEROIN
Institution

Heroin Confiscated (Grams)

Mansfield Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Corrections Medical Center
Correctional Reception Center
Dayton Correctional Institution
Franklin Pre Release Center
Grafton Correctional Institution
Hocking Correctional Facility
Lorain Correctional Institution
Madison Correctional Institution
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
North Central Correctional Institution
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Northeast Pre Release Center
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Ohio State Penitentiary
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Total

8.5
8.5
8.5
3.0
2.0
1.6
1.1
1 packet
Trace
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.2 g.
1.17 oz.

107
2003/2004 COMPARISON OF HEROIN CONFISCATED
Institutions

2003

2004

Mansfield Correctional Institution
8.5
8.5
Trumbull Correctional Institution
8.0
0.0
London Correctional Institution
5.9
3.0
Toledo Correctional Institution
4.97
1.6
Ross Correctional Institution
4.0
8.5
Richland Correctional Institution
3.2
8.5
Lebanon Correctional Institution
2.0
2.0
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
1.0
0.0
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
0.3
0.0
Allen Correctional Institution
0.0
0.0
Belmont Correctional Institution
0.0
0.0
Corrections Medical Center
0.0
0.0
Correctional Reception Center
0.0
0.0
Dayton Correctional Institution
0.0
0.0
Franklin Pre Release Center
0.0
0.0
Grafton Correctional Institution
0.0
0.0
Hocking Correctional Facility
0.0
0.0
Lorain Correctional Institution
0.0
0.0
Madison Correctional Institution
0.0
0.0
Marion Correctional Institution
0.0
1.1
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
0.0
0.0
Noble Correctional Institution
0.0
1 packet
North Central Correctional Institution
0.0
0.0
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
0.0
0.0
Northeast Pre Release Center
0.0
0.0
Oakwood Correctional Facility
0.0
0.0
Ohio Reformatory for Women
0.0
0.0
Ohio State Penitentiary
0.0
0.0
Pickaway Correctional Institution
0.0
0.0
Southeastern Correctional Institution
0.0
0.0
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
0.0
Trace
Warren Correctional Institution
0.0
0.0
Total
37.87 g. 33.2 g.
1.34
1.17 oz.

108
ILLICIT PILLS
Institution
Illicit Pills Confiscated
Ross Correctional Institution
349
Noble Correctional Institution
76
Richland Correctional Institution
6
Correctional Reception Center
5
London Correctional Institution
5
Marion Correctional Institution
4
Belmont Correctional Institution
2
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
0
Grafton Correctional Institution
0
Allen Correctional Institution
0
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
0
Pickaway Correctional Institution
0
Southeastern Correctional Institution
0
Corrections Medical Center
0
Dayton Correctional Institution
0
Franklin Pre Release Center
0
Hocking Correctional Facility
0
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
0
Lebanon Correctional Institution
0
Lorain Correctional Institution
0
Madison Correctional Institution
0
Mansfield Correctional Institution
0
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
0
North Central Correctional Institution
0
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
0
Northeast Pre Release Center
0
Oakwood Correctional Institution
0
Ohio Reformatory for Women
0
Ohio State Penitentiary
0
Toledo Correctional Institution
0
Trumbull Correctional Institution
0
Warren Correctional Institution
0
Total
447

109
2003/2004 COMPARISON OF ILLICIT PILLS CONFISCATED
Institutions
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Ross Correctional Institution
Grafton Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Correctional Reception Center
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Corrections Medical Center
Belmont Correctional Institution
Noble Correctional Institution
Dayton Correctional Institution
Franklin Pre Release Center
Hocking Correctional Facility
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
Lebanon Correctional Institution
Lorain Correctional Institution
Madison Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
North Central Correctional Institution
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Northeast Pre Release Center
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Ohio State Penitentiary
Richland Correctional Institution
Toledo Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Total

2003 2004
152
137
128
60
23
22
15
10
7
6
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
565

0
349
0
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
2
76
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
447

110
HOOCH
Institution

Hooch Confiscated (Gallons)

Noble Correctional Institution
Mansfield Correctional Institution
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Belmont Correctional Institution
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Southeastern Correctional Institution
Marion Correctional Institution
Allen Correctional Institution
Corrections Medical Center
Correctional Reception Center
Dayton Correctional Institution
Franklin Pre Release Center
Grafton Correctional Institution
Hocking Correctional Facility
Lebanon Correctional Institution
London Correctional Institution
Lorain Correctional Institution
Madison Correctional Institution
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
Northeast Pre Release Center
Oakwood Correctional Facility
Ohio Reformatory for Women
Ohio State Penitentiary
Pickaway Correctional Institution
Ross Correctional Institution
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Toledo Correctional Institution
Trumbull Correctional Institution
Warren Correctional Institution
Total

243.0
224.0
126.0
82.34
55.0
38.3
8.5
6.0
1.75
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
784.86**

•
•

The confiscation and destruction of hooch varies across institutions and may have
not included investigator involvement. As such, a zero may only indicate that the
investigator did not have any involvement in the confiscation and destruction.
** Statistics taken from the 2004 Annual Chief Inspector Report. Figure should
read 784.89.

111
2003/2004 COMPARISON OF HOOCH CONFISCATED
Institution

2003

2004

Mansfield Correctional Institution
224.0
224.0
Noble Correctional Institution
150.0
243.0
Richland Correctional Institution
113.3
55.0
North Central Correctional Institution
92.5
82.34
Southeastern Correctional Institution
58.5
6.0
Warren Correctional Institution
34.0
0.0
Belmont Correctional Institution
32.3
38.3
Trumbull Correctional Institution
30.0
0.0
Marion Correctional Institution
22.5
1.75
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
16.5
8.5
Allen Correctional Institution
10.0
0.0
Toledo Correctional Institution
8.0
0.0
Ross Correctional Institution
1 bottle vodka
0.0
Corrections Medical Center
0.0
0.0
Correctional Reception Center
0.0
0.0
Dayton Correctional Institution
0.0
0.0
Franklin Pre Release Center
0.0
0.0
Grafton Correctional Institution
0.0
0.0
Hocking Correctional Facility
0.0
0.0
Lake Erie Correctional Institution
0.0
126.0
Lebanon Correctional Institution
0.0
0.0
London Correctional Institution
0.0
0.0
Lorain Correctional Institution
0.0
0.0
Madison Correctional Institution
0.0
0.0
Montgomery Education and Pre Release Center
0.0
0.0
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility
0.0
0.0
Northeast Pre Release Center
0.0
0.0
Oakwood Correctional Facility
0.0
0.0
Ohio Reformatory for Women
0.0
0.0
Ohio State Penitentiary
0.0
0.0
Pickaway Correctional Institution
0.0
0.0
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
0.0
0.0
Total
791.6
784.86**
* The confiscation and destruction of hooch varies across institutions and may
have not included investigator involvement. As such, a zero may only indicate that the
investigator did not have any involvement in the confiscation and destruction.
** Statistics taken from the 2004 Annual Chief Inspector Report. Figure should
read 784.89.