A Report on Assaults, Disturbances, Violence, and
Prosecution in the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation &
Correction: January 1, 2007 through September 30, 2012

Prepared in Response to Section 9 of Amended Substitute HB 86, enacted
by the 129th General Assembly and effective September 30, 2011

Submitted by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction
Gary C. Mohr, Director

Report Highlights
Assault, Violence, and Disorder
Due to the volume of data and sometime conflicting patterns, it is difficult to make broad
generalizations regarding assaults in Ohio prisons. To some degree the broadest measures of
assault, violence, and disorder disguise sometimes more critical sub-measures. The clearest
indication of the latter is that the overall rate of inmate-on-staff (IOS) total assaults have been
stable or down from 2007 to 2011, while the rate of IOS assaults with serious physical injury to
staff more than doubled during the period (see chapter 1).
Other patterns of note include:
 The rate of inmate on staff assaults, after dropping to below 19 per 1,000
inmates in 2010, increased nearly six percent in 2011 and is projected to increase
another 4.5% in 2012, driven largely by an increase in harassment assaults (see
chapter 1).
 Although relatively rare, serious injury assaults on staff members have
increased substantially since 2007 to 40 such incidents in both 2010 and 2011.
They are projected to remain at that level in 2012 (See chapter 1).
 After more than doubling during 2007-2011, the rate of serious injury inmate on

inmate assaults per 1,000 inmates is projected to decline by 26% in 2012 based on
reported numbers through September (see chapter 2).
 Similar to trends in serious injury assaults, violent forms of individual-level
misconduct (taken from Rule Infraction Board, or RIB, reports) have also
increased steadily during 2007-2011, especially since 2010. The rate of
disruptive rule infractions, for example, increased over 16% between 2010 and
2011. However, the patterns have been mixed so far in 2012, with 8% declines in
the rate of overall violent misconduct, but with modest increases of just over two
percent in assaultive and disruptive behavior (see chapter 4).
Inmate Disturbances
There was a considerable growth in inmate disturbances meeting the American Correctional
Association (ACA) definition of an assault involving four or more inmates over the period 2007
to 2011, representing a more than 300% increase during that time period. The number and rate
of disturbances does appear to have dropped somewhat during the first 11 months of 2012 (see
chapter 5).
Prosecution Patterns
Of the 82 total serious assaultive cases reviewed for prosecution history, 35 were inmate-on-staff
(IOS) and 47 were inmate-on-inmate (IOI) incidents from the period+ October 1, 2011, through
1

September 30, 2012. Of the total cases, 10 are still pending a decision. For the remaining 72
cases, 23 resulted in a prosecution, and 17 resulted in a conviction (See chapter 7).
Recommendations
The reports concludes with a series of recommendations that may help to further reduce all types
of misbehavior and violence in Ohio’s prisons.

2

Table of Contents
Report Highlights

1

Table of Contents

3

Overview of Report

4

Chapter 1: Inmate-on-Staff Assault Trends

8

Chapter 2: Inmate-on-Inmate Assault Trends

14

Chapter 3: Alleged and Substantiated Sexual Assault Trends

20

Chapter 4: RIB Patterns

23

Chapter 5: Inmate Disturbance Trends

26

Chapter 6: The Male Security Classification Instruments

28

Chapter 7: The Prosecution Process of Serious Assaultive Behavior

31

Recommendations

33

3

Overview of Report
This report was prepared in response to language contained in Section 9 of Amended Substitute
House Bill 86, enacted by the 129th General Assembly and effective September 30, 2011. The
section reads as follows:
“SECTION 9. (A) The Department of Rehabilitation and Correction shall conduct an
empirical study of all of the following:
(1) Assaults of any type by inmates upon staff of the Department;
(2) Assaults with a weapon by inmates upon other inmates;
(3) Sexual assaults by inmates against other inmates;
(4) The frequency with which the Department recommends prosecution for each type of
assault identified in division (A)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, the process that applies to such
prosecutions that are commenced, and the outcome of such prosecutions.
(B) The Department of Rehabilitation and Correction shall prepare a report that
summarizes the findings of its study described in division (A) of this section. The report also
shall include recommendations of the Department for improving the safety of the Department's
institutions as supported by the sanctioning and prosecution process. Not later than December
31, 2012, the Department shall submit copies of the report described in this division to the
Governor, the Attorney General, the President and Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives, and the President and Minority Leader of the Senate.”
The report accomplishes the below objectives:
 Provides information summarizing by several measures violence and assault in the prisons of the
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC).
 Describes the results of a statistical analysis of serious inmate misbehavior that was used to create
classification instruments for male inmates that can help to reduce inmate misbehavior.
 Describes the process of referring seriously assaultive inmate behavior for outside investigation
and possible prosecution, and details the results of cases referred for investigation during a recent
twelve month period.
 Summarizes recommendations of DRC that may help to reduce inmate assaults in the future.
Some of these recommendations can be implemented administratively. Other recommendations will
likely require legislative change.

4

Content of the Report
The first two chapters of the report summarizing assault patterns are very similar in presentation.
Inmate-on-staff (IOS) and inmate-on-inmate (IOI) assaults are reported from 2007 through
September 30, 2012. January 1, 2007 is taken as the starting date because this is when reliable
electronic record keeping began. Records for IOS and IOI assaults were kept before that time, but
no accurate comparison can be developed between the two periods.
The assault reporting system has been considered important for almost two decades, and it is more
detailed than the RIB system (i.e., inmate rule infractions). To the degree that the information is
known, there is information about the assailant (or multiple assailants), the victim or victims, and
some general information about the incident. Victim information includes degree of injury. Incident
information includes the use of a weapon and type of any weapon. Thus these databases provide the
foundation for the later study of prosecution patterns, also reported later in this document.
For both IOI and IOS the patterns over the past six years are disturbing. Especially over the period
from 2007 to 2009 there was a marked rise in both the number and rate of IOS and IOI assaults.
(The rate of assaults is more critical, because the prison population has moved up and down and that
shifting can be the source of a change in the absolute number of events. Using rates corrects for that
situation. For this report rates are computed as the number of incidents per thousand inmates.) Total
IOI assault rates stayed stable in 2009 and 2010 and then took a fairly large jump in 2011 where it
has stayed until the present. For IOS assaults there was a decline in rates over the period from 2008
through 2010, but there was a subsequent increase in 2011 and 2012. Still, as the full chapters make
clear, not all assaults are of equal importance, and the patterns for different types of serious assault
do not always match the patterns for the total rates. Also, key indicators report relatively rare
behavior, and a change of one or two incidents in any year can cause erratic drops and increases.
Chapter 3 details the information reported to the federal government with regard to the Prison Rape
Elimination Act (PREA). It is a summary of assault information of many kinds that relate to sexual
assault in the prison setting, whether concerning staff or inmates. The department is pleased that its
assault rates seem relatively low compared to other jurisdictions (see published BJS reports at
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=20 ), but we would like to see rates continue to
decline. This information, reported for Calendar Year 2011, details the most recent reporting period.
Sexual assault information for the same time period for privately operated prisons is not included.
Chapter 4 of the report uses inmate rule infraction records to detail other measures of institutional
disorder and danger to staff and inmates. These statistics do not include charges where the inmate
was not found guilty, nor do they include those cases where an inmate was found guilty, but at the
Hearing Officer level (a preliminary phase). These summaries try to target the most serious group of
rule infractions, although not all are assaultive. Even those that include force are more inclusive
than assaults, especially because fights represent well more than one-half of all these RIB
convictions. (A fight may emerge from a bump or temporary irritation, and both parties may be
equally at offense; thus, most fights do not reach the level of being an assault). In general, we see a
steady increase in violent and disruptive rule infraction board conviction rates from 2007 to 2011.
This is also true for different sub-groups. Somewhat more encouraging, if the first nine months of
5

2012 is compared to the same period for 2011, the broadest measure of violent rule infractions
dropped several percent, although key sub-groupings still increased somewhat.
Chapter 5 of the report shows some progress in reducing this larger scale measure of disorder and
danger. These disturbances (using the American Correctional Association definition) require at least
four inmates to be involved in an incident that threatens the orderly operation of a prison. Those
disturbances, again comparing the first nine months of 2012 with the same period of 2011, show a
modest decrease.
Chapter 6 of the report details the use of multivariate statistical analysis both to determine the
characteristics most associated with patterns of serious misbehavior for male inmates, and also to
develop objective prison classification instruments that can help to reduce that misbehavior. Proper
inmate classification places those inmates most likely to misbehave in settings where there is the
greatest level of control, thus reducing the likelihood that serious misconduct will develop.
Classification instruments can help to sort out inmates by the likelihood of serious misbehavior. If
inmates are then placed in the most appropriate prison setting, the level of misbehavior for that
particular inmate should be reduced, as should the overall level of misbehavior.
This chapter further explains the development of two classification instruments over the last year put
into place in Ohio’s male prisons late in August of 2012. It will take a year before all male inmates
will have been scored according to the updated instruments (one for new inmates and one for
inmates who have already been in prison for a year or more). The consequences may begin to be
known by mid-2013. As for classification patterns, the new instruments should result in more
inmates going to lower security levels, but for those who do go to higher levels, a larger proportion
should have a history of serious misbehavior and a greater likelihood of the same in the future.
It should be noted that there is also research in progress to prepare updated classification instruments
for the department’s female inmate population.
Chapter 7 of the report offers a basic description of the prosecution process for very serious
misbehavior in prison. If it appears that a felony might have been committed, the Ohio State
Highway Patrol (OSHP) is called in to do an investigation. The OSHP makes the choice as to
whether the incident gets referred to a county prosecutor for possible prosecution. Some items
from the DRC’s policy for investigation of special incidents are noted in this section.
This chapter further describes the prosecution rates for inmate assailants who met one of two sets
of categories: (1) inmate-on-staff assaults where the staff member required outside medical
treatment; and (2) inmate-on-inmate assaults where the assailant used a weapon and the victim
required outside medical treatment.
While the assailants could have been selected in a number of ways, we think that these two
standards best meet the objectives of the legislation. The information was drawn from the detailed
IOS and IOI databases.
Offenders who committed assaults between the time period of October 2011 through September
2012 were studied to determine prosecution patterns. It was found that many cases did not result
6

in prosecution or, if prosecuted, a guilty verdict. A few cases where there was a guilty verdict in
court did not result in a sentence that kept the prisoner any longer than he or she would have spent
without the prosecution. This information will play a very significant role in deliberation of
possible remedies.
We again conclude with a series of recommendations that may help to further reduce all types of
misbehavior and violence in Ohio’s prisons.

7

Chapter 1: Inmate-on-Staff Assault Trends
Table 1-1
From a baseline of 1,112 assaults committed against staff by inmates in calendar year 2007, and
a rate of assaults on staff of 22.53 for every 1,000 inmates in the DRC system (see the last two
columns of Table 1-1), inmate assaults on staff rose modestly (by 4.9%) in 2008, then declined
by roughly one-tenth (9.9%) in 2009. An additional decline of 8.3% occurred in 2010; however,
the number of inmate assaults on staff rose modestly again (by 4.7%) in 2011, and is projected to
increase slightly again (by 3.1%) in 2012, based on reported inmate-on-staff assaults from the
first three quarters of 2012.
With regard to percentage changes in the rate of inmate-on-staff assaults per 1,000 inmates in the
system, in 2008 the 4.9 percent increase in the number of assaults outpaced the 2.1% increase in
the average population, resulting in a 2.7% increase in the rate of inmate-on-staff assaults. A
1.1% increase in the average population in 2009, coupled with a 9.9% decline in the number of
inmate-on-staff assaults resulted in an even greater (10.8%) drop in the rate of these assaults. A
relatively unchanged average population in 2010 (0.1%) resulted in equal declines in the number
and rate of inmate-on-staff assaults for that year of 8.3% each.
With average population declines of 1% in 2011 and 1.4% in 2012, the percentage increases in
the rate of inmate assaults on staff were even greater than the percentage increases in the number
of these assaults that occurred. The percentage increases in the number of assaults on staff were
4.7% in 2011 and a projected 3.1% in 2012, but the percentage increases in the rate of assaults
on staff were 5.8% in 2011 and projected 4.6% in 2012. Looking at total assaults, however, can
obscure the pattern of assaults that is occurring for any given year. We have four types of
assaults (physical, sexual, inappropriate physical contact, and harassment) with differing levels
of impact with regard to harm caused.
The most harmful inmate-on-staff assaults are physical assaults causing serious injury, and the
rape or attempted rape of a staff member. In the ODRC system, we have experienced one rape
and two attempted rapes of a staff member in the last six years. Our sexual assaults primarily
consist of grabbing of the buttocks, and occasionally the breast of female staff members. It is
degrading and disrespectful, but does not cause physical harm. We have averaged about 31 of
these incidents per year, with a significantly lower number in 2007 and significantly higher
numbers in 2010 and projected for 2012.
Assaults on staff resulting in serious injury to one or more staff members is a significant problem
at the present time with regard to our efforts in reducing institutional violence. Starting with a
low of 19 such incidents during calendar year 2007, that number almost doubled in 2008 to 36.
After a modest decline of 4 serious injury assaults (11.1%) in 2009, we saw a 25% increase in
2010 up to 40, where we remained in 2011, and are projected to remain in 2012.
Looking at the combination of serious and minor injury assaults, we have a mixed pattern,
alternately declining, then increasing, then declining again from 2008 through the projected 2012
figures, sometimes going in the same direction as the overall number of assaults (both in decline
8

in 2010 and increased in 2011), and in other cases going in the opposite direction (assaults with
injuries in decline in 2008 and 2012 when overall assaults were increased, and assaults with
injuries increased in 2009 when overall assaults were in decline).
Harassment assaults (which include spitting, the throwing or squirting of bodily fluids, known or
unknown liquids, food or other non-injury causing objects) against staff were higher in 2007 and
2008, declined for two straight years, then began rising again in 2011 and are projected to rise
above 500 incidents in 2012. Inappropriate physical contact assaults (which consist primarily of
inmates intentionally bumping into staff, elbowing or otherwise pushing their way past staff, or
grasping or slapping away the hand or arm of staff who are attempting to search, restrain or get
their id badge) were at a low in 2007, at 81. These incidents rose significantly (by 37%) in 2008,
remained steady in 2009, rose to a peak of 126 in 2010, declined in 2011 and are projected to be
near the peak again in 2012, at 123.
Table 1-2
Table 1-2 summarizes the same information described above, but it sorts the information by
prison groupings—primarily for the men according to the security level, but also with a female
grouping and a male reception grouping. It also details this information over several years. It
should be noted that the yearly totals for each year and the sub-types of assaults are the same
between Tables 1-1 and 1-2. The difference is the grouping sub-divisions for each year. Again
as a note, the figures for 2012 are extrapolated from the January to September totals.
Three prisons have had such dramatic changes in mission that they are not included in the prison
subcategories. Those are the DCI/ MEPRC complex (with one portion being closed and the
other switching from a male to female facility) and the CMC/FPRC/FMC complex (with a shift
from primarily female to male over the years). The data from these facilities are reflected in the
overall counts and rates.
The numbers by grouping are interesting. Overall the largest contributor to IOS assault rates are
the harassment assaults, nearly half of which take place at the male L4-L5 level. The rates of
IOS assault at the L4-L5 level each year is never less than five times as high as any other
grouping and that is usually male reception (all but 2010 and 2012, when L3 is higher). In every
year except 2010 (when the ratio is seven to one), the L4-L5 rate of IOS assault is at least ten
times the rate of L1-L2 male prisons. However, it would appear that the higher levels of control,
and the caution that is reasonably exercised by staff at those settings, has helped to reduce the
rate of serious physical assaults; which are lower than the rates at some other categories .
However, rates for L4-L5 minor and no injury physical assaults are quite a bit higher than for
any other grouping.
Summary for Inmate on Staff Assaults
Each year from 2007-2012 has had its own unique pattern of increasing or declining inmate-onstaff assaults across the different categories, although male L4-L5 behavior is consistently the
most troublesome. The greatest current problem in the prison system is the three straight years
from 2010-2012, each with 40 serious injury assaults, and trying to find solutions that will
9

significantly reduce that number. It is good to see that the total number of assaults with injuries
is expected to decline in 2012 to 176 from the peak of 234 such incidents experienced in 2011.
However, it should be noted that we have seen a pattern of alternately declining then increasing
numbers of these assaults every other year since 2008. It is hoped that with current reforms in
progress that this pattern will be different in 2013.

10

TABLE 1-1
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION
DRC Inmate-on-Staff Assault Rates per 1,000 Inmates by Type of Assault
Calendar Years 2007-2012
Type of Assault
Physical Assaults
Avg Pop

Serious

Minor

Sexual Assaults
Completed

Attempted

Year

Count

N

Rate

N

Rate

No injury
N

Rate

N

Total
Rate

N

N

2007

49,367.15

19

0.38

205

4.15

232

4.70

456

9.24

0

0.00

0

2008

50,405.81

36

0.71

162

3.21

234

4.64

432

8.57

0

0.00

2009

50,939.35

32

0.63

178

3.49

197

3.87

407

7.99

1

2010

50,969.08

40

0.78

153

3.00

197

3.87

390

7.65

0

2011

50,438.77

40

0.79

194

3.85

187

3.71

421

8.35

2012

49,746.42

40

0.80

136

2.73

188

3.78

364

7.32

Rate

Rate

Inappropriate

Contact

Total

Phys. Contact

N

Rate

N

Rate

N

0.00

20

0.41

20

0.41

81

0

0.00

29

0.58

29

0.58

0.02

0

0.00

28

0.55

29

0.00

1

0.02

36

0.71

0

0.00

0

0.00

29

0.57

0

0.00

1

0.02

40

0.80

Rate

Total
Harassment

Assaults

N

Rate

N

Rate

1.64

555

11.24

1,112

22.53

111

2.20

594

11.78

1,166

23.13

0.57

108

2.12

507

9.95

1,051

20.63

37

0.73

126

2.47

411

8.06

964

18.91

29

0.57

102

2.02

457

9.06

1,009

20.00

41

0.82

123

2.47

512

10.29

1,040

20.91

Notes:
2012 figures and rates are projected for CY12 based on reported figures from Jan-Sep of 2012
All "Rate" columns are the assault rate per 1,000 inmates
Definitions:
Serious Injury Physical Assault: an assault requiring treatment at a medical facility off prison grounds. Such injuries would include stab wounds, cuts requiring stitches,
concussions/severe head trauma, fractures, serious eye injuries, spinal cord or other nerve damage, severe bite wounds or serious joint sprains.
Sexual Assault: non-consensual anal or vaginal penetration or oral sex forced on the staff member by the inmate.
Sexual Contact Assault: any intentional touching of an erogenous zone of a staff member by an inmate including the thigh, genitals, buttock, pubic region, or breast (for
female staff).
Inappropriate Physical Contact Assault: physical resistance to a direct order, or the intentional grabbing, touching (of a non-sexual nature), bumping into or pushing of a
staff member that does not result in any physical injury to the staff member.
Harassment Assault: throwing, expelling or otherwise causing a bodily substance to come into contact with another, or throwing any other liquid or material on or at
another that does not result in any physical injury to the victim.

11

2007
L1-2
L3
L4-5
Rec
Fem
Total
2008
L1-2
L3
L4-5
Rec
Fem
Total
2009
L1-2
L3
L4-5
Rec
Fem
Total
2010
L1-2
L3
L4-5
Rec
Fem
Total

Avg Pop
28,401.35
11,002.35
1,928.15
3,701.12
2,916.04
49,367.15
Avg Pop
29,168.08
11,312.15
1,979.54
3,568.65
2,946.38
50,405.81
Avg Pop
29,452.96
11,648.62
1,878.54
3,467.19
3,072.92
50,939.35
Avg Pop
29,285.65
11,792.23
1,980.04
3,330.73
3,189.00
50,964.23

Serious
N Rate
5 0.18
7 0.64
5 2.59
2 0.54
0 0.00
19 0.38
N
Rate
12 0.41
12 1.06
11 5.56
1 0.28
0 0.00
36 0.71
N
Rate
14 0.48
7 0.60
7 3.73
4 1.15
0 0.00
32 0.63
N Rate
16 0.55
17 1.44
1 0.51
4 1.20
0 0.00
40 0.78

Table 1-2: DRC Inmate-on-Staff Assault Rates per 1,000 Inmates by Type of Assault by Institution Level
Calendar Years 2007-2012 *
Physical Assaults
Sexual Assaults
Inappropte.
Minor
No injury
Total
Completed Attempted Contact
Total
Phys. Cont.
N
Rate
N
Rate
N
Rate N Rate N Rate N Rate N Rate N
Rate
70
2.46
86
3.03 161
5.67 0 0.00 0 0.00 11 0.39 11 0.39
34
1.20
46
4.18
48
4.36 101
9.18 0 0.00 0 0.00
4 0.36
4 0.36
23
2.09
60 31.12
64 33.19 129 66.90 0 0.00 0 0.00
3 1.56
3 1.56
8
4.15
23
6.21
27
7.30
52 14.05 0 0.00 0 0.00
1 0.27
1 0.27
15
4.05
6
2.06
4
1.37
10
3.43 0 0.00 0 0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00
1
0.34
205 4.15
232
4.70 456
9.24 0 0.00 0 0.00 20 0.41 20 0.41
81
1.64
N
Rate
N
Rate
N
Rate N Rate N Rate N Rate N
Rate N
Rate
65
2.23
80
2.74 157
5.38 0 0.00 0 0.00 13 0.45 13 0.45
48
1.65
34
3.01
56
4.95 102
9.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 10 0.88 10 0.88
30
2.65
44 22.23
60 30.31 115 58.09 0 0.00 0 0.00
4 2.02
4 2.02
19
9.60
14
3.92
27
7.57
42 11.77 0 0.00 0 0.00
2 0.56
2 0.56
12
3.36
5
1.70
11
3.73
16
5.43 0 0.00 0 0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00
1
0.34
162 3.21
234
4.64 432
8.57 0 0.00 0 0.00 29 0.58 29 0.58 111
2.20
N
Rate
N
Rate
N
Rate N Rate N Rate N
Rate N
Rate N
Rate
68
2.31
72
2.44 154
5.23 0 0.00 0 0.00 15 0.51 15 0.51
39
1.32
40
3.43
49
4.21
96
8.24 1 0.09 0 0.00
8 0.69
9 0.77
42
3.61
25 13.31
43 22.89
75 39.92 0 0.00 0 0.00
1 0.53
1 0.53
6
3.19
27
7.79
24
6.92
55 15.86 0 0.00 0 0.00
1 0.29
1 0.29
14
4.04
14
4.56
7
2.28
21
6.83 0 0.00 0 0.00
1 0.33
1 0.33
6
1.95
178
3.49
197
3.87 407
7.99 1 0.02 0 0.00 28 0.55 29 0.57 108
2.12
N
Rate
N
Rate
N
Rate N Rate N Rate N Rate N Rate
N
Rate
61
2.08
87
2.97 164
5.60 0 0.00 1 0.03 25 0.85 26 0.89
56
1.91
46
3.90
50
4.24 113
9.58 0 0.00 0 0.00
8 0.68
8 0.68
37
3.14
24 12.12
21 10.61
46 23.23 0 0.00 0 0.00
1 0.51
1 0.51
13
6.57
9
2.70
27
8.11
40 12.01 0 0.00 0 0.00
1 0.30
1 0.30
8
2.40
13
4.08
9
2.82
22
6.90 0 0.00 0 0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00
11
3.45
153 3.00
197 3.87
390 7.65 0 0.00 1 0.02 36 0.71 37 0.73 126
2.47

Harassment
N
Rate
217
7.64
53
4.82
234 121.36
30
8.11
19
6.52
555
11.24
N
Rate
176
6.03
72
6.36
300 151.55
26
7.29
15
5.09
594
11.78
N
Rate
127
4.31
100
8.58
225 119.77
29
8.36
21
6.83
507
9.95
N
Rate
161
5.50
85
7.21
133
67.17
13
3.90
19
5.96
411
8.06

Total
Assaults
N
Rate
423
14.89
181
16.45
374
193.97
98
26.48
30
10.29
1,112
22.53
N
Rate
394
13.51
214
18.92
438
221.26
82
22.98
32
10.86
1,166
23.13
N
Rate
335
11.37
247
21.20
307
163.42
99
28.55
49
15.95
1,051
20.63
N
Rate
407
13.90
243
20.61
193
97.47
62
18.61
52
16.31
964
18.92

12

2011
L1-2
L3
L4-5
Rec
Fem
Total

Avg Pop
29,327.62
11,551.42
2,014.54
3,079.19
3,168.04
50,438.77

Table 1-2 (continued): DRC Inmate-on-Staff Assault Rates per 1,000 Inmates by Type of Assault by Institution Level
Calendar Years 2007-2012
Physical Assaults
Sexual Assaults
Inappropriate
Serious
Minor
No injury
Total
Completed Attempted Contact
Total
Phys. Contact Harassment
N Rate N
Rate
N
Rate
N
Rate N
Rate
N Rate N Rate N Rate
N
Rate
N
Rate
18 0.61
77
2.63
76
2.59 171
5.83
0
0.00
0
0.00 16 0.55 16 0.55
54
1.84 153
5.22
14 1.21
52
4.50
49
4.24 115
9.96
0
0.00
0
0.00
9 0.78
9 0.78
30
2.60
76
6.58
7 3.47
34 16.88
32 15.88
73 36.24
0
0.00
0
0.00
2 0.99
2 0.99
8
3.97 184
91.34
1 0.32
17
5.52
22
7.14
40 12.99
0
0.00
0
0.00
1 0.32
1 0.32
6
1.95
20
6.50
0 0.00
14
4.42
7
2.21
21
6.63
0
0.00
0
0.00
1 0.32
1 0.32
4
1.26
23
7.26
40 0.79 194
3.85 187
3.71 421
8.35
0
0.00
0
0.00 29 0.57 29 0.57
102
2.02 457
9.06

2012
L1-2
L3
L4-5
Rec
Fem
Total

Avg Pop
29,391.50
11,022.38
1,909.81
3,166.54
2,854.85
49,746.42

N
13
19
2
4
1
40

Rate
0.44
1.72
1.05
1.26
0.35
0.80

N
52
51
19
9
4
136

Rate
1.77
4.63
9.95
2.84
1.40
2.73

N
76
41
40
23
8
188

Rate
2.59
3.72
20.94
7.26
2.80
3.78

N
141
111
61
36
13
364

Rate
4.80
10.07
31.94
11.37
4.55
7.32

N
0
0
0
0
0
0

Rate
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

N
0
1
0
0
0
1

Rate
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02

N
24
12
2
1
0
40

Rate
0.82
1.09
1.05
0.32
0.00
0.80

N
24
13
2
1
0
41

Rate
0.82
1.18
1.05
0.32
0.00
0.82

N
57
47
3
15
1
123

Rate
1.94
4.26
1.57
4.74
0.35
2.47

N
168
112
191
23
17
512

Rate
5.72
10.16
100.01
7.26
5.95
10.29

Total
Assaults
N
Rate
394
13.43
230
19.91
267 132.54
67
21.76
49
15.47
1,009
20.00
N
390
283
257
75
31
1,040

Notes:
2012 figures and rates are projected for CY12 based on reported figures from Jan-Sep of 2012
All "Rate" columns are the assault rate per 1,000 inmates
Abbreviation definitions: L1-2 = Level 1 and 2 Security (Males), L3 = Level 3Security (Males), L4-5 = Level 4 and 5 Security (Males), Rec = Reception Centers (Males), and Fem = Female Institutions.

Definitions:
Serious Injury Physical Assault: an assault requiring treatment at a medical facility off prison grounds. Such injuries would include stab wounds, cuts requiring stitches,
concussions/severe head trauma, fractures, serious eye injuries, spinal cord or other nerve damage, severe bite wounds or serious joint sprains.
Sexual Assault: non-consensual anal or vaginal penetration or oral sex forced on the staff member by the inmate.
Sexual Contact Assault: any intentional touching of an erogenous zone of a staff member by an inmate including the thigh, genitals, buttock, pubic region, or breast (for
female staff).
Inappropriate Physical Contact Assault: physical resistance to a direct order, or the intentional grabbing, touching (of a non-sexual nature), bumping into or pushing of a
staff member that does not result in any physical injury to the staff member.
Harassment Assault: throwing, expelling or otherwise causing a bodily substance to come into contact with another, or throwing any other liquid or material on or at
another that does not result in any physical injury to the victim.

13

Rate
13.27
25.68
134.57
23.69
10.86
20.91

Chapter 2: Inmate-on-Inmate Assault Trends
Table 2-1
From a low of 1,023 assaults committed by inmates against other inmates in calendar year 2007,
with a rate of 20.72 of these incidents for every 1,000 inmates in the ODRC system (see the last
two columns of Table 2-1), the total number of inmate-on-inmate assaults rose steadily in 2008
to 1,123 (up 9.8%) and in 2009 to 1,301 (up 15.9%). The number of these assaults generally
leveled off in 2010 to 1,269, declining just slightly (by 2.5%), then rose steadily again in 2011 to
1,485 (up 17%). The 2012 figures are projected to be near the 2011 level, with an estimated
1,445 assaults for the year (a slight decline of 2.7%), based on reported inmate-on-inmate
assaults from the first three quarters of 2012.
Focusing on the percentage changes in the rate of inmate-on-inmate assaults per every 1,000
inmates in the system, increases in the number of these assaults outpaced the increases in the
average population in both 2008 and 2009. This resulted in increases in the rate of assaults per
1,000 inmates of 7.5% in 2008 and 14.6% in 2009. A slight decline of 2.5% in the number of
these assaults in 2010, coupled with almost no change in the average population from that year,
resulted in an equal decline in the assault rate for the year of 2.5%.
In 2011, the significant (17%) increase in the number of assaults, in combination with a very
slightly declining average inmate population for the year of just 1%, produced the highest
increase in the rate of inmate-on-inmate assaults from the six year period, up 18.2%, to 29.44
such assaults per 1,000 inmates. This represents an increase of more than 40 percent (42.1%)
from the rate of 20.72 assaults per 1,000 inmates in 2007. The projected decline of 2.7% in the
number of assaults in 2012, coupled with a 1.4% dip in the average population for the year, is
expected to result in a marginal decline in the rate of these assaults in 2012 of only 1.3%.
As with inmate-on-staff assaults, focusing only on changes in the total number of assaults can
mask important changes that have occurred within the various subcategories of these assaults.
Inmate-on-inmate assaults are comprised of physical, sexual and harassment assaults. The most
harmful inmate-on-inmate assaults are physical assaults resulting in serious injury to the victim,
and completed sexual assaults (meaning that anal, vaginal or oral penetration has occurred due to
force or threat of force against the victim).
With these types of assaults, the magnitude of the problem in our system is greater among
inmates than it is for those incidents perpetrated by inmates against staff, not because the
incidents are any worse, but because there are so many more of these incidents occurring among
the inmates. From 2007 through 2011, for example, there were 963 serious injury assaults
among inmates (an average of 192.6 per year), compared to 167 committed by inmates against
staff (an average of 33.4 per year); and for completed sexual assaults across the same period,
there were 49 incidents among inmates (about 10 per year), compared to 1 by an inmate against a
staff member.
Having noted the magnitude of the problem we have had with these two types of sexual assaults
(against staff or against inmates), the patterns of their occurrence over the 2007-2011 time period
14

have most often not been similar. From the baseline figure of 9 completed inmate-on-inmate
sexual assaults in 2007, that number almost doubled in 2008 to 17, then fell almost as abruptly in
2009 back down to 11, then took an even greater nose dive in 2010 down to a low for the period
of only 4. In 2011 we saw the number rise back up to 8, or about the same as the baseline figure
we had in 2007. The figure for 2012 is projected to be similar to that in 2011.
With regard to serious injury assaults among inmates between 2007 and 2011, we began with a
low of 120 such assaults in 2007, followed a substantial increase of 26% in 2008 to 151, and an
even more pronounced increase of 53 percent in 2009 to 231. After a modest decline of 8
percent in 2010 down to 213 serious injury assaults, the number shot back up 16% in 2011 to a
high for the period of 248. We are tentatively anticipating a significant decline in this figure for
2012, down 27 percent to 181 incidents, based on the reported figures we have for the first nine
months of the year. We have seen these figures end up higher than what we anticipated in past
years, so it is too soon to be concluding that we have witnessed a major decline in this type of
assault.
There are numerous other patterns that can be found from the data in table 2-1, some of the most
pertinent which will be noted below. Beginning with the projected figures for 2012, if they come
close to what we have projected, the fact that 2012 will have only a slight decline in the total
number of assaults we experienced in 2011 is somewhat misleading since there is a significant
increase of almost 25 percent in harassment assaults to date. We are expecting almost no change
in the sexual assault categories, and declines in all of the physical assault categories in 2012. By
contrast, the increase in total assaults we witnessed in 2011 resulted from increases in all assault
categories except attempted sexual assaults, which remained unchanged from 2010, and sexual
contact assaults, which declined by two assaults from 2010.
One final noteworthy contrast to point out when looking at the pattern of assaults between 2007
and 2011 is that the number of minor injury physical assaults has risen each year throughout the
period, from a low of 375 in 2007 to a high of 619 in 2011, an increase over those four years of
65 percent. By contrast, the total number of inmate-on-inmate sexual assaults over this period
began at a high point of 27 in both 2007 and 2008, and then declined in 2009 and again in 2010
to a level that was only two-thirds of those initial figures. The figure did increase modestly in
2011 back up to 20, but is projected to return to 18 in 2012.
Table 2-2
These comments are very similar to those for Table 1-2 (the IOS chapter). Table 2-2
summarizes the same IOI information described above, but it sorts the information by prison
groupings—primarily for the men according to the security level, but also with a female
grouping and a male reception grouping. It also details this information over several years. It
should be noted that the yearly totals for each year and the sub-types of assaults are the same
between Tables 2-1 and 2-2. The difference is the grouping of sub-divisions for each year.
Again as a note, the figures for 2012 are extrapolated from the January to September totals.
The numbers by grouping are interesting. Overall the largest contributor to IOI assault rates are
the physical assaults, representing two- thirds to three -fourths of each year’s overall IOI assault
15

rate. The rates of IOI assault at the L4-L5 level each year are never less than five times as high
as any other grouping. However, the IOI rates at the male reception centers are consistently the
lowest for males, perhaps matching the controls and separations exercised over new inmates.
However, the rates for L4-L5 minor and no injury physical assaults are quite a bit higher than for
any other grouping.
Summary for Inmate on Inmate Assaults
The total number of inmate-on-inmate assaults has for the most part steadily risen across the six
year period, going from a level not far above 1,000 assaults in 2007 to a level that is not far
below 1,500 assaults in 2011-2012. This represents an increase of almost 50 percent over the
time period. On a positive note, the period has been marked by a decline in the overall number
of sexual assaults, but conversely has also been marked up through 2011 by a significant rise
each year in injury assaults, and particularly in serious injury assaults, which more than doubled
from 120 in 2007 to 248 in 2011.
In contrast to inmate-on-staff assaults during the period, which decreased slightly from 1,112 to
1,090 , inmate-on-inmate assaults grew noticeably from 1,023 in 2007 to 1,485 in 2011. This
reflects how extensive the inmate-on-inmate assault problem has become in the DRC system,
along with the concurrent rise in the extent of inmate disturbances during the period. It is also
important to note that when sorting by facility grouping, L3 and L4-L5 IOI rates increased in
2012, while the L1-L2 rates decreased.

16

TABLE 2-1
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION
DRC Inmate-on-Inmate Assault Rates per 1,000 Inmates by Type of Assault
Calendar Years 2007-2012

Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012

Avg Pop
Count
49,367.15
50,405.81
50,939.35
50,969.08
50,438.77
49,746.42

Serious
N Rate
120 2.43
151 3.00
231 4.53
213 4.18
248 4.92
181 3.64

Physical Assaults
Minor
No injury
N
Rate
N Rate
375
7.60 197 3.99
421
8.35 237 4.70
523 10.27 209 4.10
560 10.99 183 3.59
619 12.27 230 4.56
608 12.22 203 4.08

Total
N
Rate
692 14.02
809 16.05
963 18.90
956 18.76
1,097 21.75
992 19.94

Type of Assault
Sexual Assaults
Completed Attempted Contact
N
Rate N Rate
N Rate
9
0.18
3
0.06 15 0.30
17
0.34
0
0.00 10 0.20
11
0.22
0
0.00 10 0.20
4
0.08
1
0.02 13 0.26
8
0.16
1
0.02 11 0.22
7
0.14
0
0.00 11 0.22

Total
N Rate
27 0.55
27 0.54
21 0.41
18 0.35
20 0.40
18 0.36

Harassment
N
Rate
304
6.16
287
5.69
317
6.22
295
5.79
368
7.30
435
8.74

Total
Assaults
N
Rate
1,023
20.72
1,123
22.28
1,301
25.54
1,269
24.90
1,485
29.44
1,445
29.05

Notes:
2012 figures and rates are projected for CY12 based on reported figures from Jan-Sep of 2012
All "Rate" columns are the assault rate per 1,000 inmates
Definitions:
Serious Injury Physical Assault: an assault requiring emergency treatment at a medical facility off prison grounds. Such injuries would include stab wounds,
cuts requiring stitches, concussions/severe head trauma, fractures, serious eye injuries, spinal cord or other nerve damage, severe bite wounds or serious
joint sprains.
Sexual Assault: non-consensual anal or vaginal penetration or oral sex forced on the victim by the assailant.
Sexual Contact Assault: any touching of an erogenous zone (including the thigh, genitals, buttock, or pubic region) of one inmate by another that is
unwanted by the victim.
Harassment Assault: throwing, expelling or otherwise causing a bodily substance to come into contact with another, or throwing any other liquid or
material on or at another that does not result in any physical injury to the victim.

17

2007
L1-2
L3
L4-5
Rec
Fem
Total
2008
L1-2
L3
L4-5
Rec
Fem
Total
2009
L1-2
L3
L4-5
Rec
Fem
Total
2010
L1-2
L3
L4-5
Rec
Fem
Total

Avg Pop
28,401.35
11,002.35
1,928.15
3,701.12
2,916.04
49,367.15
Avg Pop
29,168.08
11,312.15
1,979.54
3,568.65
2,946.38
50,405.81
Avg Pop
29,452.96
11,648.62
1,878.54
3,467.19
3,072.92
50,939.35
Avg Pop
29,285.65
11,792.23
1,980.04
3,330.73
3,189.00
50,964.23

TABLE 2-2: DRC Inmate-on-Inmate Assault Rates per 1,000 Inmates by Type of Assault by Institution Level
Calendar Years 2007-2012
Physical Assaults
Sexual Assaults
Serious
Minor
No injury
Total
Completed Attempted Contact
Total
Harassment
N Rate N
Rate
N
Rate
N
Rate N
Rate N Rate N Rate N Rate N
Rate
77 2.71 194
6.83
76
2.68 347 12.22
5
0.18
1
0.04 11 0.39 17 0.60
58
2.04
28 2.54 111 10.09
32
2.91 171 15.54
3
0.27
1
0.09
2 0.18
6 0.55
30
2.73
10 5.19
41 21.26
67 34.75 118 61.20
0
0.00
0
0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00 205 106.32
3 0.81
12
3.24
9
2.43
24
6.48
1
0.27
1
0.27
2 0.54
4 1.08
10
2.70
0 0.00
11
3.77
10
3.43
21
7.20
0
0.00
0
0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00
1
0.34
120 2.43 375
7.60 197
3.99 692 14.02
9
0.18
3
0.06 15 0.30 27 0.55 304
6.16
N Rate N
Rate
N
Rate
N
Rate N
Rate N Rate N Rate N Rate N
Rate
96 3.29 223
7.65
99
3.39 418 14.33
6
0.21
0
0.00
4 0.14 10 0.34
53
1.82
28 2.48 106
9.37
35
3.09 169 14.94
8
0.71
0
0.00
2 0.18 10 0.88
13
1.15
17 8.59
50 25.26
95 47.99 162 81.84
1
0.51
0
0.00
1 0.51
2 1.01 207 104.57
9 2.52
24
6.73
3
0.84
36 10.09
1
0.28
0
0.00
0 0.00
1 0.28
7
1.96
1 0.34
11
3.73
2
0.68
14
4.75
1
0.34
0
0.00
3 1.02
4 1.36
7
2.38
151 3.00 421
8.35 237
4.70 809 16.05 17
0.34
0
0.00 10 0.20 27 0.54 287
5.69
N Rate N
Rate
N
Rate
N
Rate N
Rate N Rate N Rate N Rate N
Rate
141 4.79 287
9.74
66
2.24 494 16.77
7
0.24
0
0.00
3 0.10 10 0.34
60
2.04
59 5.06 133 11.42
44
3.78 236 20.26
4
0.34
0
0.00
1 0.09
5 0.43
19
1.63
18 9.58
51 27.15
69 36.73 138 73.46
0
0.00
0
0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00 225 119.77
6 1.73
12
3.46
9
2.60
27
7.79
0
0.00
0
0.00
1 0.29
1 0.29
5
1.44
2 0.65
31 10.09
16
5.21
49 15.95
0
0.00
0
0.00
5 1.63
5 1.63
6
1.95
231 4.53 523 10.27 209
4.10 963 18.90 11
0.22
0
0.00 10 0.20 21 0.41 317
6.22
N Rate N
Rate
N
Rate
N
Rate N
Rate N Rate N Rate N Rate N
Rate
144 4.92 326 11.13
58
1.98 528 18.03
1
0.03
1
0.03
7 0.24
9 0.31
68
2.32
54 4.58 142 12.04
45
3.82 241 20.44
3
0.25
0
0.00
1 0.08
4 0.34
38
3.22
7 3.54
33 16.67
49 24.75
89 44.95
0
0.00
0
0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00 164
82.83
6 1.80
18
5.40
10
3.00
34 10.21
0
0.00
0
0.00
2 0.60
2 0.60
9
2.70
2 0.63
35 10.98
18
5.64
55 17.25
0
0.00
0
0.00
3 0.94
3 0.94
13
4.08
213 4.18 560 10.99 183
3.59 956 18.76
4
0.08
1
0.02 13 0.26 18 0.35 295
5.79

Total
Assaults
N
Rate
422
14.86
207
18.81
323
167.52
38
10.27
22
7.54
1,023
20.72
N
Rate
481
16.49
192
16.97
371
187.42
44
12.33
25
8.48
1,123
22.28
N
Rate
564
19.15
260
22.32
363
193.24
33
9.52
60
19.53
1,301
25.54
N
Rate
605
20.66
283
24.00
253
127.78
45
13.51
71
22.26
1,269
24.90

18

2011
L1-2
L3
L4-5
Rec
Fem
Total

TABLE 2-2 (continued): DRC Inmate-on-Inmate Assault Rates per 1,000 Inmates by Type of Assault by Institution Level
Calendar Years 2007-2012
Physical Assaults
Sexual Assaults
Serious
Minor
No injury
Total
Completed Attempted Contact
Total
Harassment
Avg Pop
N Rate N
Rate
N
Rate
N
Rate N
Rate
N Rate
N Rate N Rate N
Rate
29,327.62 166 5.66 317 10.81
78
2.66
561 19.13 4
0.14 0
0.00
7 0.24 11 0.38
70
2.39
11,551.42
65 5.63 186 16.10
47
4.07
298 25.80 4
0.35 1
0.09
1 0.09
6 0.52
42
3.64
2,014.54
12 5.96
44 21.84
79 39.21
135 67.01 0
0.00 0
0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00 230 114.17
3,079.19
4 1.30
14
4.55
5
1.62
23
7.47 0
0.00 0
0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00
9
2.92
3,168.04
1 0.32
45 14.20
14
4.42
60 18.94 0
0.00 0
0.00
3 0.95
3 0.95
15
4.73
50,438.77 248 4.92 619 12.27 230
4.56 1,097 21.75 8
0.16 1
0.02 11 0.22 20 0.40 368
7.30

Total
Assaults
N
Rate
642
21.89
346
29.95
365 181.18
32
10.39
78
24.62
1,485
29.44

2012
L1-2
L3
L4-5
Rec
Fem
Total

Avg Pop
29,391.50
11,022.38
1,909.81
3,166.54
2,854.85
49,746.42

N
556
369
386
50
45
1,445

N
109
57
3
8
4
181

Rate
3.71
5.17
1.57
2.53
1.40
3.64

N
314
193
25
29
20
608

Rate
10.68
17.51
13.09
9.16
7.01
12.22

N
43
64
78
4
9
203

Rate
1.46
5.81
40.84
1.26
3.15
4.08

N
466
314
106
41
33
992

Rate
15.85
28.49
55.50
12.95
11.56
19.94

N
3
3
0
1
0
7

Rate
0.10
0.27
0.00
0.32
0.00
0.14

N
0
0
0
0
0
0

Rate
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

N
8
1
0
1
1
11

Rate
0.27
0.09
0.00
0.32
0.35
0.22

N
11
4
0
2
1
18

Rate
0.37
0.36
0.00
0.63
0.35
0.36

N
79
51
280
7
11
435

Rate
2.69
4.63
146.61
2.21
3.85
8.74

Rate
18.92
33.48
202.11
15.79
15.76
29.05

8

Notes:
2012 figures and rates are projected for CY12 based on reported figures from Jan-Sep of 2012
All "Rate" columns are the assault rate per 1,000 inmates
Abbreviation definitions: L1-2 = Level 1 and 2 Security (Males), L3 = Level 3Security (Males), L4-5 = Level 4 and 5 Security (Males), Rec = Reception Centers (Males), and Fem = Female Institutions.
Definitions:
Serious Injury Physical Assault: an assault requiring emergency treatment at a medical facility off prison grounds. Such injuries would include stab wounds,
cuts requiring stitches, concussions/severe head trauma, fractures, serious eye injuries, spinal cord or other nerve damage, severe bite wounds or serious
joint sprains.
Sexual Assault: non-consensual anal or vaginal penetration or oral sex forced on the victim by the assailant.
Sexual Contact Assault: any touching of an erogenous zone (including the thigh, genitals, buttock, or pubic region) of one inmate by another that is
unwanted by the victim.
Harassment Assault: throwing, expelling or otherwise causing a bodily substance to come into contact with another, or throwing any other liquid or
material on or at another that does not result in any physical injury to the victim.

19

Chapter 3: Alleged and Substantiated Sexual Assault Trends
Summary of Information for 2006 to 2009
Overall, the number of allegations of sexual assault declined throughout the period from 2006
through 2009 (see Table 3-1), starting with 205 allegations during 2006, and dropping to 165 in
2007, 140 in 2008 and 133 in 2009. The number of both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate
sexual assault allegations has declined each of the last three years of that period, inmate-oninmate declining from 101 in 2006 down to 82 in 2009, and staff-on-inmate from 104 in 2006
down to 51 allegations, about one half of that in 2009.
The overall number of substantiated sexual assault allegations actually rose in 2007, due to a
much higher number of substantiated staff-on-inmate cases during that year, while the number of
substantiated inmate-on-inmate cases remained the same as in 2006. The number of
substantiated staff-on-inmate cases then declined by one half in 2008 while the number of
substantiated inmate-on-inmate cases again remained the same as in 2006-07. Then in 2009, the
number of substantiated staff-on-inmate cases stayed about the same, going up just one, while
the number of substantiated inmate-on-inmate cases declined for the first time during the fouryear period, from 25 down to 20.
Looking at the substantiation rates over the four-year period, the overall rate for both types of
cases rose sharply in 2007, due to the much higher substantiation rate among staff-on-inmate
allegations in 2007 over 2006, and then leveled off at about 23% in 2008, dropping slightly to
21% during 2009. Individually, with the number of substantiated inmate-on-inmate cases
remaining the same across 2006-08 as the number of allegations was in decline, the
substantiation rates rose slightly in 2007 and 2008, then fell last year back to the rate we saw in
2006 as the number of substantiated cases dropped by one-fifth from 25 in 2008 to 20 last year.
After the previously mentioned significant jump in the substantiated rate of staff-on-inmate
allegations in 2007, that rate declined by one-third in 2008 (from roughly 19% down to 13%),
then rose back up to about 16% during 2009.
Although DRC wanted to be cautious in drawing any conclusions from this data since these are
merely outcome figures, and this is not a study looking at the relationships between independent
and dependent measures, the continuous steady decline throughout the 2006-09 period in the
number of sexual assault allegations of both types suggested the possibility that our efforts at
educating both inmates (during orientation) and staff (in both pre- and in-service training) to be
more aware of the problem of sexual assault in the prison environment, and to take steps to
reduce the occurrence of victimization are having a beneficial effect.
It is encouraging to see steadily declining sexual assault allegation numbers over the same period
of time that our inmate population has been increasing. And the declining allegation figures
certainly shouldn't be due to the fact that the problem is becoming more hidden, given that DRC
has been focusing on it more intently and encouraging inmates to report any and every
occurrence of sexual assault. If anything, one would expect these efforts to drive the allegation
reporting figures up, not down. So we believe there is good reason to be encouraged by these
figures which suggest that DRC should continue with its aggressive efforts at educating both
20

inmates and staff, as it has been doing since the advent of the Prison Rape Elimination Act
(PREA) originally enacted by Congress in 2003.
Summary of Data from 2010
The total number of sexual assault allegations declined again in 2010 for the fourth consecutive
year, from 133 to 123. The overall decline, however, was due completely to a decline in the
number of staff-on-inmate sexual assault allegations (from 51 to 41), as inmate-on-inmate sexual
assault allegations remained unchanged from 2009, at 82.
The overall number of substantiated sexual assault allegations declined by just one, from 28 in
2009 to 27 in 2010. The number of substantiated staff-on-inmate sexual assaults actually
increased by one, from 8 to 9, while the number of substantiated inmate-on-inmate sexual
assaults fell by two, from 20 to 18. The increase in substantiated staff-on-inmate cases, coupled
with the 20% drop in the number of staff-on-inmate allegations resulted in the highest
substantiation rate of staff-on-inmate allegations in 2010 (22%) during the five-year period. The
inmate-on-inmate substantiation rate for 2010 was also 22%, a slight decline from the 24.4% rate
in 2009.
These findings lead us to draw the same conclusion as those from last year, suggesting that we
should continue with our efforts at educating inmates (in orientation) and staff (at pre- and inservice training) to be more aware of the problem of sexual assault in the prison environment,
and to take steps to reduce the occurrence of victimization, because these efforts appear to be
having a positive impact.
Summary of Data from 2011
After four consecutive years of declining sexual assault allegation figures, the total number of
alleged sexual assaults increased by 18% in 2011, from 123 in 2010 to 145 in 2011. Inmate-oninmate allegations rose by 15%, from 82 to 94, and staff-on-inmate allegations rose 24%, from
41 to 51, the same number of staff-on-inmate allegations reported in 2009. The overall number
of substantiated sexual assault allegations in 2011 remained the same as in 2010, at 27. There
was one additional substantiated inmate-on-inmate sexual assault and one fewer substantiated
staff-on-inmate sexual assault in 2011 than in 2010.
The 18% increase in alleged sexual assaults in 2011, coupled with no change in the number of
substantiated sexual assaults for the year, resulted in a modest decline in the rate of substantiated
sexual assault allegations, dropping from 22% in 2010 to 19% in 2011. Notably, the 20%
inmate-on-inmate substantiation rate for 2011 was the lowest such figure seen in DRC in the past
six years. On the other hand, there are two positive findings to note regarding the substantiated
inmate-on-inmate allegations from 2011. The first is that 3 (16%) of the 19 substantiated
inmate-on-inmate sexual assaults were caught on video camera. This is only the second year we
have had any such incidents caught on video. There was one such incident in 2010.
The other finding is perhaps even more positive. Of the 19 substantiated inmate-on-inmate
sexual assaults in 2011, there were 8 (42%) where one or more inmates not involved in the
21

sexual assault either reported the incident to staff and/or participated in the investigation by
offering a confidential statement. This is a far higher rate of this occurrence than we have ever
seen since PREA reporting began back in 2004.
This is another indication that DRC’s efforts in educating inmates about sexual assaults at
orientation in each new facility they enter is paying dividends. It is also notable that in 5 (63%)
of the 8 staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct cases from 2011, and in 6 (67%) of the 9 such cases
from 2010, one of the reporting parties of those incidents was another inmate not involved in the
misconduct. Therefore, one would again conclude that the Department should continue its
efforts at educating inmates (in orientation) and staff (at pre- and in-service training) to be more
aware of the problem of sexual assault in the prison environment, and to take steps to reduce the
occurrence of victimization, because these efforts appear to be having a positive impact.

TABLE 3-1
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION
INSTITUTIONAL CLIMATE REPORTING SYSTEM
Alleged and Substantiated Sexual Assaults
Calendar Years 2006-2011

Alleged Sexual Assaults
Inmate on Inmate
Staff on Inmate
Substantiated Sexual Assaults
Inmate on Inmate
Staff on Inmate
Substantiation Rates
Overall (IoI and SoI combined)
Inmate on Inmate
Staff on Inmate

Calendar Year
2008
2009
140
133

2010
123

2011
145

Six-Yr
Avg
151.8

82
51
28

82
41
27

94
51
27

89.2
62.7
30.3

25
7

20
8

18
9

19
8

22.0
8.3

2008
22.9%
29.1%
13.0%

2009
21.1%
24.4%
15.7%

2010
22.0%
22.0%
22.0%

2011
18.6%
20.2%
15.7%

6-yr Avg
20.0%
24.7%
13.3%

2006
205

2007
165

101
104
29

90
75
39

86
54
32

25
4

25
14

2006
14.1%
24.8%
3.8%

2007
23.6%
27.8%
18.7%

Note: Any alleged and substantiated sexual assaults at LAECI and NCCTF have been excluded from the data in this table.

22

Chapter 4: RIB Patterns
Violent and Disruptive Behavior Rule Infractions in Ohio Prisons
The analysis below is based on statewide and prison-level institutional misconduct data
generated at the Rules Infraction Board (RIB) from January 2007 through September 2012, with
an emphasis on more refined definitions of violence and disruptiveness. Definitions of violence
that include more routine types of fighting somewhat obscure more serious types of assaultive
(and related) behaviors due to the relative frequency of fighting rule infractions. Indeed, since
fighting accounts for 72% of overall violent rule infractions in FY 2012, we present data based
on several additional categories. First, our definition of total violent rule infractions include
physical assaults, sexual assaults, rioting, fights, throwing liquids/substances, and physical
harassment. Our definition of physical/sexual assault rule infractions provide a baseline measure
of serious violence and include physical assaults and sexual assaults. Finally, our measure of
disruptive rule infractions captures events that cause critical problems and disruptions to the
overall operations of the facility. These particular disruptive rule violations include behaviors
that represent assaultive behavior and hostage taking; sexual misconduct; encouraging rioting,
group demonstrations or work stoppages; physical resistance to a direct order; establishing
personal relationships with staff; physical harassment of staff; escape and related conduct;
possession and manufacturing of weapons, money, drugs or other intoxicating substances; setting
fires and tampering with fire alarms; and use of telephone or mail to threaten, harass or
intimidate anyone or further criminal activity.
Aggregate and Prison-Level Violent and Disruptive Rule Infraction Rates, CY07-CY11
The table below (Table 4-1) displays aggregate violent and disruptive rule infraction rates for the
last five complete calendar years. This information is also broken down by meaningful
subcategories of prison context. We see a steady increase in violent and disruptive rule
infraction rates from 2007 through 2011. In general, higher rates of violent and disruptive rule
infraction rates are present at higher level security male institutions. The total violent rule
infraction rate, physical/sexual assault rule infraction rate, harassment assault rule infraction rate,
and disruptive rule infraction rate have increased respectively by 7.8%, 17.5%, 15.6%, and
16.3% between 2010 and 2011.

23

Table 4-1: Violent and Disruptive Rule Infraction Rates, CY07-CY11. *
Rule Infraction Type

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Violent Rule Infraction Rate
by Level 1 and 2 Security (Males)
by Level 3Security (Males)
by Level 4 and 5 Security (Males)
by Reception Centers (Males)
by Female Institutions

157.09
146.75
160.78
415.42
167.52
98.08

167.00
145.26
174.24
544.07
177.10
127.95

217.89
179.91
254.97
608.98
258.13
203.06

213.58
184.56
244.65
459.08
250.40
230.17

230.24
194.36
275.98
553.97
260.46
213.70

Physical/Sexual Assault Rule Infraction Rate
by Level 1 and 2 Security (Males)
by Level 3Security (Males)
by Level 4 and 5 Security (Males)
by Reception Centers (Males)
by Female Institutions

25.06
20.32
25.09
133.81
20.80
10.97

26.29
22.49
25.55
128.31
21.86
12.90

32.55
28.79
33.57
126.16
26.82
22.78

30.86
30.39
30.87
67.68
26.42
25.40

36.26
33.42
39.04
108.21
19.49
30.62

Harassment Assault Rule Infraction Rate
by Level 1 and 2 Security (Males)
by Level 3Security (Males)
by Level 4 and 5 Security (Males)
by Reception Centers (Males)
by Female Institutions

18.35
14.44
11.00
144.70
15.94
11.32

21.58
11.69
11.58
265.21
15.13
10.52

21.30
10.08
15.80
260.31
16.44
17.57

18.99
11.95
16.79
161.61
9.61
18.81

21.95
13.09
15.15
221.39
15.59
15.78

Disruptive Rule Infraction Rate
by Level 1 and 2 Security (Males)
by Level 3Security (Males)
by Level 4 and 5 Security (Males)
by Reception Centers (Males)
by Female Institutions

142.14
122.14
167.15
523.82
121.04
37.38

152.86
122.22
189.35
668.84
127.22
45.82

179.55
131.29
260.89
665.41
160.65
73.55

204.63
159.98
334.63
436.86
137.51
93.76

237.99
192.89
358.40
612.05
146.14
116.48

* NOTE: Rates of RIB rule infractions per 1,000 inmates. FMC (CMC and FPRC) and DCI (and MEPRC) are not
included in the subcategories because their inmate populations are not comparable over time. However, their RIB
and population data are reflected in the overall rates.

The next table (Table 4-2) indicates that recent violent and disruptive behavior in Ohio prisons
provides a mixed picture across outcomes and prison context. This information indicates the
percentage change in violent and disruptive rule infractions for the first three quarters of 2011 (or
January 1 through September 30) compared to the first three quarters of 2012. For the entire
prison system as a whole, we see an 8% decrease in total violent rule infraction rate when
comparing the first three quarters of 2011 to the first three quarters of 2012. We see a 2.45%
increase in physical/sexual assault rule infraction rate and a 2.27% increase in disruptive rule
infraction rate during these same time periods. However, these increases in assaultive and
disruptive rule infraction rates are less than the increases from the 2010 to 2011 yearly
comparison. We see an almost 18% increase in harassment assaults from 2011 to 2012. The
table below also displays the percent change in violent and disruptive behavior disaggregated by
meaningful subcategories of prison context. Although we see some slight improvements in the
aggregate for some particular outcomes, the percent change among prison categories are quite
mixed and may stem from organizational changes and mission changes at the prison level.

24

Table 4-2: Percent Change for Violent and Disruptive RIB Rule Infraction Rates by Prison Context. *
January 1 to September 30, 2011

January 1 to September 30, 2012

Violent
Rate

Phy/Sex
Assault
Rate

Harass
Assault
Rate

Disrupt
Rate

Violent
Rate

Phy/Sex
Assault
Rate

Harass
Assault
Rate

Disrupt
Rate

Level 1 and 2 Security (Males)
Level 3Security (Males)
Level 4 and 5 Security (Males)
Reception Centers (Males)
Female Institutions

147.38
208.08
418.15
192.01
174.25

24.80
28.35
73.26
13.90
27.27

9.20
11.44
177.93
12.61
10.97

144.14
271.54
457.03
112.49
94.33

127.20
213.88
370.78
196.26
122.66

22.50
37.52
71.48
22.73
13.71

9.93
19.98
186.16
13.13
11.25

135.98
310.51
478.77
147.27
54.48

Total Population

174.29

26.59

16.53

179.36

160.35

27.24

19.50

183.43

Prison Context

Percent Change
Phy/Sex
Assault
Change

Harass
Assault
Change

-13.69
2.79
-11.33
2.21
-29.60

-9.29
32.35
-2.43
63.54
-49.72

8.00
74.54
4.63
4.12
2.54

-5.67
14.35
4.76
30.92
-42.25

-8.00

2.45

17.96

2.27

Violent
Change

Disrupt
Change

* NOTE: Rates of RIB rule infractions per 1,000 inmates. FMC (CMC and FPRC) and DCI (and MEPRC) are not included in the subcategories because their inmate
populations are not comparable over time. However, their RIB and population data are reflected in the Total Population category.

25

Chapter 5: Inmate Disturbance Trends
The occurrence of inmate disturbances, defined by the American Correctional Association
(ACA) as any event caused by four or more inmates that disrupts the routine and orderly
operation of the prison, has increased every year since 2007 through 2011, though the number of
these incidents projected for 2012, based on the figures we have to date up through November, is
expected to decline modestly, by about 10 percent. From a baseline of 45 such incidents in
calendar year 2007, and a rate of just under 1 (0.91) for every 1,000 inmates in the DRC system,
we experienced moderate increases in 2008 (up 15.6%) to 52 incidents, and 2009 (up 25%) to 65
incidents. We then witnessed large increases in disturbances in 2010 (up 43.1%) to 93 incidents,
and 2011 (up 63.4%) to 152 incidents.
The expected number of disturbances for 2012 is 136, based on the 125 disturbances reported
during the first 11 months of the year. If that figure is obtained, the decline from 2011 would be
10.5%. The rate of these incidents for 2012 would decline to 2.73 for every 1,000 inmates in the
ODRC system, down from the high of 3.01 disturbances per 1,000 inmates that we experienced
in 2011. With regard to how often these incidents occur, there has never been a month during
the past six years where there was not at least one inmate disturbance. The greatest number of
disturbances we have seen in a single month is 20. This has happened twice, in December of
2011 and July of 2012. The average number of disturbances per month was 3.8 in 2007, 4.3 in
2008, 5.4 in 2009, 7.8 in 2010, 12.7 in 2011, and 11.3 in 2012.

26

TABLE 5-1
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION
INSTITUTIONAL CLIMATE REPORTING SYSTEM
Inmate Disturbances Summary Report
Calendar Years 2007-2012

Calendar Year
Institution

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Jan-Nov

SixYr

2012

Total

ACI

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

BeCI

5

4

8

16

19

10

62

CCI

0

0

1

0

1

0

2

CMC

0

0

0

0

0

CRC

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

DCI

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

FPRC

0

0

0

0

0

GCI

0

0

0

1

1

0

2

HCF

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

LaECI

0

2

0

3

3

7

15

LeCI

2

1

0

3

5

7

18

LoCI

0

0

3

1

1

5

10

LorCI

0

0

2

0

4

3

9

MaCI

4

8

1

7

8

2

30

ManCI

9

6

15

16

21

20

87

MCI

0

0

0

1

0

1

2

MEPRC

0

0

0

NCI

8

9

10

15

18

6

66

NCCI

2

4

4

3

9

2

24

NCCTF

0

0

2

0

0

NEPRC

0

0

0

1

0

OCF

0

0

0

0

0

ORW

0

0

0

0

0

0

OSP

0

0

0

0

2

0

2

PCI

0

2

1

3

5

1

12

RiCI

5

3

2

6

11

10

37

RCI

2

2

0

5

5

7

21

SCI

3

3

3

2

13

9

33

SOCF

4

2

2

2

7

4

21

ToCI

0

2

4

3

8

13

30

TCI

0

0

0

2

5

7

14

FMC

WCI
Total
Avg Pop
Count
Rate/1,000 I/M

0

0

0

2
2

3
0
0

1

4

7

3

6

7

28

45

52

65

93

152

125

532

49,367.15
0.91

50,405.81
1.03

50,939.35
1.28

50,969.08
1.82

50,438.77
3.01

49,746.42
N/A

27

Chapter 6: The Male Security Classification Instruments
New Objective Security Classification Instruments for Male Inmates
The department has utilized electronic institutional rule infraction data in several ways from an
operational perspective. In particular, this information has supported the revision of the profile
for Security Threat Group (STG) inmates, helped facilitate analysis of prison-level violence, and
provided state-level comparisons in the Performance-Based Measures System (PBMS) reporting
system. One of the more notable uses and accomplishments of this misbehavior data in CY 2012
was in providing the empirical basis for the development of new objective security classification
instruments for male inmates.
The security instruments for male inmates being used prior to the implementation of these new
tools were based in 1995-1996 data, and the older version of these tools were not completely
revalidated with more recent data. The department utilizes two sets of classification instruments
to determine an inmate’s security level. The Security Designation determines security level at
the beginning of an incarceration term, while the Security Review reassesses an inmate’s security
level annually (or earlier in special circumstances).
The analysis for the new Security Designation instrument used data that consisted of male
inmates committed from July 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009 (six month time commitment time
period that excludes inmates serving 3 months or less). A full one year follow-up was conducted
for institutional misbehavior. The analysis considered several outcomes (both dichotomous
measures and rate variables) based in overall rule infractions, violent rule infractions, and
disruptive rule infractions. Over 50 static variables were assessed as potential predictors of
prison misconduct. Table 6-1 provides an example of several of the analytical models that
provide the foundation of the new Security Designation instrument for male inmates. Items in
the final model were generally predictive across all outcomes analyzed in the statistical models.
In general, the male Security Designation places the most emphasis on younger inmates, active
and disruptive STG members, and inmates with recent releases from Levels 3, 4, and 5 security
at DRC prisons.

28

Table 6-1: Logistic Regression Coefficients of Overall and Disruptive Prison Misconduct.
Overall
Prison
Misconduct

Male Security Designation Items
Age at Current Admission
25 years and younger
26 to 34 years
35 years and older (reference)

Disruptive
Prison
Misconduct

1.307
.513

***
***

(.056)
(.058)

1.420
.702

***
***

(.088)
(.094)

.450

***

(.049)

.466

***

(.069)

1.197
.443

***
***

(.100)
(.056)

1.014
.518

***
***

(.125)
(.079)

Assault Conviction History
Yes
No (reference)

.213

***

(.056)

.202

**

(.078)

Prior Active or Disruptive STG Participation
Yes
No (reference)

.518

*

(.238)

.826

***

(.247)

Most Serious Current Conviction Offense
High Adjustment Risk Offenses
Low Adjustment Risk Offenses (reference)
Security Level Last Adult Prison Release
Released Level 3 or Higher
Released Level 2
No Priors or Released Level 1/Other State (reference)

Nagelkerke R2

.121

.091

NOTE: DRC Male Commitment Population (July to December 2009; n = 10,019). Unstandardized coefficients are
presented and standard errors are in parentheses.
*p ≤ .05, **p ≤ .01, ***p ≤ .001 (two-tailed).

The Male Security Review instrument was constructed in a similar analytic fashion. The data
consisted of incarcerated male offenders that have served one year or more on January 1, 2010.
This strategy ensured the inclusion of prior prison misbehavior, a strong predictor of future
prison misbehavior, in the statistical models. A similar set of predictors and outcome measures
were used during the analysis. Again, the items in the final Security Review model were
generally predictive across all outcomes considered. The male Security Review places emphasis
on prior institutional misbehavior, placement in local control settings, active/disruptive STG
participation, educational attainment, and age. In general and unlike the male Security
Designation, the male Security Review is somewhat similar in content to the review tool used
prior to its inception. Items on both security instruments are strongly predictive of institutional
misconduct, and increasing instrument scores are shown to be highly associated with greater
levels of rule infractions (see Table 6-2 as this pertains to the Security Designation Instrument).
We expect the implementation of these new security instruments coupled with broader agencywide efforts to reduce violence to make our prisons safer for both inmates and staff.

29

Table 6-2: Descriptive Statistics for New Male Security Designation Instrument (n=10,019).
Weight

n

%

% RIB

% Dis
RIB

Age at Current Admission
35 years and older
26 to 34 years
25 years and younger

0
1
2

3707
3075
3237

37.0
30.7
32.3

20.2
30.5
46.7

5.4
10.9
18.3

Most Serious Current Conviction Offense
Low Adjustment Risk Offenses
High Adjustment Risk Offenses

0
1

6919
3100

69.1
30.9

28.0
40.7

9.3
15.6

Security Level Last Adult Prison Release
No Priors or Released Level 1/Other State
Released Level 2
Released Level 3 or Higher

0
1
2

7326
2189
504

73.1
21.8
5.0

29.4
35.0
54.8

9.9
13.2
22.0

Assault Conviction History
No
Yes

0
1

7820
2199

78.1
21.9

30.4
37.3

10.5
14.0

Prior Active or Disruptive STG Participation
No Prior Active or Disruptive STG
Prior Active or Disruptive STG

0
2

9934
85

99.2
0.8

31.7
60.0

11.0
34.1

n

%

% RIB

% Dis
RIB

4172
4933
901
13

41.6
49.2
9.0
0.1

18.7
38.4
56.7
84.6

5.0
13.8
25.3
69.2

Items

Security Level
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4

30

Chapter 7: The Prosecution Process of Serious Assaultive Behavior
The Prosecution Process
The steps for processing serious incidents in the department is detailed by policy. The policy
language reads, the department will “conduct special investigations when an incident is of great
importance or consequence to the institution, the office or the Department, or when the issue is
particularly complex.” There are five circumstances described as a serious incident:
“(1) any incident which threatens or causes death or a significant impact on the health or safety
of a person;
(2) escape or attempted escape;
(3) apparent commission of a felony;
(4) a serious breach of or threat to security; or
(5) a major disturbance.”
While a number of different parties can initiate a special investigation or conduct such an
investigation, the Ohio State Highway Patrol (OHSP) is given the responsibility over all
“incidents that are already known or suspected to be criminal in nature,” although they can then
authorize the Department to conduct the investigation.
The next steps that might be taken by the OSHP fall under their jurisdiction and are not specified
in DRC policies. The standard expectation is that if the OSHP investigation leads to the
conclusion that a particular individual has committed a felony level offense, there will be a
referral of the investigation material to the county (Common Pleas) prosecutor responsible for
the jurisdiction in which the offense occurred.
Prosecution of Serious Violent Incidents
The Office of Prisons conducted a study to determine the prosecution rates for the two following
categories:
(1) Inmate on Staff assaults where the staff member required outside medical treatment
(2) Inmate on Inmate assaults where the assailant used a weapon and the victim required outside
medical treatment.
The period October 2011 to September 2012 was selected because the data would be the most
complete and there would have been time to refer the case to prosecution.
Inmate on Staff
For this time period, there were 35 cases where an inmate assaulted a staff member and the staff
member required outside medical treatment. Of those cases:
 27 of 35 (77%) were presented to the prosecutor
 6 of 35 (17%) are pending prosecution decision. The average time pending is 110 days
since the assault.
31





5 of 35 (14%) were rejected by the prosecutor.
16 of 35 (47%) were prosecuted.
10 of 35 (28%) were convicted.

For those convicted, the average sentence was 7.6 months. Two of ten cases were given a
concurrent sentence thereby resulting in no additional time added to the sentence.
Inmate on Inmate with a Weapon
For this time period, there were 47 cases where an inmate assaulted another inmate, with a
weapon, and where the victim required outside medical attention. Of these:
 20 of 47 (43%) were presented to the prosecutor
 4 of 47 (8%) are pending prosecution decision. The average time pending is 165 days
since the assault.
 8 of 47 (17%) were rejected by the prosecutor.
 8 of 47 (17%) were prosecuted.
 8 of 47 (17%) were convicted.
The average sentence imposed was 16 months. One of eight of the sentences was to be served
concurrently, thereby resulting in no extra time.

32

Recommendations
The Department submits the following recommendations for continued improvement, some of
which can be addressed administratively, and others of which will require legislative action.
 DRC should continue its efforts to fully implement the system-wide 3 Tier prison
reorganization initiative that is premised on improved general population and STG classification
policies, more effective control of the most violent and disruptive inmates, and incentives to
transition inmates into pre-release and reintegration settings. Efforts in this regard already may
be partly responsible for the promising patterns observed during the first nine months of 2012.
 DRC should continue efforts to fully implement the unit management initiative system wide,
which is designed to reduce prison violence by facilitating more direct forms of inmate
supervision, increasing rapport and informal mechanisms of social control, and improving staff
awareness of inmate readiness for reintegration programming. It is plausible to believe that the
increases in several measures of misbehavior of the late 2000’s and the decrease in some of those
more recently may be related to the cut-backs and recent re-establishment of unit management.
 DRC’s Bureau of Classification should work to minimize clustering of inmates who are young
and who have active STG affiliations.
 DRC should continue its Sexual Assault education programs, including the re-education of
inmates each time they transfer between prisons.
 DRC should explore additional legal mechanisms to increase time in prison for inmates who
commit serious assaultive behavior. This may include new ways of working with local
prosecutors and courts, but it may also involve new legal mechanisms under which DRC can
impose such penalties more directly. Much of this investigation is going forward at present
under the Structured Sentencing Work Group, which was convened by Director Mohr in June of
2012. The committee is working to finalize legislative recommendations to be introduced in
early 2013.
 To the extent that crowding is regarded as a contributing factor in prison violence, DRC should
pursue continued implementation of HB 86 reforms that target population management by
improving Institutional Summary Report quality and identifying appropriate candidates for
judicial release and risk reduction sentences.
 With RIB dashboard information more readily accessible and available for analysis, DRC staff
should routinely use such data to recognize problems but also for more extensive analysis of
misbehavior trends, with monthly, quarterly, and longer summaries of the information, by kinds
of violations, by facility, and by offender characteristics.
 Certain kinds of additional research and analysis may also be beneficial. First, DRC should
conduct further analytical research to better understand the individual and prison-level correlates
of prison violence described in this report. Second, DRC should help to integrate Ohio Risk
Assessment System (ORAS) assessment information into the internal classification process in
33

order to better align prison programming with inmate needs and thereby more effectively target
the sources of behavioral problems among higher security and control unit inmates. Third, DRC
should work to develop a systematic and routine mechanism for ongoing cultural assessment at
the institutional level, and use that information to better align perceptions of agency mission
across line and supervisory staff and increase fairness and uniformity in staff response to
violence.

34