Smoke Screen-Experiences With the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons, Oct. 2023
Download original document:
![Brief thumbnail](/media/cache/bc/2d/bc2dcbee7f10acdf9263c189821cd626.jpg)
Document text
![Brief thumbnail](/media/cache/bc/2d/bc2dcbee7f10acdf9263c189821cd626.jpg)
Document text
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
INDEPENDENT PRISON OVERSIGHT SINCE 1844 September 2023 October 2023 Findings from a Systemwide Survey of the Incarcerated Grievance Program September 2023 Findings from aExperiences Systemwide “Smoke Screen”: Survey the Incarcerated with the of Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons Grievance Program correctional association of new york. Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons “Smoke Screen”: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons Table of Contents Partial List of Abbreviations 2 Introduction 4 Background 5 The historical origins of the grievance process in New York State. 5 Relevant studies from jurisdictions across the US 6 Evidence documenting importance of outcome vs procedure: procedural justice in the grievance program 7 The Incarcerated Grievance Process in New York State 8 The impact of the Prison Litigation Reform Act 12 Key Findings 13 Key Findings 13 Methodology Information collected on monitoring visits Survey Data Supplemental interviews and desk research 18 18 18 19 In depth Findings 19 SCOPE OF USE 19 23 Awareness of the process and its elements General awareness and means of information 23 Gaps in knowledge of procedures 24 Knowledge of the drop box 25 Knowledge of the IGRC and elections 25 Awareness and accessibility of Directive 4040 25 Knowledge of appeals process 26 The role of the IGRC, IGP Supervisor, Superintendent and CORC 27 The election and procedural role of IGRC representatives. 27 The role of IGP supervisors 30 The IGP sergeant 33 The role of the Superintendent 34 Inconsistencies in staff approaches and roles between different prisons. 35 The role of the Central Office Review Committee 40 Correctional Association of New York 3 3 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons “Smoke Screen”: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons PROCEDURAL INTEGRITY AND FAIRNESS Procedural issues preventing adequate hearings on medical grievances 41 41 Explanations of decision-making processes 41 Transparency in sharing decisions and decision-making processes with the public 43 The need for the cameras to be used as part of the IGP 44 Procedural guarantees of implementation of decisions 44 FALSE USE OF TIME LIMITS 45 Lack of access to recourse due to limitations on issues subject to the IGP 45 Lack of access due to physical obstacles 46 Interception of grievances before they reach the drop box. 47 Interception of grievances after they reach the drop box or mailbox 48 False claiming time limits to prevent grievances from being filed 49 Failures to allow access to hearings 49 RETALIATION AND FEAR Lack of confidentiality leading to retaliation 50 52 Lack of consequences for staff as a cause for retaliation 53 Forms of retaliation 55 The consequences of retaliation 55 Retaliation against IGRC members 55 Fear of retaliation that comes from this report and speaking with CANY DURATION AND THE PLRA Procedural implications of the PLRA CONSEQUENCES: MISTRUST AND ILLEGITIMACY 56 56 57 60 Conclusion 66 Appendix A Cover letter 67 Appendix B Survey 68 Appendix C Numbers of grievance per year 77 Appendix D Additional Qualitative Data 82 Appendix E Note on Margin of Error and Responsiveness 99 Appendix F DOCCS Response Correctional Association of New York 100 4 4 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons PARTIAL LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CANY Correctional Association of New York CORC Central Office Review Committee DOCCS Department of Corrections and Community Supervision IGP Incarcerated Grievance Program IGRC Incarceraged Grievance Resolution Committee ILC Incarcerated Liaison Committee OMH Office of Mental Health OSI Office of Special Investigations PLRA Prison Litigation Reform Act RRU Residential Rehabilitation Unit SCOC State Committee on Correction SHU Special Housing Unit Correctional Association of New York 2 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons The grievance committee was formulated to mediate between staff and convicts so the Attica riot was not repeated. Yet the IGP has become a farce that wastes everyone’s time and does little to nothing to resolve issues that could easily be taken care of with minimal effort.” INCARCERATED PERSON WALSH REGIONAL MEDICAL UNIT Correctional Association of New York 3 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons INTRODUCTION The Incarcerated Grievance Program (IGP) in New York State was created to address “the substance or application of any written or unwritten policy, regulation, procedure or rule of the Department of Correctional Services or any of its program units, or the lack of a policy, regulation, procedure or rule.”1 The program purports to provide “each incarcerated individual with an orderly, fair, simple and expeditious method for grievances” as detailed in Directive 40402 and in accordance with Correction Law 1393 and New York Codes, Rules and Regulations Part 7695.4 The IGP represents the only internal mechanism that allows incarcerated people in New York State facilities with recourse to address issues with most aspects of prison life. As stipulated by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which was enacted in 1996 and designed to decrease the rate of litigation by incarcerated people, it is also necessary for the IGP to be exhausted before incarcerated people can litigate bring litigation about prison conditions.5 Consequently, it is essential for the IGP to be both fair and procedurally sound for the proper functioning of the grievance program, both for internal dispute resolution and as a prerequisite for litigation. The Correctional Association of New York (CANY), a non-profit organization mandated by the state to conduct oversight of state correctional facilities, has repeatedly documented that the IGP in New York State is perceived by incarcerated people as fundamentally failing. During monitoring visits, and in correspondence with incarcerated people and their families, the program is frequently cited as restricted in scope, lacking transparency and fairness, failing to resolve grievances within specified time limits, and widely subject to physical and other forms of retaliation. Together these failures inflict significant damage on perceptions of legitimacy of the system and negatively impact relationships between incarcerated people and staff. To explore the scope and depth of these issues, CANY administered a system wide survey to roughly 10% (2805) of the prison population of New York State which received 540 responses (approx. 20% response rate). This survey, together with desk research into comparable programs across the US and abroad, a series of key-informant interviews with Incarcerated Grievance Resolution Committees, Incarcerated Grievance Program Supervisors, researchers and legal practitioners, inform the key findings in this report. In comments, many incarcerated people also articulated practical, relevant and realistic recommendations to reimagine the IGP, which will form the basis for a forthcoming separate report. 1 N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 7, § 701.2(a) (2012); State of New York, Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Directive No. 4040, Inmate Grievance Program § 701.2(a) (2016) 2 N.Y. Correct.Law § 139; 9 NYCRR Part 7695; Prison Rape Elimination Act https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ COR/139 3 N.Y. Correct. Law § 139 (“N.Y. Correct. Law § 139”) (2021). https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/COR/139 4 https://casetext.com/regulation/new-york-codes-rules-and-regulations/title-9-executive-department/subtitle- aa-state-commission-of-correction/chapter-vi-minimum-standards-and-regulations-for-management-of-state-correctionalfacilities/part-7695-nondiscriminatory-treatment 5 Congress.gov. “S.866 - 104th Congress (1995-1996): Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995.” July 27, 1995. https:// www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/senate-bill/866 Correctional Association of New York 4 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons The survey data confirms that the IGP is heavily used and seen as vital by the incarcerated population, even as it fails to provide recourse. Despite this, the process does not apply to numerous aspects of prison life. For some issues, such as medical grievances, the procedures outlined within the system do not allow for a comprehensive hearing into the details of service delivery by those with relevant knowledge. There are frequent administrative and practical obstacles to filing grievances. The system does not ensure transparent and consistent processes in running key components such as the election of the Incarcerated Grievance Resolution Committee, the role of the Inmate Grievance Program Supervisor, the decisions made on appeals and by the superintendent, and the decision-making process for appeals received by the Central Office Review Committee. Finally, there is widespread evidence, and fear, of retaliation for filing grievances. These factors result in perceptions that the IGP is fundamentally unfair. The IGP in New York has issues in common with jurisdictions across the US, including lack of accessibility, lack of transparency, perceptions of bias, and fears of retaliation. The PLRA, and particularly the requirement that specified that remedies must be exhausted, is also relevant across the US. For those reason, the findings within this report may be applicable beyond New York State. BACKGROUND The historical origins of the grievance process in New York State. The grievance program in New York and across the United States has a direct link to the legacy of the Attica uprising in 1971. During the uprising, incarcerated people engaged in negotiations on key complaints. In the aftermath of Attica, the McKay Commission recommended a series of reforms.6, 7, 8 This included “Reform No. 18: Establish an inmate grievance commission comprised of one elected inmate from each company, which is authorized to speak to the administration.”9 The grievance process came into existence in New York State in 1976.10 6 Patterson v. Smith, 53 N.Y.2d 98, 101, 423 N.E.2d 23, 25 (1981). https://casetext.com/case/matter-of-patterson-v- smith 7 Memorandum of State Executive Department, McKinney’s Session Laws of NY, 1975, pp 1705-1706. 8 Thompson Heather Ann, Blood in the Water: The Attica Prison Uprising of 1971 and Its Legacy. Pantheon Books: New York, 2016; 9 Winerip, Michael, Tom Robbins, and Michael Schwirtz. “Revisiting Attica Shows How New York State Failed to Fulfill Promises.” The New York Times. The New York Times, August 26, 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/nyregion/ revisiting-attica-shows-how-new-york-state-failed-to-fulfill-promises.html 10 Columbia Human Rights Law Review. “Inmates Grievance Procedures .” Essay. In A Jailhouse Lawyer’s Manual, 12th ed., 407–21, 2020. https://jlm.law.columbia.edu/files/2017/05/27.-Ch.-15.pdf Correctional Association of New York 5 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons Many of the other recommendations made by the commission were not adopted at all including the establishment of a parliamentary ombudsman, and introduction of a minimum wage. Prisoners’ Legal Services and law libraries continue to exist but are limited in the amount of support that they can provide to those seeking recourse for issues that occurred inside prisons.11 In New York, in survey data and in conversations, many incarcerated people cite the legacy of the Attica uprising and corresponding legal changes as having a particular relevance to increasing their frustration at the IGP. The grievance program, once deemed to be one of the only positive outcomes of the Attica uprising, is essentially perceived as a failure in practice. Relevant studies from jurisdictions across the US There are several recent studies across multiple jurisdictions that have direct relevance to the IGP in New York. Common themes manifest themselves across multiple states because of the implications of federal legislation and because IGPs are set up to fail without effective safeguards and methods of recourse beyond those that are specific to grievances. A 50-state survey in 2015 drew conclusions that closely align with CANY’s findings from New York. In multiple states, IGPs suffer from a lack of clarity on issues subject to the IGP, multiple obstacles related to access, excessive reliance on paperwork, the need for independence of appeal mechanisms, and the need for clearly articulated reasons for denials.12 In Washington State in 2020, workshops within the correctional ombuds resulted in realistic recommendations,13 including the need to build confidence in and knowledge of the system and reduce fears of retaliation by actively defining ‘retaliation’ to improve accountability, provide training with visual tools for its grievance system to improve understanding twice a year, and to ensure a meaningful response and increase documentation across all aspects of the process. The existence of such a workshop, and the identification of these specific needs, are relevant and applicable to New York. In Vermont in 2022, long delays and allegations of unfairness in the grievance system triggered an audit report which found the process was marred by poor record keeping, a lack of oversight, and a lack of clear responses.14 In response, the Vermont DOC identified plans for the use of tablets15 and for the establishment of an independent corrections investigative unit. In Texas, a 2017 report from The Prison Justice League found multiple issues including delays, lack of transparency, 11 Ibid 12 Kaul, Priyah, Greer Donley, Benjamin Cavataro, Anelisa Benavides, Jessica Kincaid, and Joseph Chatham. “Prison and Jail Grievance Policies: Lessons from a Fifty-State Survey.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2015. https://www.law.umich.edu/special/policyclearinghouse/Site%20Documents/ FOIAReport10.18.15.2.pdf 13 Report and Recommendations from the Grievance Procedure Workgroup. A Collaboration of the Washington Department of Corrections, the Office of the Corrections Ombuds, and Disability Rights Washington, January 7, 2020. https://oco.wa.gov/sites/default/files/Grievance%20Procedure%20 Workgroup%20Report%20Final.pdf 14 Hoffer, Douglas. Rep. Department of Corrections: Significant Deficiencies Demonstrate Need for Overhaul of the Prisoner Grievance Process. Vermont State Auditor, December 16, 2022. https://auditor.vermont.gov/sites/auditor/files/documents/Final%20DOC%20Grievance%20Report.pdf 15 “Vermont DOC Announces Plans for Grievance Process Modernization.” Vermont Official Website. December 19, 2022. Agency of Human Services. https://doc.vermont.gov/press-release/vermont-doc-announces-plans-grievance-process-modernization Correctional Association of New York 6 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons and lack of oversight. The report recommended using the model of independent oversight to which the juvenile justice system in Texas is subject. The need for independence is highlighted as a basis for improvement by incarcerated people throughout this report16. In North Carolina in 2023, an independent oversight agency’s report recommends that a task force be established to address problems with the IGP in the context of a ruling by a federal appeals court that likens the IGP system to a Catch-22.17, 18 The report recommends that the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction introduce measures to prevent retaliation, allow grievants to participate in collecting evidence, increase transparency of the process to the public and introduce tablets to keep an accurate record of grievances filed.19 In New York City in 2018, the Board of Corrections published an updated version of recommendations for improving city jails the grievance process. These included measures to improve independence for things such as the use of a citywide 311 telephone system w hich is not controlled by NYCDOC’. The report recommended that appeals be shared with the BOC. The BOC also suggested that an actionplan should be developed to address the most raised grievances. The reports from the different entities differ in detail but show the same lack of transparency, failure to attend deadlines, and need for independence20. Evidence documenting importance of outcome vs procedure: procedural justice in the grievance program In addition to the geographical contextualization provided by policy-oriented reports, the survey findings also shed light on the meaning incarcerated people ascribe to the process. Calavita and Jenness’ expansive study of California from 2015 mirrors findings in New York documenting a labyrinthine process that delivers neither justice, nor efficiency, nor constitutional conditions of confinement.21 A follow-up study identifies that there are differences in how procedural justice is viewed in prison in comparison to other contexts. 16 A “Rigged System”: How the Texas Grievance System Fails Prisoners and The Public, PJL, 20017 https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/prison_ justice_league/a_rigged_system.pdf 17 Griffin v. Bryant, United States court of appeals for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (United States Court of Appeals for The Fourth Circuit 2022). https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/217362.P.pdf 18 Lyons, Kelan. “Federal Appeals Court Ruling Likens North Carolina’s Prison Grievance System to a ‘Real World ‘Catch 22’”.” NC Newsline, March 28, 2023. https://ncnewsline.com/2023/01/06/federal-judge-likens-north-carolinas-prison-grievancesystem-to-a-real-world-catch-22/ 19 Hardee, Sandra. Rep. NC-CURE Report on the NCDPS Administrative Remedy Procedure. Carolina Public Press, March 27, 2023. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23732643-report-on-administrative-remedy-proc-32723?responsive=1&title=1 20 Second Assessment of the New York City Department of Correction Inmate Grievance System, NYCBOC, June 2018 https://www.nyc.gov/assets/boc/downloads/pdf/Meetings/2018/June-12-2018/GrievanceAuditReport_Final_2018.11.06.pdf 21 Calavita, Kitty, and Valerie Jenness. Appealing to Justice: Prisoner Grievances, Rights, and Carceral Logic. 1st ed. University of California Press, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt9qh2fc Correctional Association of New York 7 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons In contrast to findings from the procedural justice scholarship, these prisoners privilege the actual outcomes of disputes—rather than the process—as their barometer of justice. We argue that the dominance of substantive outcomes in these men’s perceptions of fairness and in their dispute satisfaction is grounded in, among other things, the high stakes of the prison context22 Not only are actual grievance outcomes more important to these prisoners’ satisfaction than their perceptions of a fair process are, but in many cases the former drives the latter. This is reinforced by a study in Ireland that argues that: Having confidence in staff is associated with satisfaction with the procedure, as is the perception that one’s rights are respected, showing important connections between perceptions of complaints and aspects of legal consciousness. We suggest a need for further situated analyses of procedural justice and legal consciousness, as well as practical requirements for complaints systems to elicit confidence among incarcerated people.23 Survey data demonstrates that people identify procedural problems across the system. However, they are also doing so in the context in which the IGP provides very poor outcomes. A common theme throughout this report is that the stakes of the process matter, and that the very absence of fairness impacts the way in which each aspect of the process is perceived. The Incarcerated Grievance Process in New York State The grievance process is codified in Correction Law 139,24 which stipulates the need for an Incarcerated Grievance Resolution Committee. It lists procedures and the need for durations but not the durations themselves or the implications if they are not met. It identifies that need for an appeals process to the commissioner, but does nothing to stipulate how the mechanism will retain independence or objectivity. Given how much impact the requirements for exhaustion have on incarcerated people, it is striking how unspecific the requirements are. Correction Law also outlines a role for the State Commission on Corrections. The commission shall annually evaluate and assess the grievance procedures in correctional facilities, and make any recommendations with respect to the proper operation or improvement of the grievance procedures and provide such report to the commissioner and the chairmen of the senate codes and crime and corrections and assembly codes and correction committees. This is the only possible avenue for independent assessment of the process. It does not stipulate 22 Calavita, Kitty, and Valerie Jenness. “Race, Grievance Systems, and Prisoners’ Perceptions of Justice in Three California Prisons.” Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race 15, no. 1 (2018): 153–65. doi:10.1017/S1742058X17000200 23 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/lasr.12603 24 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/COR/139 Correctional Association of New York 8 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons the form this assessment takes or allow for the investigation of individual grievances. There is very little in the public domain on what the annual assessment by the State Commission on Correction looks like, except for what is included in the annual report which only cites information from county jails in Annex 7.25 Even the limited information that is provided on jails does not assess the viability of the process in addressing grievances themselves. Correction Law 139 also requires DOCCS to “semi-annually report to the chairmen of the senate codes and crime and correction committees and the assembly codes and correction committees on the nature and type of incarcerated individual grievances and unusual incidents, by facility.” The semi-annual report presents grievances by code. However, the broad definitions of codes prohibit meaningful analysis of trends through grievance. Additionally, as this report will document, incarcerated people observe that the codes ascribed often fail to represent the nature of the grievance. As of May 2023, the most recently published semi-annual report was published to cover the first six months of 2022.26 Elements of the grievance process in New York State prisons: The following section provides a brief description of the elements of the process. Directive 4040 Directive 4040 Is the departmental directive that stipulates most aspects of the grievance program. Directive 4041 is the version that applies to SHU. The Incarcerated Grievance Resolution Committee As specified in Directive 4040, the IGRC is a group of four people. This includes two representatives from the incarcerated population and two staff members, who should have received specialist training. Grievance Clerk The grievance clerk is an incarcerated person who works on the administrative components of the process but does not participate in the IGRC vote. IGP Supervisor The IGP Supervisor is a civilian staff member with responsibility for receiving and processing grievances, and for coordinating IGRC hearings. IGP Sergeant 25 Riley, Allen, Thomas Loughren, and Yolanda Canty. Rep. Annual Report. The State Commission of Correction, 2021. https://scoc.ny.gov/pdfdocs/SCOC%202021%20ANNUAL%20REPORT.pdf 26 Incarcerated Grievance Program Semi-Annual Report. Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, 2022. https://doccs.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2022/09/incarcerated-grievance-program-semi-annual-report-2022.pdf Correctional Association of New York 9 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons The IGP Sergeant is a security staff member who is responsible for following up with security staff to have them informally resolve (i.e., sign off on) grievances. Facility Superintendent The Facility Superintendent reviews all grievances that have been heard by the IGRC and are referred to them, whether or not they are denied or upheld. The superintendent is responsible for assessing all Code 49 grievances. Central Office Review Committee (CORC) The Central Office Review Committee includes the Deputy Commissioner and Counsel, Deputy Commissioner for Correctional Facilities, Deputy Commissioner for Program Services, Deputy Commissioner for Administrative Services, and the Deputy Commissioner and Chief Medical Officer, or their designees expressly authorized to act for them. A representative of the Office of Diversity Management will attend CORC hearings and have input on grievances alleging discrimination but will not vote. The CORC is the final stage of appeal for all grievances. Steps in the grievance process: While the evidence will show that in practice there is an enormous variation in the way in which the process functions from facility to facility, the steps of the IGP, including durations stipulated within the law, are included in Figure 2 below:27, 28 27 This diagram is partly drawn on the from what is described by incarcerate people about the process and is partly based on the diagram in this report. “NY Inmate Grievance Program Training Manual.” The University of Michigan Law School, December 4, 2014. https://www.law.umich.edu/special/policyclearinghouse/Pages/default.aspx 28 Correctional Association of New York 10 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons Incarcerated Grievance Program • STEP Incarcerated persons are encouraged to attempt to resolve their problems informally. 1 IGRC Grievance concerning harassment or unlawful discrimination by staff Bypass IGRC hearing Written Grievance submitted within 21 calendar days IGRC hearing/recommendation within 15 calendar days Grievant has 7 calendar days to appeal ' .-------------------------------------· • V' STEP 2 Superintendent Superintendent renders decision within 20 calendar days DEPARTMENTAL GRIEVANCE INSTITUTIONAL GRIEVANCE Superintendent makes recommendation within 7 calendar days Super intendent renders decision within 25 calendar days Grievant has 7 calendar days to appeal • STEP 3 CORC Correctional Association of New York CORC renders decision within 30 calendar days (Final DOCCS Decision) 11 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons The impact of the Prison Litigation Reform Act Literature from across the country conveys how the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) has had a significant impact on the reasons why people file grievances, and the nature of the experiences that incarcerated people have with IGPs. Many of the core obstacles to recourse that are observed throughout this report derive from the PLRA. The PLRA does not mandate what should be included in a grievance system, meaning that the federal requirement is linked to the IGP’s procedural failings.29 This is a fundamental problem when the system fails as “No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.”30 The PLRA, when signed in 1996, aimed to reduce ‘frivolous’ lawsuits. The ‘exhaustion of remedies’ stipulation has several impacts aimed at making it harder to litigate. These include making it more expensive than it would be on the outside, reducing the ability to claim for mental damage by restricting cases to physical injury, reducing fees for civil rights cases, and reducing the scope for settlement.31, 32 Together, these restrictions make suing the state for mistreatment incredibly difficult, even when the grievance process has been ‘exhausted.’ The combination of the difficulties in litigation and the need for the IGP to be “exhausted” before litigation makes the proper functioning of the IGP crucial. In future reporting, CANY will provide additional analysis of the challenges posed by the PLRA and recommendations for reform at both the state and federal levels. 29 The PLRA does not impose requirements for a state’s grievance regime. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e 30 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 31 Initiative, Prison Policy. “Slamming the Courthouse Door: 25 Years of Evidence for Repealing the Prison Litigation Reform Act.” Prison Policy Initiative, April 26, 2021. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/PLRA 25.html 32 Poser, Rachel. “Why It’s Nearly Impossible for Prisoners to Sue Prisons.” The New Yorker, May 30, 2016. https://www. newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-its-nearly-impossible-for-prisoners-to-sue-prisons Correctional Association of New York 12 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons KEY FINDINGS Key Findings SCOPE OF USE 1. The vast majority of incarcerated people in New York State Prisons use the IGP. The overwhelming majority of respondents had filed a grievance (84%, n=456). Just over half appealed their most recent grievance to the superintendent (58%, n=224), around half had appealed a grievance to the CORC (52%, n=337), and around half filed a grievance on staff-misconduct (40%, n=351). In the first six months of 2022, DOCCS reports that 10,584 grievances were filed by incarcerated individuals.33 2. The most commonly filed grievances address staff-misconduct and medical issues. Both survey results and DOCCS’ semi-annual reports consistently show medical (Code 22) and staff misconduct (Code 49) to be the most subjects of grievances by far. There are specific procedural challenges in the way that both medical and staff-harassment issues are handled. It is not clear to what extent DOCCS uses this data to understand failures within the system as reporting tools do not document more information than the very broad interpretation allowed by the coding. AWARENESS OF THE IGP 3. Most incarcerated people are aware of the grievance process and its basic elements. Most incarcerated people are aware of basic elements of the grievance process, such as Directive 404034 (68%, n=310), where to locate the drop-box in their facilities (66%, n=455), the existence of the IGRC (68%, n=462), and how they can appeal to CORC (65%, n=334). 4. Most people cite other incarcerated people as their main source of information on the IGP. Almost half (48%, n=381) of respondents cited other incarcerated people as the main source of information about the IGP, although there was a significant number (30%) citing 33 Incarcerated Grievance Program Semi-Annual Report, 2022, DOCCS, https://doccs.ny.gov/system/files/ documents/2022/09/incarcerated-grievance-program-semi-annual-report-2022.pdf 34 “Directive 4040: Incarcerated Grievance Program,” DOCCS, 07/12/2006 https://doccs.ny.gov/system/files/ documents/2022/12/4040.pdf Correctional Association of New York 13 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons an orientation at the facility. Survey data indicates IGP is usually included in orientation sessions, but incarcerated people tend to prioritize information provided by other incarcerated people. 5. Many grievances are immediately dismissed at the first hurdle for simple procedural reasons. IGRC clerks and supervisors frequently describe how many grievances are immediately dismissed for simple reasons, for example, because the grievants have not attempted to solve the problem through other means first, or because they are not alleging that a directive has been violated as stipulated in 701.3 (a) or Directive 4040.35 This demonstrates misconceptions of the program due to incorrect information and results in frustration. ROLES OF IGRC, IGP, SUPERINTENDENT AND CORC 6. Most incarcerated people did not vote for their IGRC representatives. Most people (60%, n= 335) say that they did not vote for their representatives as specified in Directive 4040.36 IGRC members are often hand-picked by the administration. When elections do take place, people often say that they are unaware of the candidates and that it is common practice to vote for the candidate with the oldest Departmental Identification Number. 7. Many people are unclear of the role of the IGP supervisor. Many people (38%, n=235) say that the role of the IGP supervisor is unclear to them. 67% of respondents (n=234) did not believe that the IGP supervisor communicated the program clearly. This may partly be explained by the fact that over half of respondents said that the IGP supervisor did not meet with them on their grievance (52%, n=341). 8. There are some advantages to informal resolution of grievances. However, informal resolutions depend on individual approaches that do not allow for the clear documentation and use of trends. The IGP supervisor encourages many people to resolve grievances informally (40%, n=331). While there are some advantages to informal resolution, in that it resolves issues more quickly, informal resolution is even more vulnerable to the personal bias of individual staffmembers, resulting in a lack of standardization across the system which impacts trust. Informal resolutions are also not systematically registered, prohibiting analysis of data to understand trends in grievances. 35 ibid 36 ibid, 701.4 (b)(2) (p4) Correctional Association of New York 14 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons PROCEDURAL INTEGRITY AND FAIRNESS 9. Existing procedural failures mean that the IGRC cannot accurately assess medical grievances leading to unacceptable delays while the process goes to the CORC. The IGRC is not equipped or qualified to accurately assess the quality of clinical care supplied by healthcare professionals, and will therefore systematically deny medical grievances in which healthcare staff contest grievances related to the quality of care. While CORC does have medical expertise as part of its make-up, the delays in CORC appeals are so great that it is impossible to address time-sensitive medical issues effectively. It is also not clear to what extent the Chief Medical Officer, who is on the CORC, is able to effectively look into the details of clinical care of each individual case. 10. Most explanations for denial or dismissal of grievances do not address the points raised in the grievances. While 45% (n=125) said that they were aware of the outcome of their most recent grievance, and 74% (n=54) of those that were aware said that they received an explanation for dismissals and denial, 76% (n=38) of those that received an explanation said that the explanation did not address the point made in the grievance, thereby leaving issues unaddressed and grievants without a sense of just process. 11. There are frequent failures to implement decisions in favor of incarcerated people. Most people (68%, n=388) do not believe staff carry out decisions that are made in incarcerated people’s favor. This is indicative of an absence of effective follow-up on decisions and has further implications for the value placed in the process. 12. Code 49 grievances are frequently deliberately misfiled as Code 23 grievances on ‘internal block affairs’, impacting the number of allegations of staff misconduct that are registered. Some incarcerated people said that superintendents disingenuously apply Clause 701.2 (e) from Directive 4040, which is extremely vague, to falsely determine that grievances do not constitute staff harassment. Consequently, many grievances are not subject to the same relative confidentiality that comes with Code 49 grievances, and facilities do not supply DOCCS and the OSI with accurate data indicating the scale of harassment. Correctional Association of New York 15 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons ACCESS AND OBSTRUCTION 13. Most people cannot file grievances for all of the issues that are important to them. Issues such as mental health provision, tablets, and others which are provided by external service providers, are not subject to the grievance process and are subject to their own complaints mechanisms. These complaints mechanisms are not subject to departmental directives and have little oversight. For example, malfunctioning tablets are dependent on a reportedly ineffective JPay-run helpdesk and DOCCS does not ensure accountability when complaints are not addressed. 14. Accessibility of forms and physical access are significant barriers to filing grievances. 54% (n=420) of incarcerated people said that they cannot get grievance forms when they need them. 45% (n=442) of people said that they had problems accessing the drop box. The issue was particularly acute at Upstate, where the entire population is held in the SHU or RRU. Multiple survey comments describe grievances being ripped up by staff or obstructed in other ways after submission. Others alleged that filing is frequently delayed so that response times are extended, and grievances can be claimed as invalid. RETALIATION AND FEAR 15. Most respondents said they did not file grievances when they had reason to do so. The majority cited fear of widespread retaliation from staff. 80% (n=447) of respondents said that they had decided not to file a grievance despite having a reason to do so, with the majority citing fear of retaliation as the reason not to file. 67% (n=493) said that they thought incarcerated people were either ‘always afraid’ or ‘somewhat afraid’ with just 6% saying that people were not afraid at all. 61% (n=443) said that they had experienced retaliation from filing a grievance. Multiple comments described multiple forms of retaliation, including violence as well as unfair ticketing. 16. Most people do not trust the IGRC, IGP supervisors, superintendents, or CORC to handle grievances fairly. 70% (n=345) of respondents said that they do not trust IGRC representatives to represent incarcerated people’s interests fairly. 89% (n=414) of people said that they do not think that the Superintendent handles grievances fairly. 74% (n=371) believed that the CORC did not handle grievances fairly. Correctional Association of New York 16 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons DURATION AND THE PLRA 17. Almost all grievances are not resolved within the time limits specified within Directive 4040 at all stages in the process. Survey data, administrative data, and comments by both incarcerated people and executive teams show conclusively that grievances are rarely resolved within the time limits specified in Directive 4040. 77% (n=322) said that their most recent grievance was not heard or resolved within 16 calendar days at the first stage. 82% (n=120) said that a judgement on their most recent Code 49 grievance was not made by the Superintendent within 25 calendar days. 78% (n=152) said that their most recent appeal to CORC was not reviewed within 30 days. The failure of the process to work within timeframes often precludes the possibility of the IGP solving the problem raised in their grievance in ways that are meaningful for people. This failure also further reduces trust in the system. Protracted processes also prevent people from filing an Article 78, which is a lawsuit against a New York state agency, due to the state administrative law ‘exhaustion of remedies’ requirement. 18. Around half of respondents have filed a grievance purely to exhaust the process in order to litigate The impact of the requirements for ‘exhaustion of remedies’ in the PLRA and in state law is such that nearly half of respondents (47%, n=300) said that they had engaged with the process purely to allow them to litigate. In comments, people describe the IGP as an obstacle to be negotiated prior to litigation. 19. There is widespread confusion on whether ‘exhaustion of remedies’ in achieved when CORC fails to reach a decision within 30 days. The vast majority of cases sent to CORC are not reviewed within the 30-day timeframe. At state level, Article 78 complaints cannot be filed until an answer from CORC is received, however long the process takes. People are also often uncertain about when and how they can litigate on a federal level. 20. There are low rates of grievances being found in incarcerated people’s favor, and incredibly low rates of Code 49 grievances being found in incarcerated people’s favor. 18% of people (n=310) said that their most recent grievance was found in their favor. Only 9% (n=139) of respondents said their most recent appeal to CORC was decided in their favor. Just 6% of people (n=128) had ever had a Code 49 grievance found in their favor by a Superintendent, and 8% (n=139) were aware of any instances in which the Superintendent decided a Code 49 grievance in favor of incarcerated people. In referring to the poor chance of positive outcomes, large numbers of comments described the IGP as a “sham.” Correctional Association of New York 17 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons 21. Most respondents believe that the IGP is ineffective and makes relationships between staff and incarcerated people worse. 87% (n=360) of respondents considered the IGP ‘not effective’ or ‘seldom effective.’ Most people (66%, n=452) believed that the IGP makes relations worse between staff and incarcerated people. Together, these results show the impact of the documented failures and demonstrate that the IGP has precisely the opposite outcome of its purported intention. METHODOLOGY Information collected on monitoring visits The Correctional Association of New York (CANY) is mandated by the state of New York to conduct independent oversight of state facilities. CANY conducts around 10 monitoring visits a year. Monitoring visits typically take place over one to three days and address most aspects of the facility operations and structure. The majority of these visits are taken up by interviews with individual incarcerated people on issues including the IGP, but they also include interviews with the executive team, program staff, staff unions, medical staff, Office of Mental Health (OMH) staff, and include a joint meeting with the Incarcerated Grievance Liaison Committee (IGRC) and Incarcerated Liaison Committee (ILC). During this meeting, the IGRC are consistently asked about the issues that are most heavily subject to grievances, the way in which the grievance process works at that facility, and the nature of their roles and the way it impacts their relationship with the rest of the incarcerated population. CANY regularly meets with the IGP supervisor to understand the nature and challenges faced within the role, and how the process is used by facility management as a tool to understand issues. The process has also been discussed with the executive team at each facility when it has been prioritized by incarcerated people. Together, these sources provided CANY key information on the elements of the program, conveyed how fundamental the issue is felt to be by incarcerated people, and informed survey design. Survey Data CANY’s survey (Appendix B) comprises seven areas: awareness of the program, accessibility, procedure and duration, perceptions of fairness, reflections on the program, and demographic information. The survey was designed by CANY and reviewed by independent legal experts and a former grievance clerk to ensure relevance and accuracy of questions. The survey was sent to roughly 10% of the population of each facility, a total of 2805 people. Recipients were randomly selected through use of under-custody data supplied by DOCCS in September 2022. A copy of the survey along with a covering letter (Appendix A) was sent by Correctional Association of New York 18 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons mail in December 2022, and responses were collected until March 2023. A total of 540 surveys were collected in this period allowing for a an acceptable margin of error for almost all questions. For more information on methodology, specifically on the margin of error and responsiveness, see Annex E. The handwritten closed-ended responses were captured using scanning software, which automatically generated a csv file of responses from which the graphs included in this report were generated. The themes identified through handwritten responses to open-ended questions were manually analyzed. Where relevant, these have been quantified by aggregating answers in which respondents independently made many of the same comments. In addition to the survey itself, recipients were given the option to send an attachment and/or to write additional answers on subjects raised in the cover letter (Appendix A). Supplemental interviews and desk research After receiving surveys, CANY visited Bedford Hills and Sing Sing Correctional Facilities on February 24, 2023 to conduct interviews with IGRC members, IGP supervisors, IGP sergeants, and the executive teams at both facilities. These interviews were intended to go into depth on the themes identified in survey responses, and to clarify questions that responses provoked. CANY also conducted interviews with national subject matter experts on the grievance process and the PLRA. IN DEPTH FINDINGS The following section outlines the survey findings in depth on; the scope of use, level of awareness, the roles of key entities, perceptions of procedural integrity and fairness, levels access, fears of retaliation, duration, and the impact of the IGP on relationships between incarcerated people and staff. Where applicable survey data and quotes are triangulated with other data sources, the recommendations that are specific to each topic are repeated in full. Scope of Use Questions on the scope of use of the IGP indicated that the vast majority of incarcerated people have engaged with the process on at least one level. Correctional Association of New York 19 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons Have you ever filed a grievance? If a grievance was dismissed, did you file an appeal with the Superintendent? 95 42.4% Have you ever appealed a grievance outcome to CORC? .. Have you ever file a Code 49 grievance (staff conduct)? Incarcerated people also filed Code 49 grievances (staff harassment) in large numbers. On the one hand, this indicates that incarcerated people are engaged with the system. On the other, the fact that 40% of people believe that they had cause to file a Code 49 grievance may imply serious levels of violence that is inflicted on incarcerated people and the need for a robust mechanism to address it. Another possible interpretation is that, because the PLRA requires a showing of physical injury to recover damages for mental or emotional injury,37 it is also the case that people are more likely to be filing Code 49 grievances simply to fulfill this requirement for litigation. Survey data corresponds with the semi-annual report released by DOCCS. Data published on grievances from 2014-2021 (Appendix C) shows that grievances have been filed in large numbers over time. For example, in 2021 there were 20,929 grievances filed in total, and in 2020 there were 21,559. In the first half of 2022, the most recent semi-annual report 37 “Appendix B: Text of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995.” The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1996. https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh176/files/pubs/walls/appen-b.html Correctional Association of New York 20 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons shows that 10,584 grievances were filed, showing a similar rate of grievances filed.38 The same report shows that there were 1,442 Code 49 grievances filed, representing 13.6% of all grievances filed across the system during that period.39 While the annual reports do not indicate the number of individuals who filed grievances, but rather the number of individual grievances filed, it is reasonable to assume that a significant portion of the incarcerated population uses the grievance system, even accounting for the reality that some individuals might file more than one grievance per year. Statistics in the semi-annual report may not provide a complete understanding of the scale of grievances concerning staff harassment. In interviews and comments, multiple people said that often Code 49s are wrongly filed as Code 23s (housing operations) or other classifications to avoid the added attention that may accompany a Code 49, which is filed directly with the Superintendent. When a grievance comes in that may be deemed a Code 49 we have to send it to the Superintendent and he makes the final decision. So depending how the grievance is worded, the Superintendent may not proceed as a Code 49 when it might have been a 49. WOODBOURNE I recently filed a Code 49...I ran into a problem. Instead of coding it correctly [the IGP Supervisor] coded it a 07, which has nothing whatsoever to with a Code 49. CLINTON [In response to being asked to Identify problems] Purposely refusing to forward grievances that allege staff misconduct, harassment, or retaliation…..Purposely refusing to categorize and treat harassment type grievances as such. CLINTON Directive 4040 conveys how the superintendent does indeed have agency to determine what constitutes harassment. The Superintendent or his/her designee shall promptly determine whether the grievance, if true, would represent a bona fide case of harassment as defined in section 701.2, above. If not, then it shall be returned to the IGRC for normal processing.40 The text on what defines a harassment grievance in 701.2 is extremely vague and open to interpretation by each superintendent. 38 Incarcerated Grievance Program Semi-Annual Report. Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, 2022. https://doccs.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2022/09/incarcerated-grievance-program-semi-annual-report-2022.pdf 39 Ibid 40 https://doccs.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2022/12/4040.pdf Correctional Association of New York 21 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons (e) Harassment grievances - those grievances that allege employee misconduct meant to annoy, intimidate or harm an incarcerated individual.41 The fact that this is an internal decision highlights the need for independence from the staff and administration managing the prison at which the grievances was filed and is a weakness in procedural safeguarding. Due to these identified issues with classification, it is informative to document how incarcerated people classify grievances’ themes. Here is a list of some possible complaints for which you might file a grievance. Please check all that you've filed a grievance for in the Last 1-3 years. 252 Treatment by correctional officers ,- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - 251 Medical S..Nk:es Personal Property Food Commlsary Other Dental SeMCes 1------- Spec.lat Housing Units Legal S..rvlces Recreational Opportunities 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 The self-reported data shows treatment by correctional officers, and medical issues as the issues most subject to grievances. It is notable that incarcerated people identify specific problems with both of those two categories. As detailed in Sub-Section C, the lack of medical expertise on the IGRC makes it impossible for many medical grievances to be accepted. As detailed in Sub-Section D, there are very low rates of acceptance and a lack of scrutiny of the superintendents’ process for making decisions on Code 49 grievances. 41 Ibid Correctional Association of New York 22 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons Awareness of the process and its elements General awareness and means of information We have seen that the grievance program is widely used. There is a corresponding level of knowledge around its existence and general awareness of how the program works. Before you received this survey, were you aware that a grievance program existed? Are you generally aware of how the grievance program works? 2S s.4% 66 14.4% ... When describing the process, people were inclined to say that their main source of information was other incarcerated people. How are incarcerated individuals mainly informed about the IGP? 209 From another Incarcerated Individual At an orientation session for the faclUty From a prison rule book At reception Not at all Other From a correcdonal officer From the superintendent or their staff From a faclUty newspaper or bulletin 0 Correctional Association of New York 50 100 150 200 250 23 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons The reasons for the level of knowledge around the system may speak to the importance of the program to incarcerated people. However, general awareness does not eliminate misunderstandings of the process. Gaps in knowledge of procedures In interviews, IGP supervisors suggested that the reliance on other incarcerated people for information meant that, while people were aware of the process, they often understood key aspects of the process incorrectly, resulting in time wasting and frustration. Much of the time, grievances are immediately dismissed because people don’t appreciate that a grievance is not simply a complaint against a member of staff. There are two very challenging aspects to the grievance program: 1.)Getting guys to understand the difference between a grievance and a gripe. A grievance is when policy is not being followed and a gripe is a policy they don’t like but well is established. There is a difference, but most guys just want instant gratification and become emotional when not getting their way. WOODBOURNE Similar views were expressed in key-informant interviews. At Bedford Hills, people made the same observation that the process is used in “desperation”. People were using it as a way of finding “gripes with the system.” In informant interviews, people suggested that a way to avoid these misunderstandings was better orientation sessions. It should be noted that directive 4040 701.2 make clear that a grievance can concern “any” policy, and include harassment grievances, which are not linked to policy at all. Knowledge of the drop box The majority of people are aware of where Do you know where the grievance drop-box is located? . the box in which grievance forms are deposited is located. However, there were issues in knowledge of precisely what .., happens when they are filed. 65.9%300 Correctional Association of New York 24 The majority of people are aware of where the box in which grievance formsExperiences are deposited Smoke Screen: with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons is located. However, there were issues in knowledge of precisely what happens when they are iled. I have tried to file two grievances on HALT Act violations and have received no response. The COs collect the mail, so grievances get intercepted. I don’t know if this is the case in my situation or if IGRC is just ignoring me. UPSTATE The uncertainty or lack of knowledge that respondents express about the drop box appears to largely concern the outcome of grievances that are placed in the drop box, rather than the location of the box itself. This uncertainty overlaps with the themes in subsection on obstacles to filing grievances. Knowledge of the IGRC and election The survey asked about awareness of the IGRC and the election process. Are you aware of the Incarcerated Grievance Resolution Committee (IGRC) in the prison? .. Are you area that, per Directive 4040, IGRC representatives should be elected to the committee by their peers? 61 17.3% ... Awareness and accessibility of Directive 4040 Most people said that they were aware of Directive 4040 and that they were able to access it without difficulty. Are you aware of Directive 4040, which explains the grievance program? Is Directive 4040, which explains the grievance program, available for incarcerated people to read? 61 21.9% Correctional Association of New York . .., 25 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons Additionally, the majority of people reported that it was easily understood and in a language that they could understand. The survey was only administered in English and so it has not been possible to accurately assess instances in which Directive 4040 was not followed by people because of language comprehension issues. Is Directive 4040 easily understood (e.g. free from legal jargon)? 65 22.6% .. •- Is Directive 4040 written in a language you can understand? 17 5.8% 77.4% 223 Knowledge of appeals process A similar majority of people were aware of the appeals process. Do you know what your options are if you do not agree with the outcome of your grievance? Do you know how to appeal a grievance outcome to the Central Office Review Committee? .. •- Across different aspects of the process, there are majorities of people with knowledge of components of the IGP. While there may be room for improvement, and it is unacceptable that significant minorities clearly lack knowledge on key elements, it is apparent that awareness of the IGP itself is not the fundamental problem. This is likely due to the fact that people are desperate for avenues of recourse, even if flawed, and will therefore invest time and energy into understanding the process. Correctional Association of New York 26 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons Furthermore, because there may be cases in which the IGP’s particular processes are not fully clear, the reason that people are treating the grievance system as a complaints mechanism is that no complaints mechanism exists. This further highlights the need for an established ombudsman role and informational approach. The role of the IGRC, IGP Supervisor, Superintendent and CORC The election and procedural role of IGRC representatives. The previous section demonstrated that there is basic awareness of the IGP, survey data demonstrates a key disparity between how people understand how the program should work, and the way that they experience it. One important such area is in the election of the IGRC. Did you vote for the IGRC representatives? .. Do you believe that the IGRC election process is transparent? ... 61.7% 208 In some prisons, people expressed that elections simply don’t take place. We have not had any elections in years. COXSACKIE Others said that the only time that the IGRC members are active is election time. It’s almost non-existent unless it’s time to vote, then they come around and do some work. But it all falls by the wayside by IGP supervisor. BEDFORD HILLS Correctional Association of New York 27 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons Some people felt poorly informed about the election process and the candidates. [There] is no system in place here to properly inform the population of...the upcoming election...half the time no one knows who is running. CLINTON Because movement is restricted you may not [know] who it is you are voting for. So basically guys just vote for the oldest DIN # on the ballot. WOODBOURNE Some comments also suggested that the process is corrupt: I cannot trust the selection process because the staff is corrupt, and they have been known to target prisoners that get what they believe is too many votes and accuse them of putting pressure on others to vote. CLINTON When [the] time [comes] to vote...each one [should] make their vote and not just do what sergeant wants or what the non-inmate participants may want...This is their current practice. MARCY I would find a way to have a real election, not one easily corrupted where the ballots are disposed of or forged. WALSH REGIONAL MEDICAL UNIT Others suggested that the problem is impacted by a lack of transparency or term limits: No, the election process here is not fair. It doesn’t give other[s] that have never worked in the area the chance to submit their names. [It] is the same people up there time and time again. Kind [of] makes the population feel that they are not up there for them, therefore having little faith. CLINTON IGRC reps need term limits like ILC reps have. WALSH REGIONAL MEDICAL UNIT [Recommendation for] Rotation of IGP representatives. Not having someone be a Rep. for years on end...[when you’re] suppose[d] to fallback after two terms. BEDFORD HILLS Correctional Association of New York 28 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons Concerns about the elections corresponded with other concerns that people had on the day-to-day functioning of the IGRC. Do you believe that the IGRC election process is transparent? Was [your most recent grievance] solved in your favor? 61.7% 208 Survey comments suggest that a key issue is the perceived “weakness” of the IGRC representatives. I would give a grievance committee decision some form of authority. As it stands, even if an IGRC is in an II’S favor, it is meaningless as the IGRC cannot enforce its decisions. WALSH REGIONAL MEDICAL UNIT The state has allowed this Correctional Facility...to get away with so much that goes against most Policies and Procedures that are in place to allow the Civilian (ORC who is now sitting in) to dictate how the Hearing is conducted and the flow of the hearing as well as the final votes which...hardly ever happens. MARCY Some incarcerated people highlighted some positive examples of IGRCs working well, which they believed could be replicated. Most of these highlighted a greater degree of agency for IGRC representatives as a key factor. Greenhaven and Otisville ha[ve] very good grievance programs because the reps ha[ve] lots of input in investigations. CLINTON Green Haven is way better [than Clinton] because the Committee (inmates) will advocate for you. GREEN HAVEN Correctional Association of New York 29 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons The facilities where the grievance program is most effective are those that allow the grievance representatives to speak to staff about certain issues where practical and [where] the grievance supervisor and/or Sergeant [conduct] investigations and [give] responses that address the issues specifically and honestly. CLINTON When I was at Auburn Corr. Fa., the grievance process was quite fair and that was because of the representatives that we had. I was one of the reps and my boss and security staff were fair and just. WALLKILL The role of IGP supervisors Survey data showed serious concerns that people have with both the IGP supervisor’s role and the way in which it is communicated to the incarcerated population. Some comments identified a lack of protocols, the perception of bias, and a lack of specialization and training in the way in which IGP supervisors enacted their role. Do you trust the IGRC representative to represent incarcerated people's interests fairly in the grievance process? . .., Is the role of the IGP supervisor clear to you? 89 37.9% . .., ■- Do you believe that the IGP supervisor clearly communicates the grievance program to you? Correctional Association of New York 30 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons [on necessary reforms for the prison] Rigorous staff development courses for Incarcerated Grievance Program Supervisors. ELMIRA It makes me not trust more when [the IGP Supervisor] does not follow her own policies, procedures and protocols. Not to mention, she constantly either shuts us down or does not even see to our grievances. BEDFORD HILLS There’s a huge distrust because of the way the supervisor cooks the books here at Sing Sing. SING SING Albion Correctional Facility is the most effective because they call us, we sit in hearings and they are not biased. Bedford Hills Correctional Facility is the least effective because the body of the program cannot be successful with a malfunctioning head. BEDFORD HILLS [The] grievance supervisor should primarily be a grievance supervisor. BEDFORD HILLS Others explained in comments and responses that there was a shortage of exposure to the IGP supervisor. Generally, did the IGP supervisor meet with you on your grievance? 211 61.9% [In] my entire time within this facility the IGP has never met with [any] prisoner face to face to communicate about [their] grievance. CLINTON Correctional Association of New York 31 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons One of the reasons that people highlighted unfairness was because of inconsistencies in the way IGP supervisors apply their work. The role of the IGP seems to vary from facility to facility. The effectiveness is truly based on who the IGP supervisor is. WALLKILL It is not acceptable for the system to rely on the goodwill of IGP supervisors and to be so dependent on the approaches of individuals. People express the IGP’s role as a key component of the differing cultures identified in the final part of this section. The IGP supervisor’s role in Informal Resolutions of grievances Generally, did the IGP supervisor encourage you to resolve your grievance informally? The role of the IGP supervisor is central to the informal resolution. Directive 4040 stipulates that the IGRC, in practice usually led by the IGP supervisor, will attempt to resolve grievances informally within 16 calendar days.42 It is clear that there are advantages to informal resolution based on the ability to solve issues quickly . However, there are multiple concerns with informal resolution. Attempting to resolve a grievance informally is usually a dangerous proposition. It means putting a target on your back. With most inmates, they usually have poor social communication skills, [so] informally resolving or attempting to do so leads to arguments with COs. AUBURN 42 N.Y. Correct.Law § 139; 9 NYCRR Part 7695; Prison Rape Elimination Act https://doccs.ny.gov/system/files/ documents/2022/12/4040.pdf Correctional Association of New York 32 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons An informal resolution is generally good because it resolves an issue a person is having. However, that just solves that problem for that person. The same issue could be happening to others but they did not file a grievance and the problem persists. It is effective for that person but has no lasting effects for others. WOODBOURNE The common practice at Woodbourne is the IGP supervisor uses intimidation or lies to informally resolve grievances. WOODBOURNE Grievance officers try to get IIs to informally resolve grievances in order not to have them officially reported to the CORC. If grievances are never reported to [the] CORC, then new policy and rules will never be implemented and the same issues will continue to happen. WOODBOURNE As Schlanger argues, “Informal resolution of grievances may be efficient from the institutional perspective, but the requirement raises serious concerns about retaliation. If staff members become aware of allegations against them, they may apply implicit or explicit coercive or retaliatory pressure on the prisoner filing the grievance.”43 The IGP sergeant The survey did not ask explicitly about the role of the IGP sergeant. However, the importance of the role was identified in a number of comments. The most important person in the resolution of grievances is not the grievance supervisor, it is the grievance sergeant. The grievance supervisor is a civilian who is also an employee who has to work with security staff. The grievance supervisor is exposed to retaliation and harassment from security staff for doing the right thing. This is why a good grievance sergeant is very important. A lot of the incidents in the DOCCS would not happen if not supported [or] covered up by security supervisors. CLINTON The IGP works depending on who the Security Representative is (i.e. Grievance Sgt.). If a fair sgt. is assigned then they make it easier to get favorable resolutions. If [it’s] a sgt. that [is] anti-incarcerated individual, then the process...is a waste of time regardless of merit b/c [it’s] a mock circus. GREEN HAVEN 43 https://www.law.umich.edu/special/policyclearinghouse/Site%20Documents/FOIAReport10.18.15.2.pdf page 11 Correctional Association of New York 33 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons The role of the Superintendent The Superintendent within each facility is responsible for responding to appeals of decisions for all grievances that have passed through the IGRC process and is the first stage of review for Code 49 grievances. Most incarcerated people did not believe that superintendents were fair in judgements (89%, n=414) or considered the grievance process to be important (82%, n=400). In interviews at Bedford Hills, the Superintendent and the Deputy Superintendent of Programs expressed uncertainty about why incarcerated people would appeal grievances to them despite having their grievance upheld at the first stage at the IGRC level. Whether or not this is due to fact that incarcerated people may need to appeal to fulfill the ‘exhaustion of remedies’ requirement of the PLRA, even if their grievance is upheld, this example demonstrates that superintendents may not be investing effort into understanding the reasons for which appeals are made. Survey responses suggested that it is incredibly rare for superintendents to rule in favor of incarcerated people who file Code 49 grievances. In general, do you think the Superintendent handles incarcerated individuals' grievances fairly? 46 11.1% ... Have you ever had a Code 49 grievance decided in your favor by the Superintendent. 7 5.5% Correctional Association of New York In your opinion, does your Superintendent think it's important to investigate incarcerated individuals' complaints? Do you know of instances in which the Superintendent decided in favor of Code 49 grievances from other individuals? 11 7.9% 34 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons In interviews with the IGRC at Sing Sing, figures were cited which demonstrated that not a single Code 49 grievance out of 194 had been filed in favor of an incarcerated person in 2022. According to staff there, this was because superintendents systematically referred cases to the Office of Special Investigations, without carrying out any investigations. This approach is one of three options specified in Directive 4040: (d) If it is determined that the grievance is a bona fide harassment issue, the superintendent shall: 1. Initiate an in-house investigation by higher ranking supervisory personnel into the allegations contained in the grievance; 2. Request an investigation by the office of special investigations; or 3. If the superintendent determines that criminal activity may be involved, request an investigation by the New York State Police, Bureau of Criminal Investigation. According to interviewees, there are very rarely in-house investigations into Code 49 grievances at Sing Sing. The incredibly low responses showing Code 49 grievances to be found in incarcerated people’s favor indicate that this trend may be system wide. Inconsistencies in staff approaches and roles between different prisons. We have seen issues with the IGRC, IGP supervisor, and superintendents. The different approaches taken by these actors result in varying cultures related to the grievance program. Respondents explained that inconsistencies heavily impact the perceived legitimacy of the IGP. The most challenging part is that I don’t know what to expect because the grievance program seem[s] so arbitrary, like each prison has the[ir] own grievance program culture...sometimes I don’t know if I’m going to get a response from the grievance office when I do file a grievance. CLINTON The most challenging aspect of the grievance program is expect[ing] those in authority to actually follow policy, directives and rules and base decisions solely upon those grounds. ATTICA Some incarcerated people identified specific ways in which cultures are different across different kinds of facilities. Correctional Association of New York 35 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons The facilities that are farther away from the city have the least effective grievance programs because they’re more nepotistic, which cause[s] the staff to cover for each other[’s] wrongs more readily. CLINTON In max prisons, one would come across a mostly legitimate IGRC program. Mediums tend to mostly harbor manipulated structures. MARCY The bigger the facility the more challenging it is because the hostility and violence promote a[n] Inmate vs. Correction Officer environment. WENDE Maximum security prisons are most effective and minimum security the least. In max prisons people are serving decades and in minimum security, individuals are just trying to get home to family or start their lives over again. WALLKILL People had concrete suggestions as to how some of the inconsistencies that have been witnessed could be addressed. Grievance needs to be run by Directive 4040 and nobody should change anything to fit how they may wish for [the] IGRC to be run. MARCY DOCCS cannot actively/effectively control every single one of its employees, so how the program works based on these employees does not make me not trust the dept. There are many rules/regulations that protect and give rights to incarcerated individuals. However, it [is] the DOCCS employees that cannot/do not follow these house rules as they should. GREEN HAVEN One comment suggested that the failure to enact IGPs in a standardized way across all prisons was documented. This facility has a policy and procedure manual that allegedly claims that all of their rules/regulations supersede each and every one of the directives that the DOC has implemented and ha[s] had in place for decades! Bullshit! If that were true, the DOC’s agreement to that would be placed in writing and stat[e] exactly that! MOHAWK Correctional Association of New York 36 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons Closed ended responses showed that incarcerated people feel that staff don’t value the process. In your opinion, how do staff members feel about incarcerated individuals writing grievances? 192 They discourage It 132 They usually don't like It, b ut accept It 125 They don't care one way or the other 1-------------8 They usually t hlnk alt's all right 11 They encourage It 100 50 0 150 200 Consequently, incarcerated people largely do not see staff as positively engaging with the IGP. In your opinion, how do staff members feel about trying to help resolve incarcerated individuals' complaints? 189 They are never willing to listen and never t,y hard to work things out 190 They are willing ID listen, but never t,y hard to work things out 33 They are seldom willing t o listen but do t,y hard to work things out They are fairly willing to listen and ti)' hard to work things out ,- -- - 39 16 They are always willi ng to listen and try hard to work things out 0 Correctional Association of New York 50 100 150 200 37 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons In comments about ‘culture,’ a number of incarcerated people explained that there are significant differences in the way that different staff approach the IGP. I would like to note that in reference to “staff” I am referring to corrections officers. In my experience, all of my ORC/counselors have been nothing but helpful, doing their best 100% of the time. AUBURN On more than one occasion, instead of filing a grievance I have written directly to my ORC/counsellor and most of the of the time the outcome was favorable – given that my counselor had the capability to assist me. AUBURN The answers I have given only concern the correctional officers here at Mohawk Corr. Fae. and do not apply to civilian workers, ORCs or anyone else. MOHAWK When asked specifically about correctional officers’ perceptions of the process, people answered as follows: In your opinion, do most correctional officers think it's important to investigate incarcerated individuals' complaints? No, not Important at all ■ They don't care either way They are seldom willing to listen but do try hard to work 41 Yes, somewhat lmportant ■ 0 100 200 300 400 Yes, wry Important 500 The lack of consistency across facilities and staff is a significant driver of the mistrust in the IGP. While there was inconsistency in the way that people perceived the process among different staff, there was a general view that there is not enough separation between staff members to allow for change. The grievance program here is non-existent due to the fact that everyone know[s] one another or [is] related somehow so everything gets swept under the rug. CLINTON So many of the people that work here are either family on some level or friends. Correctional Association of New York 38 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons Many of them gr[ew] up in this area and now work together here ... [To prevent these connections from being an issue, they could] put a box on each block and not allow other members to handle them. Other than someone from the grievance department. CLINTON The grievance process is a joke and [i]neffective because the IGRC supervisor [is]... related to someone in the facility. FIVE POINTS Even though you have staff that are fair and just, I can never really trust DOCCS because they will always cover for each other even if they know that that their coworkers are in the wrong, the blue code they call it. WALLKILL I [would] change [the system so] that the IGP supervisor [was] someone with no ties to the facility staff members, someone that is neutral. WALLKILL Hire non-correctional staff with some legal knowledge [who] are not intimidated by security staff. WALLKILL The IGP supervisor works every day in the prison. He/she is a co-worker to all staff that works here and is not going to say that their co-worker is either not doing their job or is doing something wrong. WOODBOURNE Incarcerated people report moving from prison to prison without a sense of what the correct policy should be. Even within facilities, comments suggest that there are different approaches carried out by different staff members. Rectifying inconsistencies will require greater independence and transparency. The most fundamental way to help make the grievance program/process more effect[ive] is to [teach staff about] the incarcerated individual grievance program in DOCCS employee annual training. Hopefully, this...can assist in the removal of prejudice…. and...allow prison officials to understand the grievance program, not as a matter of reporting complaints, but as a vehicle to address internal issues. EASTERN Correctional Association of New York 39 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons The role of the Central Office Review Committee After grievants submit an appeal to the superintendent, or the superintendent has overseen a Code 49 grievance, the final stage of appeal is for grievances to be addressed by the Central Office Review Committee in Albany. The role of CORC is described in Directive 4040 as follows: (i) The CORC shall consist of the Deputy Commissioner and counsel, Deputy Commissioner for Correctional Facilities, Deputy Commissioner for Program Services, Deputy Commissioner forAdministrative Services, and the Deputy Commissioner and Chief Medical Officer, or their designees expressly authorized to act for them. A representative of the Office of Diversity Management will attend CORC hearings and have input on grievances alleging discrimination, but will not vote. … (ii) The CORC shall review each appeal, render a decision on the grievance, and transmit its decision to the facility, with reasons stated, for the grievant, the grievance clerk, the superintendent, and any direct parties within thirty (30) calendar days from the time the appeal was received.44 The vast majority of people had never had a grievance ruled in their favor (91%, n=139) and did not believe that CORC handles grievances fairly (74%, n=371). Was [your appeal to CORC] decided in your favor? 13 9.4% In general, do you think grievances are handled fairly when they are appealed to CORC? 96 25.9% ... When the incarcerated individual follows through with the process and goes to CORC, the grievance takes more than a year to be resolved. WOODBOURNE Being generous I would say inmate grievances upheld by Albany are around 1 or 2%. MOHAWK The scope of the investigation conducted by CORC, the quality of explanations for decisions at CORC, and the extended delays in resolving grievances at CORC are addressed in later sections of this report. 44 https://doccs.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2022/12/4040.pdf Correctional Association of New York 40 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons Procedural integrity and fairness The previous section documented issues with specific roles involved in the process. This section identifies procedural aspects of the IGP that cut across these different roles. Procedural issues preventing adequate hearing on medical grievances One particular procedural problem relates to the filing of a medical grievance. As described by IGRC representatives, medical grievances cannot be adequately assessed by the IGRC itself which often does not possess the technical expertise required to make judgements on clinical aspects of medical care. Therefore, grievances concerning medical care may be frequently denied at facility level. A grievance concerning the quality of medical care can therefore not be heard by a healthcare professional until the CORC stage of appeal. Due to the duration of the process, and the systemic failures to address grievances within deadlines, a hearing by CORC will take place far too long after the filing of a grievance to address time-sensitive medical issues. Sometimes I don’t doubt that there is nothing they can do. Medical is a perfect example where there absolutely 100% should be separate grievance offices/hearings… AUBURN For small insignificant problems the grievance can help sometimes. If it’s a large safety issue, say with a CO, the effectiveness becomes nil. If medical, it’s zero effectiveness. MOHAWK The failure to ensure that medical grievances are adequately addressed may have serious impacts on the health and wellbeing of the incarcerated population. Explanations of decision-making processes Only around half of respondents (45%, n=125) said that they were aware of the outcome of their cases and 74% (n=54) said that they were given an explanation of the reasons behind outcomes. Only a small number of respondents (24%, n=38) said that the explanations addressed the points raised in their grievances. Correctional Association of New York 41 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons Are you aware of the outcome of your case? If dismissed or denied, was an explanation given to you? 69 ss.2% YU If yes, did the explanation address the points raised in your grievance? 9 23.7% In comments, respondents expressed frustration that grievances were not resolved. 6 grievances have gone unacknowledged, despite multiple submissions, memos, and finally a certified letter containing said six grievances. Even then, no response was made. MARCY Others went into depth on the issues faced around getting grievance responses to address the specific issues raised. The number one reason for individuals failing to utilize the program is the failure to address specific issues honestly. There is a tendency to dance around the issue being addressed and responses given...do not correspond with the allegations, especially when the grievant’ s claim has validity. When a grievant[’s] claims ha[ve] no validity then the investigations and responses are on point. When the claims are legitimate the narrative changes. CLINTON Correctional Association of New York 42 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons [The] challenge is to get your point actually addressed. CLINTON If your CORC appeal was denied, was there a detailed written explanation for the denial? The problem of explanations for decisions was also expressed repeatedly, specifically in relation to CORC where people cited that there were frequent failures to provide individualized and relevant responses. [To improve the grievance program, I would] change the way CORC handles all appeals [as]as they always change the issues to fit their ruling/decisins and most of the time, [it] is not what the grievant argued in the first place. WALLKILL I would say 95% of those grievances are either moot or affirmed by CORC with boiler plate language. WOODBOURNE It is perhaps not surprising the CORC provides explanations in boiler plate language given that it is difficult for a centralized body to conduct in-depth investigations into the details of a case. Transparency in sharing decisions and decisionmaking processes with the public The survey did not ask the incarcerated population about the way in which data from grievances is shared publicly. However, the need for shared information was raised by multiple people. As of 12-22-22, Monthly Statements are not being passed out to the inmate population, if at all. CLINTON Correctional Association of New York 43 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons I recommend the program’s in-house process become more transparent to the outside world via decisions made public online. EASTERN [There should be] more transparency of the ongoings within...facilities, not just [with] the prisoners, but [with] the outside communities at large. Such secrecy is an indicator that something is amiss and [is] not a security issue. Accountability for the wrongdoings and transgressions perpetrated by staff. SING SING The need for the cameras to be used as part of the IGP A straightforward solution to improve procedures is the use of cameras. As DOCCS completes the systemwide installation of cameras, they should be used to provide transparency across the grievance process. Investigations take months, most of which are Code 49s. They have cameras here. They should not take that long. COXSACKIE Where...evidence on audio/video ha[s] been alleged,...such evidence should be introduced in support of either parties’ argument. ELMIRA With cameras now in most places, it’s no longer easy for an officer to simply deny something took place or lie about it. GREAT MEADOW Procedural guarantees of implementation of decisions Do staff carry out the decisions reached on grievances when the decisions are in the incarcerated individual's favor? .. Although survey responses indicated that very few grievances are found in favor of incarcerated people, 68% (n=388) of respondents said that staff do not carry out decisions Correctional Association of New York 44 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons even in the small minorities of cases which are found in incarcerated people’s favor. This causes additional damage to the perception that people have of the utility of the IGP. There is no effective part of [the] grievance [process] because even if we win the grievance, most officers never respect the decision unless the decision is against IIs [(incarcerated individuals)]. ALBION When a grievance has been filed and the outcome is in the grievant’s favor, the action [that is supposed] to take place might happen for a brief time but then reverts back to what was happening before. WOODBOURNE Access Lack of access to recourse due to limitations on issues subject to the IGP Multiple aspects of the prison life are not subject to the grievance program as detailed in Directive 4040: (1) An individual decision or disposition of any current or subsequent program or procedure having a written appeal mechanism which extends review to outside the facility shall be considered non-grievable. (2) An individual decision or disposition of the temporary release committee, time allowance committee, family reunion program or media review committee is not grievable. Likewise, an individual decision or disposition resulting from a disciplinary proceeding, inmate property claim (of any amount), central monitoring case review or records review (freedom of information request, expunction) is not grievable. (f} Outside agencies excluded. Any policy, regulation or rule of an outside agency (e.g., the Division of Parole, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Office of Mental Health, etc.) or action taken by an entity not under the supervision of the Commissioner is not within the jurisdiction of the IGP.45 Of the limitations to grievable issues that are specified above, it is those that are related to outside agencies which are most often raised. During CANY visits, incarcerated people often describe frustration that they cannot use the IGP for issues related to tablets. For example, if pictures or correspondence go missing. Instead, they are directed to a JPAY helpdesk that has even less accountability and reportedly performs very poorly. 45 https://doccs.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2022/12/4040.pdf Correctional Association of New York 45 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons Responses show that over half of respondents (64%, n=423) would like to file grievances for alternative issues. Are there issues that you would like to file a grievance for, but are unable to do so? .. Are you able to solve the issues you can file for a grievance for through alternative methods? VD Are you able to solve the issues you cannot file a grievance for through alternative methods? Are there people who would like to file a grievance on your behalf but are unable to do so? .. Lack of access due to physical obstacles The survey also assessed the possible need for people to file grievances on behalf of others. A substantial number of people (42%, n=381) were impacted by the requirement for them to file grievances for themselves only. Correctional Association of New York 46 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons Lack of access due to physical obstacles Can incarcerated individuals get the forms needed to submit a grievance when they want them? Have you ever been unable to physically submit a grievance to the grievance officer because of confinement and/or mobility issues? 195 46.4% YU If yes, were you able to find an alternative method to get the grievance to the IGRC? Interception of grievance before they reach the drop box. There are specific issues that prevent people in the SHU from filing grievances into the drop box across all facilities. The issue is especially prevalent at Upstate which is an all SHU/RRU facility: When [you’re] in the SHU and you know a CO that throws mail away, you have to wait until one [is] working that do[esn’t] do [that] or have another prisoner drop your mail if you[’re] a target. CLINTON Upstate Correctional Facility routinely discouraged IIs [(incarcerated individuals)] from filing grievances by not having grievance forms available. WOODBOURNE Correctional Association of New York 47 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons Upstate is the least effective because you need to rely on the CO to drop your grievance off; and because of this, it may not be dropped off. WENDE Even when people weren’t in SHU, they had issues accessing the drop box and obtaining forms. Grievance lockboxes should be affixed in a central location, in plain view, in order to promote accessibility. ELMIRA The most important thing I can share is there are never any grievance forms available to us and there isn’t even a grievance box. ATTICA Interception of grievances after they reach the drop box or mailbox Even after filing grievances in the drop box, which is often the same as the mailbox, there is uncertainty around whether the grievance will reach the IGP or IGRC office. The most challenging part is that an incarcerated individual can’t witness who receives the grievance and do[es]n’t know if the grievance reaches individuals that can make changes. CLINTON Unfortunately, this facility has never put in place a box for just our grievances. We have to place them in the mailbox. It’s taken up to the mail room and then I can only guess that they are picked up by the grievance supervisor who gets them first and then they are brought to the grievance office. CLINTON Since [Supervisors and Grievance Sergeants] are intent on doing everything to obstruct the grievance process, from disposing of grievances without processing them to informing other staff of the grievance contents so that IIs are harassed and threatened into “signing off” on their grievance, the grievance process cannot work as currently implemented. WALSH REGIONAL MEDICAL UNIT Other people said that the lack of rounds taken by the IGP supervisor made it easier for grievances to go missing. According to Directive #4040, grievance is supposed to make rounds weekly. This never happens, so it’s very easy for grievances to disappear. CLINTON Correctional Association of New York 48 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons The facilit[y], I can say from personal experience, that [is] the worst so far for filing a grievance [is] Great Meadow, which disposes of any serious grievance or any grievance which is other than some petty, easily addressed concern. WALSH REGIONAL MEDICAL UNIT The uncertainty over the processing of grievances contributes to the confusion and mistrust of the process felt among the incarcerated population. False claiming time limits to prevent grievances from being filed A further issue related to access is the restrictions around the enforcement of time limits. In Directive 4040, they are stated as below: “(1) Time limit for filing. An incarcerated individual must submit a complaint to the clerk within twenty-one (21) calendar days of an alleged occurrence…..Note: Exceptions to this time limit or any appeal time limits may be approved by the IGP supervisor under section 701.6(g), below. “ According to incarcerated people, this restriction is often used to falsely suggest that people have not submitted grievances within time limits by delaying the filing of grievances until after 21 days have elapsed. The...IGP Supervisor...and Grievance Sergeant...purposely delay...the filing of... grievances...to falsely claim grievances are untimely in order to keep from filing them. CLINTON [Officers] do not file certain [grievances] and others...use underhanded tactics to prevent you from appealing to the Superintendent by claiming you didn’t file within... the time limit. GREAT MEADOW It is essential that there be a tamperproof system in place to collect information on when grievances are filed. Failures to allow people access to hearings Although the survey did not ask about the subject explicitly, in survey comments, incarcerated people explained that a further issue related to access is the ability to attend hearings. Correctional Association of New York 49 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons I recommend...that anyone who refuses a hearing should be made to sign a refusal form and that IGRC [be] forced to notify prisoners in writing [of] the time of any upcoming hearings. That would make it so that if staff does not tell you of a hearing, then the grievance can’t be dismissed for not attending the hearing FIVE POINTS The most challenging part of the grievance program is getting a hearing in a timely fashion...Another challenge is getting an adequate investigation as well as getting the opportunity to attend the hearing, as hearing[s] are often in the grievant’ s absence, alleging his refusal [to come], when he was actually never issued a call out for the hearing. GREEN HAVEN I have a file of about 30 grievances for issues such as refusal of medical care and being assaulted by staff. When I first got here, any grievances I tried to make disappeared and never got filed. I started keeping carbon copies of grievances and made staff aware that I was doing so. At this point, whenever I had a call-out for [a] grievance, I would not be let out of my cell to go to the hearings. My grievance would be dismissed because I didn’t go to the hearing. FIVE POINTS In this section we have seen that there are problems with access to the drop-box, uncertainty about whether grievances make it to the IGRC after being filed, and false allegations that grievances are not filed within time limits. Some incarcerated people proposed tablets as a solution to these problems. If the grievance process was incorporated into our inmate tablets as an additional application, it would enable an easier grievance process and also enable the circumvention of most employee malfeasance attached to the current grievance process. It would also allow an overseeing entity outside of just DOCCS...to monitor whatever issues arise directly from the mouths and minds of incarcerated individuals. CLINTON I would recommend allowing IIs to file their complaints on the tablet/kiosk, ensuring it is received and documented. WALSH REGIONAL MEDICAL UNIT There should be a grievance/[C]ORC history app on the tablet where IIs can look up recent or ruling decisions so they do not have to file a grievance when an issue has already been addressed. WALSH REGIONAL MEDICAL UNIT Correctional Association of New York 50 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons Retaliation and fear Directive 4040 prohibit reprisals for filing grievances. (b) Reprisals prohibited. No reprisals of any kind shall be taken against an inmate or employee for good faith utilization of this grievance procedure. An inmate may pursue a complaint that a reprisal occurred through the grievance mechanism. A grievant shall not receive a misbehavior report based solely upon an allegedly false statement made by the inmate to the grievance committee. The problem with this prohibition is that there are no procedural aspects to ensure that reprisals do not take place as a result of grievances being filed. The evidence from survey comments suggests that retaliation and reprisals from grievances are routine. In fact, 61% (n=443) of respondents reported having experienced retaliation from filing a grievance. Have you ever experienced retaliation from filing a grievance? .. Have you ever decided not to file a grievance despite having a reason to do so? 90 20.1% ... Have you ever withdrawn a grievance before a hearing? In comments, most people suggested that the reason they did not file grievances was due to a fear of reprisal. Similarly, of those that had withdrawn a grievance, many said this was because they were pressured into doing so. Correctional Association of New York 51 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons The extent of perception of fear was seen with 67% (n=335) saying that people are ‘always afraid’ or ‘somewhat afraid’. Just 6% (n=29) said that incarcerated people were not afraid at all. Do you think incarcerated individuals are afraid of filing grievances? No, not afraid at all ■ No, seldom afraid About halt are 188 112 Yes, somewhat afraid ■ 0 100 200 300 400 Yes, always afraid 500 In open ended survey responses, the issue of retaliation was directly cited by many people and the consistency of the systemic presence of retaliation is shown in the breadth of these, in which several contributing themes emerge. Lack of confidentiality leading to retaliation A number of comments identified that the lack of confidentiality is a driver of retaliation. Once the grievance is up in the grievance office, it is allowed that whatever officer is assigned to that area...will be the one to take the grievances…down to the law library...to make copies...I’m more than sure [they] will read it and let whoever know that such and such has filed it against them. CLINTON When an II does file a grievance, it’s more than likely that other employees [involved in] the grievance gain knowledge of the grievance...and take some type of adverse action again the individual who filed the grievance (such as flipping the II’s cell or not allowing the II to eat or attend recreation). CLINTON It is so crazy that [an] officer g[ot] a copy of the grievance I wrote on him and tape[d] it outward from the officers’ station so everyone c[ould] see it. WALLKILL The grievance program at Albion would be more effective if the civilian who oversees our complaints would be more confidential. He tells officers that we grieved them, that way the retaliation comes quick. ALBION Correctional Association of New York 52 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons Officers or staff always find out when one griev[es] them, then seek retaliation. OTISVILLE Lack of consequences for staff as a cause for retaliation Others identified that the lack of consequences for staff when they retaliate against people for filing grievances was a key driver of the trend. It is my experience that staff here know that they are not really going to get into trouble for whatever issues are brought up. CLINTON The problem is that there is little or no accountability for staff when they break the rules. Why would staff respect our rights? They know nothing shall happen to them. ATTICA Forms of retaliation Respondents described a wide range of forms of retaliation: The most challenging parts are really embedded in the chain of events that take place as a result of submitting a grievance. For example, facility officials would be notified that they have a grievance on them and they would find creative methods of retaliation against the grievant. EASTERN Restriction of packages: I’ve seen people not get their packages that they had their family pay for because of them filing a grievance. CAPE VINCENT Transfer to different prisons: I currently have a pending claim for excessive force that was used against me at Collins Corr. Facility. When I filed a grievance it was never processed, and I was transferred out of the facility in 21 days. This was retaliation on [the] part of the Sergeant...who was the main person behind the assault that happen[ed] to me. FIVE POINTS Parole hearings: In my most recent grievance about programming, I was retaliated against by ORC (Offender Rehabilitation Coordinator) and SORC, SORC for parole, and program Deputy Superintendent. They all worked together to put inaccuracies on my Parole Board Report and paperwork. CLINTON Correctional Association of New York 53 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons Stopping methadone treatment: I have been threatened numerous times that [staff] will decrease or stop my methadone treatment if I keep writing grievances or letters to state agencies. FIVE POINTS Fake charges If one makes a complaint to the Superintendent and especially Albany, expect to be assaulted at some point or even set up with something being found in your cube like a weapon or drugs. MARCY The IGRC is flaw[ed] starting with the officer that files false reports. Then, the sergeants use reprisals to settle sensitive grievances. SING SING Assault and harassment: For more than 7 months, I was being threatened and harassed by several officers here at Wallkill. I used the grievance process, and it only made the harassment worse. WALLKILL If you file a grievance here at Wallkill, it automatically puts a target on your back. WALLKILL The most challenging [thing] is being able to prove that you have become a target because you filed a Code 49. WALLKILL The extent of retaliation for filing grievances has been well documented with high profile cases in New York and across the US.46, 47 Retaliation has been shown to be exacerbated by the PLRA. In one study, more than 90% of prisoners believed that “staff will retaliate or get back at” them. Therefore, according to many prison supervisors, “‘a substantial number of inmates’ do not file grievances despite having legitimate issues.”48 46 https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/11/15/why-incarcerated-people-must-be-able-speak-out-about- abuse/ 47 https://nysfocus.com/2022/11/03/prison-sexual-assault-investigation-new-york/ 48 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0734016810367797 Correctional Association of New York 54 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons The consequences of retaliation As a result of retaliation, some incarcerated people said that they had to adopt particular strategies to file grievances. I file most of my grievances when I’m in solitary because I have the time and [I’m] not in fear of retaliation because I’m already in solitary. In population, I don’t file against security because they set you up with weapons and assault charges. CLINTON Others said that fear prevents serious issues from going through the process: There are many occasions where grievance program supervisors gave correctional officers advance notice of the grievance[s] that prisoners had filed against them which led to threats that then led to withdrawal of grievances and sometimes bodily harm to prisoners. So oftentimes prisoners only file grievances that won’t lead to retaliation, which means that many of the more serious issues we are facing never go through the grievance process. CLINTON Numerous comments showed that the risk of retaliation is so great that it is perceived as not worth it. I do not file grievances because staff retaliates 90% of the time in some way. ATTICA I’ve asked...other prisoners why they do not file grievances for injustices...and they always answer the same 2 ways; (1) It never changes anything and (2) For fear of the retaliation that inevitably comes with a grievance. Unfortunately, I agree with those sentiments because we hardly ever see a positive change....as a result of a grievance. CLINTON I haven’t filed a grievance for the fact that it never works. They never help with nothing. When you grieve stuff, they just don’t fix the problem, then if you keep up with the grievance, they beat you up or move you to a different jail. ELMIRA Retaliation against IGRC members Other incarcerated people commented that retaliation was not just faced by those filing grievances, but also by IGRC members who work on the process. Correctional Association of New York 55 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons In many facilities repos are asked to write a decision agreeing with staff for fear of retaliation. There is a committee on paper, but there is no actual hearing where all voices are being heard. You receive a call to the IGRC office where a decision has already been made and the reps will tell you about an appeal process. That’s in the case of your grievance actually getting process[ed], [in] other cases, you risk betting being met by security and being assaulted and made to sign off. CLINTON Fear of retaliation that comes from this report and speaking with CANY A related issue, demonstrating the scale of the culture of fear, is the fear of retaliation observed during multiple monitoring visits that CANY has undertaken, including during visits to Bare Hill in March 2022 and Marcy in October 2022. At Bare Hill, “There were eight instances of incarcerated respondents expressing hesitation to speak openly with CANY representatives for fear of retaliation by correctional staff.”49 These same fears were observed in responses to the survey itself. I had to send this to my people and have them send it to you because the COs told that if I mailed this survey out, I was going to get beat and sent to the box. CAPE VINCENT There [are] many things I’d like to discuss with you, but I don’t feel comfortable in these letters, and the phone will be even worse…Also, this correspondence from you was given to me opened, why is that? It should have gone through the facility legal mail process. MOHAWK The justified fear that incarcerated people express when filing grievances and communicating with CANY is a deeply serious matter, requiring serious steps from DOCCS. Duration and the PLRA Timeframes for both incarcerated people to file grievances and for the system to respond are defined by DOCCS and specified in directives. When incarcerated people fail to file grievances and appeals within the timeframes indicated, their grievances are dismissed. When DOCCS fails to comply with timelines at all stages, as acknowledged by staff, and shown in the survey data, there are no consequences. At both the facility level and at the CORC review, committee failures to meet specified time limits were extremely consistent. 49 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/62f1552c1dd65741c53bbcf8/t/63f29d7dd8dcfa5d15da4ec8/1676844418 960/2022 PVB-06-BareHill.pdf p.4 Correctional Association of New York 56 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons Was your most recent grievance heard or resolved informally within 16 calendar days of when it was filed? .. If you filed an appeal, was the Superintendent's response to your grievance within 45 days? 54 43.9% ... 77.3% 249 For the most recent Code 49 grievance you filed, did the Superintendent make a judgment within 25 days? Did the CORC review your appeal within 30 days? 33 21.7% .. ,.. During interviews with staff and the executive team at Bedford Hills and Sing Sing, members of staff conceded that they were not in compliance with the directive, saying that the primary reason was staff shortages. At Bedford Hills, for example, the IGP supervisor is an ORC who has many other responsibilities aside from the IGP supervisor role.50 Procedural implications of the PLRA In addition to significantly damaging trust in the system, preventing timely recourse, and enforcing double-standards on incarcerated people and DOCCS, the failure of the grievance process to meet deadlines prevents people litigating in state courts by filing an Article 78, and creates confusion about whether people can file in federal court 1983. This is due to the ‘exhaustion of remedies’ requirement stipulated by the PLRA. 50 In June 2022, CANY received statistical data on the number of grievances filed statewide. Analysis of this data will undertaken and published over the coming months. Correctional Association of New York 57 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons Nearly half of people (47%, n=300) said that they had filed a grievance purely to preserve their rights to sue. In response to the request for people to identify positive aspects of the IGP, many people cited that it would allow for a record that they had exhausted the process. Simply put, the single most positive thing that many people could say about the IGP is that it could be navigated so that people could litigate. How effective do you feel the grievance program has been in resolving incarcerated individuals' complaints? ■ Very effective Falrly effective seldom effective 0 100 200 300 ■ 49 141 400 Not effective 500 Preserving possible litigation through exhaustion is what is most effective. GREAT MEADOW I would say the most effective part of the grievance program for me is that it is a vehicle to use if one wishes to preserve documents to bring up/use for court filings. EASTERN The most effective part of the grievance program is the ability to make a formal record of our complaint. EASTERN Getting something on paper [to use] at a later date or to prevent an immediate threat isthe most effective part of the IGP. EASTERN Many people highlighted the frustration that comes from the exhaustion requirement. [IGPs at all facilities] operate and function to undermine [their] original intent. This practice has become entrenched as a culture within the department; specifically, to undermine the exhaustion of State remedies prior to filing a Federal lawsuit. EASTERN Others were unclear about whether the exhaustion requirement was fulfilled when the CORC failed to file grievances in time. Correctional Association of New York 58 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons For the CORC to take 12 to 18 times longer than Directive 4040 allows for grievances to be decided (30 days) shows me that DOCCS is deliberately delaying decisions to take off the Article 78 law...that does not allow claims to be filed until a final CORC decision. GREAT MEADOW I recommend that Directive 4040 be changed to specifically state that CORC decisions not made within 60 days are to be considered FINAL DENIALS and that the inmate then has the option to seek judicial intervention. GREAT MEADOW The state legislature should look at the exhaustion of remedies problem...The state courts in Article 78 proceedings are not considering a lack of a CORC decision as a final decision... and [they] are dismissing claims (without prejudice), regardless of the merit. Not so with federal courts that consider a lack of a CORC decision after 60 days to be a final denial. This gives the appearance of partiality by the state court system to delay, if not deny, prisoners timely justice. From the date of a grievance, a prisoner would have to wait approximately 4 months to request judicial relief in federal court. But only for federal law claims. [However], most prisoner claims are properly state law based. To file in state court, it would most likely take 12 months, at the least. GREAT MEADOW The CORC is not rendering decisions within 30 days and is not doing their own independent investigations. They are only going by whatever these facilities have to say about our complaints. CLINTON CORC needs to be reviewed...[and] replaced by a new...committee that serves as...a panel to monitor IGP undermining by DOCCS. GREEN HAVEN Most incarcerated individuals are already in court on their Article 78 motions when CORC responds. WALLKILL Once, when [I] appealed a grievance to the CORC, the IGP office informed me that it would take up to two years for a reply, [thus] deliberately discouraging me from filing the appeal. WOODBOURNE My biggest complaint: CORC regularly oversteps their 30 day time limit, and it is unclear what an inmate can do about it. ATTICA Correctional Association of New York 59 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons I still haven’t received my appeal decision from Albany, and it’s been over 3 and a half months. I want to proceed with an Article 78, but I’m scared of the retaliation that comes with it. ALBION Consequences: Mistrust and illegitimacy The consequences of the failures discussed above are that incarcerated people perceive very low rates of value in the IGP, even as they continue to use the process. It lmpl'OVl!S staff/ incarcerated relatio ns It has no effect on staff/ Incarcerated Individual relations ■ 119 100 0 200 300 400 It makes staff/Incarcerated Individual reladons wo,se 500 While it may be assumed that these perceptions are due to the inclination of incarcerated people to perceive every aspect of their incarceration negatively, there are more nuanced perspectives expressed in multiple comments which lament how the potential of the IGP is not realized. {The IGP} can be beneficial if it[‘s] impartial and r[u]n fairly, without prejudice. WALLKILL The reality is, if those Supervisors and grievance Sergeants who ran each facility IGP were interested in resolving issues the /Is face, the IGRC would be a very [e)ffective thing. WALSH REGIONAL MEDICAL UNIT I believe in the grievance process and do not want you to think that it doesn’t work. It does with certain things and [with] others it is waste of time. The biggest problem with grievance[s] is that we, the incarcerated population, have no credibility. What I mean by this is [of] every grievance I have ever read, not a single one said staff did not do their job correctly and by the book. And 99% of the appeals are affirmed by the Superintendent and he strictly goes with what the area supervisor says. I have never seen a decision in which the Superintendent uses what the Grievance Committee recommends. WOODBOURNE Correctional Association of New York 60 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons Many comments described the process as “fake” or a “sham” that resulted in increased mistrust with DOCCS. These comments are gathered below. I feel the grievance program is just something the corrections system can say they have in place for incarcerated individuals. CAYUGA The perception of the grievance process, for the most part, is that it[‘s] a vehicle for DOCCS to cover up its wrong doings. CLINTON The grievance program is a complete fraud. The men who all lost their lives in the Attica riots so that we men c[ould] have a IGP - are turning in their graves. EASTERN [The grievance program] is a farce. Any prisoner will attest to this as it only purports to provide an outlet for resolution but never does. GREAT MEADOW I would describe the grievance program as a gimmick and a bias orchestrated program. SING SING I am sad to say that the grievance program is a simple smoke screen put in place to silence prison complaints. ORLEANS [The grievance program is] a sham design[ed] to keep grievance filers losing with no confidentiality. OTISVILLE The grievance process is a joke. Its purpose is to give inmates and the public the false perception that we receive due process. ATTICA I will describe the grievance program as a way to pacify the IIs [in] general population. WALLKILL The grievance program is a front to look good on paper while doing nothing to assist IIs in reality. WALSH REGIONAL MEDICAL UNIT Correctional Association of New York 61 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons The absence of genuine recourse and feeling of illegitimacy about the process leads to a culture of mistrust that also surfaced consistently during comments as outlined below. There is a culture of distrust between prisoners and the grievance program which also exten[ds] to DOCCS. CLINTON I should not have any trust at all in [DOCCS] because even mechanisms that should assist to resolve [grievances] are corrupt. GREAT MEADOW My current perception of the grievance program completely negates any sense of real trust in DOCCS, particularly whenever I [receive] an officers’ brazen reply... about wiping their ass with one’s grievance. GREENE The grievance program and its partiality and ineffectiveness force me to face the reality that officers and administration can do whatever they want whenever they want and there’s nothing prisoners can do about it. GREEN HAVEN My experience is that the program not only puts a target on your back for serious grievances, but more importantly...offers zero protection so that would be a zero for trust. MOHAWK The grievance program was created in the wake of the Attica uprising to give a voice and avenue for prisoners to have their issues addressed, particularly those that affect the quality of life for prisoners. Unfortunately, over the years, the process has become nothing more than a formality to placate prisoners, and to leverage good PR for the dept. where rights, liberties, and privileges appear to be serious concerns at large, despite the opposite being true. SING SING How do you trust someone who falsifies documents in an effort to excuse themselves to do their jobs. SULLIVAN Nobody wants to write grievances and most people give up. Almost anybody I ask says they don’t even bother with grievances because it never changes anything. FIVE POINTS I barely grieve anymore because there are no boundaries, not one percentage of trust. ALBION Correctional Association of New York 62 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons The [grievance] program...creates conflict between the incarcerated individuals and the correctional officers. GREENE The perception of the process as a sham and the resulting lack of trust resulting from the documented failures clearly result in poorer relationships between incarcerated people and staff. As Armstrong argues, “When prisoners perceive the prison administration as legitimate (i.e., that the policies are neutral and fairly applied), prisoners are more likely to contribute to an orderly and safe prison environment.”51 In the view of many incarcerated people, this fundamental need lies within the need for independence. There is consistency in the way in which people see this need as articulated in the many comments on this topic which are collected below: The grievance program ought to be handled by an agency other than DOCCS in order for it to possess any actual meaning. GREENE The system could be drastically improved...by employing a two-pronged approach of communication with inmates regarding its process, and by at least partially taking the process “out-of-house,” thereby removing at least some of the institutional bias. AUBURN [The] only way this [prison] can improve [the grievance program] is by giving it up and allowing people independent from DOCCS to do the job. May sound harsh but it’s the truth. CLINTON The grievance process is a flaw[ed] process because those who oversee the process all work for DOCCS which make them inclined to rule in the interest of DOCCS. CLINTON Instead of filing a complaint to the same individuals who work amongst the individuals you’re filing against, all grievances should be handled elsewhere. Maybe even through a toll-free number available to inmates statewide 24/7. CAYUGA I recommend that there be an external process for grievances that have to do with prisoners’ safety...coming from staff...most prisoners are really afraid to address this 51 Armstrong, Andrea C. “No Prisoner Left behind? Enhancing Public Transparency of Penal Institutions.” Stanford Law & Policy Review 25, no. 2 (2014). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2324387 Correctional Association of New York 63 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons issue through the facility grievance process due to retaliation. CLINTON I recommend that grievances should be handled by a separate office that has no affiliation with the institution the griever is residing at. CLINTON Because there is no serious outside entity overlooking the...[grievance] process, the individual [correctional] facilities and their employees will continue to get away with manipulating and discouraging the grievance process. CLINTON My recommendation [to improve the grievance program] would be to have a mutual party [to resolve grievances] that has no ties to anyone in the facility. FIVE POINTS Whoever is on the panel [to resolve grievances] should be independent of DOCCS and insusceptible to influence and pressure and that means no officers or sergeants. Meanwhile, OMH is independent of DOCCS. Where prisoners are concerned, the current process is okay as long as there []no one from DOCCS on the panel to coerce and influence their decision making. GREAT MEADOW To say that the IGP program is adequate is akin to saying a[n] aspirin is adequate for a gunshot wound to the head. The DOCCS system has no incentive to acknowledge that inmates have legitimate complaints, as that would result in additional work by employees and suggest that DOCCS has problems internally. The largest problem with the IGP program, is that the agency and individuals that investigate complaints are exactly the agency and individuals the complaints are lodged against. MARCY Years ago, pre-grievance, there was what was called “the ombudsmen” assigned to resolve issues. I remember progress back then, BUT, if properly followed with nonbiased staff, the grievance program can be effective. MOHAWK My recommendation would be to have someone who does not work for DOCCS to take grievances in real time. Perhaps even verbal[ly]. Afterwards, bring it to the attention of a sergeant and see if it can be resolved without writing an actual grievance. WENDE Correctional Association of New York 64 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons A great leap forward could be made by having a neutral third party…implement investigations while keeping the grievant’s identity anonymous during the investigation as much as possible. MARCY The only way to fix the grievance [program] would be [to] break any and all ties to correctional facilities. MOHAWK Have an out of facility entity run grievance that is not buddy buddy or friends with correction[al] officers or staff. OTISVILLE Have [the grievance program] run by an outside organization. A training course should be performed on how to submit a grievance. A new CORC [should] be implemented. OTISVILLE Get people that are backed up by an outside entity [to run the grievance program] so there is no intimidation involve[d] so that [they] can actually do [their] job. SING SING The members of the grievance program in each facility should be people from outside not connected to the administration. SING SING CORC appeals should be handled by a civilian panel outside of the Dept., instead of insiders whose goal is to further the Dept.’s agenda, which is usually diametrically opposed to the well being of those within its charge: CORC protects the establishment instead of protecting the prisoner[s’] best interests. SING SING In order to diminish the influences of implicit bias, independent review committees should be established and conducted by a disinterested entity. ELMIRA [We should] change the staff and mix them up. It’s hard to figure out change if the same corrupt people are still working [in] that area or program. UPSTATE The problem is there is no independent oversight. From the IGP supervisor all the way up are state workers. An independent investigator who answers to no one in the prison might work, but I doubt the State would allow that. WOODBOURNE Correctional Association of New York 65 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons Put the grievance program in the hands of an agency…[like] Prisoners’ Legal Services, non-DOCCS employees. ATTICA [It should be run] by an outside entity having no relation to person[s] or fashion[s] dealing with the Department of Corrections. ATTICA The...IGP Supervisor...and the Grievance Sergeant are purposely not having grievances investigated by a higher ranking supervisory staff member. They are purposely and improperly having the staff who are the subject of grievances answer and investigate grievances against THEMSELVES and they are purposely mishandling and falsifying grievances at this facility. CLINTON CONCLUSION In the preceding sections of this report, we have demonstrated that: → There are misunderstandings about which issues are viable, leading to dismissals at the first stage. → Most people did not vote for the IGRC reps and don’t trust them to represent their interests. → The IGP supervisor’s role is unclear to most incarcerated people. → Medical grievances are routinely dismissed at facility level because the IGRC lacks expertise. → Explanations for denial or dismissal rarely address points raised in grievances. → It is unclear when the grievance process is exhausted when time limits are not met. → Decisions in favor of incarcerated people are not always implemented. → Staff harassment grievances (Code 49) are often misfiled as something else. → The IGP does not apply to all aspects of incarceration. → Many incarcerated people cite inaccessibility of the drop box or cannot access forms. → There is uncertainty over whether grievances arrive at the IGRC after being filed. → Only a small minority of grievances were resolved within time limits specified by the department. Correctional Association of New York 66 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons → There is widespread retaliation and corresponding fear from filing grievances. → Most people do not perceive the IGRC, IGP, Superintendent, or CORC as fair. → There are very low rates of grievances being found in incarcerated peoples’ favor. Together these findings show a failure of the IGP to fulfil its purported role. However, numerous comments from incarcerated people demonstrate the perception that the IGP would fulfill an essential role if it functioned adequately and consequently, was trusted by the incarcerated population as a genuine avenue for recourse. Innovations in other states, such as the implementation of tablets to file grievances in Vermont, demonstrate that there are concrete and realistic solutions, some of which have already been contemplated in New York. In 2023 CANY release additional reporting on the incarcerated grievance program. These reports will include an analysis of administrative data on the time spent resolving grievances on a system-wide level, a report documenting the impact of the PLRA, and a detailed set of recommendations for change of the existing grievance process. The set of detailed, achievable, and realistic recommendations that CANY will submit to the legislature, the executive, and the public will be informed by a series of focus group discussions with IGRCs, ILCs and DOCCS management and facility staff. The resulting set of recommendations will provide a realizable framework for lasting change. Correctional Association of New York 67 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons APPENDIX A | Cover Letter December 2002 Greetings, The Correctional Association of New York is conducting a survey to understand the experiences and perspectives of incarcerated people around the Incarcerated Grievance Program. You have been selected at random to receive this survey along with approximately 10% of the population at each DOCCS facility. CANY is a non-profit organization based in Brooklyn, mandated by the state to conduct independent oversight of NYS prisons. CANY carries out monitoring visits to prisons, engages with incarcerated people through surveys and other correspondence, and uses administrative data from DOCCS and other state agencies to form recommendations for improving prison conditions. Under Correction Law 146(3), CANY has the authority to communicate with incarcerated people confidentially; DOCCS is prohibited from seeking retaliation against individuals for communicating with CANY. Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary. We encourage you to participate to inform CANY’s understanding of the grievance process. Information provided through survey answers will be included in a public report but CANY will not publish details of your individual experiences. No identifying information will be published in any report or document CANY produces and we will not disclose your personal responses to DOCCS or any other entity. If you choose to participate, please mail the completed survey in the enclosed envelope no later than Monday, January 16, 2023. If you would like to add to the answers provided in the survey, please send us your comments on a separate sheet. In particular, we would be interested in hearing your opinions on the following questions in addition to your responses to the survey: 1. How would you describe the grievance program in your own words? 2. How does your perception of the grievance program impact the level of trust you have in DOCCS? 3. What are the most challenging and effective parts of the grievance program? 4. At which facilities do you think the grievance program is most and least effective? Why? 5. What recommendations would you make to change the grievance program? 6. Anything else you’d like to share with CANY? If you have any questions about this survey or would like to contact CANY, please write to the following address or call the number below: Correctional Association of New York P.O. Box 793 Brooklyn, NY 11207 Telephone: 212.254.5700 Wishing you a healthy new year. Sincerely, CANY Staff Correctional Association of New York 68 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons APPENDIX B | Survey Appendix SurveyB: Survey ■ ■ Correctional Association of New York: System-Wide Survey on Inc arc era ted Greivance Program Al. Name A2. DIN: Pait One: Awareness of the program Bl. Before you received this survey, were you aware that a grievance program existed? D B2. Are you generally aware of how the grievance program works? D B3. □ No Yes □ No Yes How are incarcerated individuals mainly infonned about the Grievance Program ? (Check one) □ □ □ At reception At an orientation session for the facility From a conectional officer □ From another incarcerated indivilual □ From the superintendent or their staff □ From a facility newspaper or bulletin □ □ □ From a prison rnle book Not at all Other Ifother, please specify: B4. Do you know how an incarcerated indivilua I is supposed to submit a grievance at your institution? D BS . Yes □ No Do you know where the grievance drop-box is located? D Yes □ No Pait Two: The role ofthe IGRC and !GP supe1visor Cl. Are you aware ofthe Incarcerated Grievance Resolution Committee (IGRC) in the prison? D Yes □ No Ifno, skip to question C9. C2. Are you aware that, per Directive 4040, IGRC representative s should be elected to the committee by their peers ? C3. Di! you vote for the IGRC representatives ? D D C4. Yes Yes □ No □ No Do you believe that the IGRC election process is fair? D Yes ■ Correctional Association of New York □ No ■ 63 69 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons APPENDIX B | Survey ■ C5. ■ Do you believe that the IGRC election process is transparent? D C6. Yes □ No Do you trust the IGRC representatives to represent incarcerated people's interests fairly in the grievance process? D Yes □ No C7. Comment on the selection of the IGRC: CB. Comment on the adequacy/fairness of IGRC reps in the grievance program: C9. Are you aware of the Incarcerated Grievance Program ( IGP) Supervisor in the prison? D Yes □ No □ No If no, sk ip to Part Three. C10. Is the role of the IGP supervisor clear to you? C11. Do you believe that the IGP supervisor clearly communicates the grievance program to you? D D C12. Yes Yes □ No Do you believe that IGP supervisor has a fair approach to resolving grievance program? D Yes □ No C13. Are there ways in which you think that the IGP supervisor could improve the ir job? Please explain. C14. Comment on the role of the IGP Supervisor: Part Three: Accessibility of the Program D1. Have you ever filed a grievance? D Yes □ No If you have never filed a grievance, skip to question D4. ■ Correctional Association of New York ■ 64 70 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons APPENDIX B | Survey ■ D2. ■ Here is a list of some possible complaints for which you might file a grievance. Please check all that you've filed a grievance for in the last 1-3 years. □ Food □ issued □ Clothing Recreational opportun ities □ Medical services □ Mental health services □ Dental services □ Visitation rules □ Legal services □ If other, please specify: Work assignment □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Personal privacy Treatment by correctional officers Vocational train ing Educational programming Other programming Classification m alters Personal property □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Treatment by other incarcerated people Counseling services Religious services Phone problems Special Housing Units Comm issary Disc iplinary system Other D3. Can you describe some examples of things you 've filed a grievance for (can be things mentioned above or others) and what happened when you filed? D4. Are there issues that you would like to file a grievance for , but are unable to do so? DS. If yes, describe those issues: D6. Are there people who wou ld like to file a grievance on your behalf but are unable to do so? D7. Are you able to solve the issues you CAN file a grievance for through alternative methods? D D D DS. Yes Yes □ No □ □ No No Are you able to solve the issues you CAN NOT file a grievance for through alternative methods? D D9. Yes Yes □ No Are you aware of Directive #4040, which explains the grievance program? D Yes □ No If no, skip to question D13. D10. Is Directive #4040 , which explains the grievance program , available for incarcerated ind ividuals to read? D Yes ■ Correctional Association of New York □ No ■ 65 71 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons APPENDIX B | Survey ■ D11. ■ Is Directive #4040 easily understood (e.g ., free from legal jargon )? D D12. No Yes □ No Can incarcerated individuals get the forms needed to submit a grievance when they want them? D D14. □ Is Directive #4040 written in a language that you can understand? D D13. Yes Yes □ No Have you ever been unable to phys ically subm it a grievance to the grievance office because of confinement and/or mobility issues? D Yes □ No D15. If yes, were you able to find an alternative method to get the grievance to the IGRC? D16. If yes, please describe that alternative method: D17. Have you ever decided not to file a grievance despite having a reason to do so? D18. lf yes, why? D19. Do you think incarcerated individuals are afraid of filing grievances? (Check one) D D D D D Yes Yes Yes , always afraid Yes , somewhat afraid □ □ D D If yes, why? D21 . Have you ever experienced retaliation from fi ling a grievance? Yes D22. If yes, from who? What kind of retal iation? D23. Have you ever withdrawn a grievance before a hearing? D No No, seldom afraid No, not afraid at all Abou t half are D20. D No Yes ■ Correctional Association of New York □ No □ No ■ 66 72 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons APPENDIX B | Survey ■ D24. ■ If yes, why? Part Four: Procedure and Duration E1. If you've ever filed a grievance, on average , how long did it take to receive a response of any kind? D D D W ithin 1-2 days With in one week With in 1 month D D D Longer than 1 month I have not rece ived a response I have never filed a grievance If you have never fi led a grievance, skip to Part Five . E2 . Generall y, did the IGP supervisor meet with you on your grievance? D E3. □ Yes No Generall y, did the IGP supervisor encourage you to resolve your grievance informally? D □ Yes No E4. Generall y, what are your thoughts on the informal resolution of grievances? Is it an effective process? Why or why not? E5. When was the last time you filed a grievance? (mm-dd-yyyy) E6. Was your most recent grievance heard or resolved inform ally within 16 calendar days of when it was filed? I 1111111 D I Yes □ No □ No E7. Was it resolved in your favor? E8. If the grievance was dism issed, did you file an appeal with the Superintendent? D D E9 . Yes Yes D Yes E10. Are you aware of the outcome of your case? E11. If dismissed or denied was an explanation given to you? D D E12. □ No If you filed an appeal, was the Superintenden t's response to your grievance within 45 days? Yes Yes □ No □ No □ No If yes, did the explanation address the points raised in your grievance? D Yes ■ Correctional Association of New York □ No ■ 67 73 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons APPENDIX B | Survey ■ E13. ■ Have you ever filed a Code 49 grievance (staff conduct)? D □ Yes No If no, sk ip to question E16. E14. If you have ever filed a Code 49 grievance, when was the last time you filed a Code 49 grievance? (dd/mm/yyyy) E15. For the most recent Code 49 grievance you filed , did the Superintendent make a judgment w ithin 25 days? I 1111111 D E16. I □ No Yes Have you ever had a Code 49 grievance decided in your favor by the superintendent? D □ Yes No E17. Do you know of instances in wh ich the superintendent decided in favor of Code 49 grievances from other ind ividuals? E18. Do you know what your options are if you do not agree with the outcome of your grievance? D D E19. □ Yes No No Do you know how to appeal a grievance outcome to the Central Office Review Committee (CORC )? D E20. □ Yes Yes □ No □ No Have you ever appealed a grievance ou tcome to CORC? D Yes If no, sk ip to question E23. E21 . Approximately how long ago did you last appeal a grievance to CORC? (mm-dd-yyyy) E22. Did the CORC review your appeal within 30 days? I 1111111 D I Yes □ No E23. How long after you appealed to CORC did CORC issue a decision? E24. Was the appeal decided in your favor? D Yes □ No E25. If your CORC appeal was denied , was there deta iled written explanation for the denial? E26. Have you ever filed a grievance solely or in part to preserve your right to sue? D D Yes Yes □ □ No No If no, sk ip to Part Five. ■ Correctional Association of New York ■ 68 74 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons APPENDIX B | Survey ■ E27. ■ If so, did you end up filing a suit? D E28. Yes □ No Can you describe how the grievance program impacted your litigation , if at all ? Part Five: Perception of Fairness of the program In this section , answer the following questions based on your current facility. F1. How effective do you feel the grievance program has been in resolving incarcerated individuals' complaints? (Check one) D D F2. Very effective Fairly effective D D Seldom effective Not effective Which of the foll owing reflects your opinion about the grievance program? (Check one) D D D It improves staff/incarcerated individual relations It has no effect on staff/incarcerated individual relations It makes staff/incarcerated individual relations worse Check the statement below that most clearly reflects your view of the grievance program. (Check only one) F3. The grievance procedure is: D A good way to settle incarcerated individuals' complaints , since most grievances have merit D A good way to settle incarcerated individuals' complaints , even though most grievances do not have merit D A good way to settle incarcerated individuals' com plaints, regardless of whether they have merit or not D A bad way to settle incarcerated individuals' complaints even though most grievances have merit D A bad way to settle incarcerated individuals' complaints because most grievances do not have merit D A bad way to settle incarcerated individuals' com plaints regardless of whether they have merit or not F4. In your opinion, how do staff members feel about trying to help resolve incarcerated individuals' com plaints? (Check one) D D D D D F5. They are always very willing to listen and try hard to work things out They are fairly willing to listen and try hard to work things out They are seldom willing to listen but do try hard to work things out They are willing to listen , but never try hard to work things out They are never willing to listen and never try hard to work things out In your opinion , do most correctional officers think it's important to investigate incarcerated individuals' complaints? (Check one) D D Yes , very important Yes , somewhat important ■ Correctional Association of New York D D They don't care either way No, not important at all ■ 69 75 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons APPENDIX B | Survey ■ F6. ■ In your opin ion , how do staff members feel about incarcerated individuals writing grievances? (Check one) D D D D D They encourage it They usually think it's all right They usually don't like ii, but accept it They discourage it They don't care one way or the other F7. Do staff carry ou t the decision reached on grievances when the decisions are in the incarcerated individual's favor? FB. In general, do you think the Superintendent handles incarcerated individuals' grievances fairly? D D F9. □ Yes No No In your opin ion, does your Superintendent think it's important to investigate incarcerated ind ividuals' comp laints? D F10. □ Yes □ Yes No In general, do you think grievances are handled fa irly when they are appealed to the Central Office Review Committee? D □ Yes No Part Six: Other Information G1. At which prison are you currently housed? G2. What is your housing un it? D D D D D D D D D General Population - Dormitory General Population - Cell ed Special Housing Unit (SHU) □ Residential Rehab ilitation Un it (RRU) D D Reception Intermediate Care Program (I CP) Trans itional Intermediate Care Program (TRICP) Behavioral Health Unit (BHU ) Protective Cuslody(PC) Adm instrative Segregation Work Release Other If other please specify: G3. How long have you been incarcerated in the prison in which you are currently housed? (Years) G4. What is your gender? D D Male Female D D Non-b inary Transgender D D Prefer not to say Other If other, please specify: ■ Correctional Association of New York ■ 70 76 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Grand Total 1) Program Committee 516 692 641 634 539 470 356 312 4160 2) Incentive Wage Allowance 370 376 330 341 284 197 176 84 2158 3) Correspondence 950 1099 1172 1204 1019 699 488 413 7044 60 70 76 144 167 102 94 70 783 5) Visiting 225 252 275 384 312 241 154 182 2025 6) Guidance Unit/Counseling 994 949 1093 1156 1007 756 604 558 7117 7) Recreation (TV, Yard, Movies, Radio, etc.) 253 311 309 280 280 235 232 203 2103 8) Adult Basic Education 37 46 46 75 48 28 13 16 309 9) GED/College Programs 56 47 59 47 47 40 Program Services 4) Phone Home Program 9) HSE/College Programs 296 18 24 42 10) Language Assistance Program 12 10 6 5 3 4 4 2 46 11) Vocational Programs 56 42 46 61 62 37 27 19 150 130 148 168 197 186 154 127 97 350 3 12 16 7 10 12 8 3 71 12) Work Assignments 13) Hobby Shop/Arts & Crafts Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons 2015 Subtype APPENDIX C | Numbers of grievance per year Correctional Association of New York 2014 Type 77 Subtype 14) Volunteer Services 15) Special Events/Inmate Organizations 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Grand Total 0 3 5 4 0 3 2 0 17 91 118 117 113 120 110 15) Special Events/Organizations 36 52 706 626 596 618 451 206 246 4083 17) Family Reunion Program 163 86 115 106 89 49 23 23 654 18) Media Review 104 98 88 74 77 72 67 45 625 97 115 125 140 113 67 40 22 719 233 239 234 241 236 214 194 154 1745 4984 5419 5547 5809 5217 3941 2849 2509 36275 547 660 652 567 612 557 384 292 4271 6008 6412 6441 6342 5583 4791 3678 3514 42769 136 168 178 122 157 132 94 118 1105 6691 7240 7271 7031 6352 5480 4156 3924 48145 Program Services Total 21) Dental 22) Medical 22.1) HIPAA (Health Information) Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons 634 20) Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment Health Services Total 16 16) Religion 19) General Library Health Services 669 APPENDIX C | Numbers of grievance per year Correctional Association of New York Type 78 Subtype 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Grand Total Facility Operations 23) Housing - Internal Block Affairs 1793 2359 2632 2574 2743 1990 1967 1796 17854 9 10 19 6 17 11 8 5 85 1514 1623 1611 1566 1602 1235 1190 1226 11567 357 621 526 509 408 336 204 234 3195 25.1) Strip Search 16 16 20 20 8 10 16 11 117 25.2) Strip Frisk 12 27 19 18 20 27 27 15 165 25.3) Pat Frisk (Female Inmate) 10 7 3 0 5 1 23.1) Smoke-Free Policy 24) Special Housing Units 25) Search & Seizure/Frisks/Contraband 25.3) Pat Frisk (Female) 0 1 77 98 138 186 172 160 141 129 1101 27) Tier I and II Policy & Procedure 198 237 290 307 299 248 222 206 2007 28) Tier III Policy & Procedure 475 494 533 528 482 455 293 287 3547 29) Inmate Property 872 1055 1008 1127 1096 898 29) Property 30) Package Room 31) Rules & Regulations Facility Operations Total 1 6056 582 627 1209 1377 1656 1827 1902 2121 16167 1597 1677 13774 533 630 631 615 599 467 482 436 4393 7243 8833 9257 9358 9572 7455 6730 6649 65097 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons 26) Keeplock Policy & Procedure 26 APPENDIX C | Numbers of grievance per year Correctional Association of New York Type 79 Subtype Executive Direction 44) Incarcerated Grievance Program 44) Inmate Grievance Program 45) Temporary Release Committee 46) Inter-Facility Transfers 47) Grooming Standards 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Grand Total 347 346 693 559 652 590 560 445 3416 23 25 20 28 20 18 23 13 170 201 166 156 160 134 113 85 80 1095 53 42 26 51 58 32 18 21 30 13 17 30 37 41 53 35 17 5194 5427 5371 4979 4679 3832 2688 2366 34536 49.1) Sexual Abuse 171 174 206 551 49.2) Sexual Harrassment 212 238 312 762 50) Miscellaneous 229 864 863 1022 1356 1320 1098 1141 1248 8912 6991 7119 7288 7217 6806 5938 4727 4609 50695 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons 46 49) Staff Conduct Executive Direction Total 2021 610 48) Incarcerated Liaison Committee 48) Inmate Liaison Committee 2020 APPENDIX C | Numbers of grievance per year Correctional Association of New York Type 80 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Grand Total 40) Law Library 592 668 658 643 694 590 477 359 4681 41) Legal Mail 264 340 395 280 313 284 236 222 2334 42) Inmate Legal Rights 574 689 703 518 456 459 Subtype Counsel 42) Legal Rights 43) Mandatory Court Surcharge 211 502 35 52 43 25 25 13 270 1465 1739 1791 1493 1506 1358 1029 805 11186 76 63 75 67 60 58 32 26 457 33) Personal Property Claims 463 630 611 651 527 350 193 243 3668 34) State Issued Clothing and Hygiene Items 381 503 454 505 517 265 163 184 2972 35) Commissary 371 550 642 571 725 533 350 394 4136 489 836 1325 32) Industry 36) Inmate Accounts 889 1125 1319 1381 1223 687 37) Mess Hall 974 1213 1125 1001 927 777 553 495 7065 93 85 87 107 127 92 41 37 669 527 537 706 677 639 393 247 218 3944 3774 4706 5019 4960 4745 3155 2068 2433 30860 31148 35056 36173 35868 34198 27327 21559 38) Laundry 39) Facility Maintenance Administrative Services Total 6624 20929 242258 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons 42 36) Incarcerated Individual Accounts Grand Total Total 291 35 Counsel Total Administrative Services 3399 APPENDIX C | Numbers of grievance per year Correctional Association of New York 2014 Type 81 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons APPENDIX D | Additional Qualitative Data Additional Qualitative Data1 C7: comment on the selection of the IGRC Fair Count: 29 QUOTES • Good • I think the IGRC selection process is good • It’s done properly Unfair count: 168 QUOTES • They work with the facility • Here in Wende, there is never an election process. The IGRC keeps the same representatives in heavy rotation • Staff involved have been known to manipulate the election process in favor of candidates who appear more agreeable to staff positions and less likely to take positions against staff • Its biased and predetermined • I honestly believe representatives are handpicked here • I’ve worked as a IGRC rep in Elmira and we were manipulated into closing grievances • If we elect IGRC members that will advocate for us, they are usually transferred soon after Sometimes Count: 22 QUOTES • This is my second NYS prison. My first in a maximum-security facility. I have not yet seen an election here. However, in the medium security facility I was in, I found the process to be clear. Miscellaneous Count: 32 QUOTES 1 • They do in his inconvenient • It’s hard to vote when you don’t know the people behind the names (pdf 9, page 18) • Don’t know • How does it work? • No comment • What is the IGRC This data is a categorization of responses to open-ended survey questions by theme. It also includes selected quotes in response to each questions Correctional Association of New York 82 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons APPENDIX D | Additional Qualitative Data • We don’t have choice in Upstate SH • It’s the only way to do it No voting: 33 QUOTES • No voting happens. People are just placed • Wasn’t aware of election process • I have no knowledge • We don’t select our IGRC • I have never received nor seen a sheet on the clipboard to select a member of the IGRC • I don’t know how to comment because I never voted on this issue • There is no IGRC here No Response Count: 204 C8: comment on the adequacy and fairness of the IGRC reps in the grievance program Independent count: 19 QUOTES • Excellent • Excellent job • Touch subject. I feel comfortable w/whom we have in office as of current (present) Lack Independence count: 186 QUOTES • It’s messed up • Bias and Partial • The inmate reps have limited to no power in resolving grievances • Scared – in it for the donuts • I don’t think that the IGRC reps are good • As an IGRC rep for over 8 years, I was not allowed to participate in many investigations Sometimes count: 39 QUOTES • O.K • It depends on what kind of reps have been elected. I have seen guys who are independent and fair without fear or influence from staff. Conversely, I have seen Correctional Association of New York 83 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons APPENDIX D | Additional Qualitative Data guys who show obvious influence of staff and side with the prison often. We have a questionable group of reps in Sing Sing currently in fact • I think they do their best, but might be restricted in the extent of their opinions, bit I cannot affirm this opinion • They don’t process certain grievances • Mainly the Incarcerated Individuals are more fair to our grievances...However, the civilians not so fair • The inmate is okay but few you I have no control nothing gets done • Some inmate reps do not fairly represent prisoners out of fear of retaliation, personal gain, or to gain favoritism Miscellaneous count: 26 QUOTES • They do whatever they want • Encouraged to not pursue or accept defeat • For popular people (pdf 11) • There is no ILC (I assume they mean IGRC) here • Takes far too long here at Sing Sing (90 days) • Think about it • That depends on what facility you’re in • What the IGRC do for people No Knowledge: 8 No response count: 210 C13: Are there ways in which you think that the IGP supervisor could improve their job? Please explain • File received statement, and formally state the issue in writing to the Incarcerated Individuals, instead of refusing to file and adding II to call out. • Face problems with a realistic approach, not appeasing administration • Accept what is right or wrong, not who • I believe meaningful and consistent improvement would occur if the IGP were a non-employee of the prison. As long as the supervisor is a part of prison staff, they ultimately will remain partisan on issues occurring in the orison, especially serious issues (pdf 65). (these was shared by different participants) • Working in the facility, they become too friendly with staff and become corrupted by the corrections officer/staff • By interacting with the general population more, following the grievances directive more accurately. Correctional Association of New York 84 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons APPENDIX D | Additional Qualitative Data • Yes, by not putting people’s grievance in the trash • Communicate more and take our grievances more serious • No one should have this post long term. Supervisors tend to abuse their discretion in favor of the staff and officers • Yes, fire him and find or put someone who will do the job the right way not for the facility enough is enough. Stop the abuse of power • Start by holding their peers accountable for their wrong doings, instead of sweeping it under the rug • By teaching inmates how the program works D3: Can you describe some examples of things you’ve filed a grievance for and what happened when you filed • Refusal to acknowledge/allow religious practices based on PSI listing, even though PSI is used for everything • Americans with Disability Act – grievances were destroyed, cover up of misconduct by IGP supervisor • I am of Asian descent, I’ve never been to prison, and that I was being targeted by C.Os and inmates because I am the only Asian here. • Being sexually harassed and nothing happened. The COs made a joke about the whole situation • I had filed a grievance on not receiving mental health. I gave my letter to another I.I. and the CO took it. The grievance was never filed. I was not called for it. • I filed a grievance which is enclosed about the low pay wage and the facility denied it • Last February, I grieved on inadequate notice/response by the facility to a water contamination issue having arose. The facility admitted that it could have better informed the population, but sidestepped any further action being necessary. The inmate IGP reps all disagreed with the grievance completely, apparently unwilling to oppose the facility in any regards. • Most of my grievances are code 49. Once they get filed, I get retaliated against violently • Eye care at Attica correction facility. Harassment by staff. Potholes at the Clinton correction facility. As well as not receiving commissary • One incident when officers (Female) not allowing I/I’s to take a shower when directive 4009 state I/I’s are entitled to 3 showers a week. After 4 grievances, they finally allow me to get a shower • Yes, my personal property, they never got back to me. Then about COs trying to kill me. They came to my cell and said “do this again and we will kill you” • Medication was not being given to me, even though I had a prescription • How I am being treated where I am currently. I have filed several grievances that never made it to IGRC, as well as mail letters to Albany, they also never made it. I gave up Correctional Association of New York 85 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons APPENDIX D | Additional Qualitative Data • I was framed and assaulted by CO’s • On more than one occasion, my personal property disappeared from the package room. Package room officers abusive, antagonizing and hostile conduct. Not being allowed to participate in any vocational or education programs because I am in PC • Installation of cameras, changing what’s considered “non-food” to increase buy limit • The most recent grievance I’ve filed was for staff stealing and destroying my outgoing legal mail, and for being in SHU for over 20 days in violation of the directive Employee manual. Neither of these grievances have been replied to and when the IGP supervisor made rounds, he said he never received either grievance • Lack of meals/portions in mess hall; Injuries from COs and I/I’s; medical malpractice in dental; Not being called to sick hall after placing multiple slips • Assaulted by officers and the grievance was responded to by the Sgt. Of the incident who indirectly threatened me • I was at the Auburn SHU and our food was being violated. I grieved it and nothing changed. Never even heard back from it • My work assignment and I won but never received back pay • Well in September 16, I went to the SHU and I haven’t ever received my property. I wrote two grievances & I still haven’t been seen to this day, its crazy, no wonder people lose it, you’re messing with people property, I lost my bible, rosary, legal paperwork from my case, my 3 sneakers, boots, all of my clothes, food,, everything, I didn’t even get a I.64 (this number was not clear) • Physical and sexual abuse by officers • My commissary sheet was thrown away by staff • The COs starving me, not giving me rec. 15 days in Marcy Box. And being kicked out • Yes, I am legally blind and hearing impaired and I am being denied the most important thing – Reasonable accommodations due to lies and games ok • A officer search my cell, throw my holy bible on floor. Officers beating up other incarcerated individuals • I wrote a grievance on the H.A.L.T law not being followed here at great meadow pc unit • My food package was deemed contaminated because tomatoes got crushed. I grieved it due to other items was good. I lost and the whole package was kept • Writing for Dr. Appt. Packages sitting for weeks, packages not being delivered before we receive them ( • Regarding no pillow. Took weeks, Noting happened but I did get pillow weeks later. No grievances D5: Issues you want to file a grievance for Treatment of Incarcerated Individuals: 101 QUOTES • Since my classification has dropped to medium – A, I remain incarcerated at a Max-A (Clinton Corr facility) for no reason Correctional Association of New York 86 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons APPENDIX D | Additional Qualitative Data • Rate of pay • I have a sex case, I am treated horribly • I want my back pay from the mess hall • Recently on December 18th 2022, I had my mattress and covers took from me • The COs in Marcy box are corrupt, and do what they want. How I was kicked out my program (pdf 14) • I believe I’m entitled to rec for 1 hour even if I’m programmed because what do I do on my day off (pdf 15, 35) • Officer not opening incarcerated individuals’ cell because they don’t like them officer beating on inmates, officers destroying inmates’ personal property (pdf, 15, 43) • Lack of rehabilitative programs (pdf 19, 3) • Prison stealing fundraiser money we make on commissary items – supposed to be used for cable channels but they don’t (pdf 19, 35) • Well I’ve filed multiple grievances about the R.R.U and how its not ran by the mandates of Halt Act, corr. Law section 137 at all. I’m still waiting. They’re not responding because they’re trying to stop me from getting to the CORC. (pdf 19, 51) • The messhall program that was taken from me for “security reasons” but there isn’t no security risk on my behalf. Just a LT saying so! (pdf 20, 3) • My religious services of NOGE don’t exist here and I was told by staff and CO’s if I file, that I will be harassed and then moved to different cell locations on a wheel punitivity (illegible) (pdf 21, 163) • Lack of movement because we are still not getting afternoon recreation (pdf 21, 243) • Treatment by staff: scared of the backlash if I do (pdf 21, 259) • I was exonerated and my discharge was issued, the grievance supervisor was notified with documents confirming the exoneration, even went as far to confirm it herself, yet ignored and refuse to speak to me (pdf 23, 67) Retaliation count: 12 QUOTES • Fear of retaliation from officers/weapons planted/cube ransacked/harassment (pdf 22, 11) • The CO’s beating people up for filing a grievance in the first place (pdf 22, 19) SHU (Special Housing Unit) count: 4 QUOTES • The portions of food on the trays in SHU and RRU most of us are on loss of commissary and very hungry (pdf 17, 19) • Here at UPSTATE corr. Facility (SHU). There are severe restrictions on our access to the phones. People who complain are retaliated against by staff (pdf 22, 171) • I’m in the SHU and I have till 2029 in SHU. I’m going crazy in here. The officers are not feeding me here in Attica (pdf 22, 291) Correctional Association of New York 87 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons APPENDIX D | Additional Qualitative Data Healthcare count: 25 QUOTES • Medical services. I tell them and complain my stomach hurts and all they said is that I have nothing and to drink water • Medical. Bad ICP Doctor going through a lot of pain (pdf 20, 11) • Prostrate and colon exams. Surgery in my genitals (pdf 21, 139) • It is difficult to file medical grievance when it pertains to HIPPA. I feel I have no way to effectively file a grievance w/o disclosing pvt. Medical information (pdf 21, 283) Mental Health: 2 Facility operation: 10 QUOTES • Allowing both officers and incarcerated individuals smoking indoors • The conditions of this facility. The asbestos issues and the health issues it causes (pdf 24, 75) Legal: 3 Other Incarcerated Individuals: 3 QUOTES • Problematic inmates that are allowed to stay in the same unit causing trouble instead of being moved, and you’re told to go to protective custody (pdf 17, 11) Nutrition: 10 QUOTES • The food that is served, and the nutritional value of the food. There should be a chart posted of each meal’s nutritional value (pdf 22, 139) • The fact that we only got commissary in Attica once a month instead of every 2 weeks but yet there is a limit on all food you can buy (pdf 24, 251) • Religious meals not being honored. IGRC not filing grievance (pdf 26, 315) HALT program: 1 Clothing: 2 QUOTES • I would like to grieve the facility rule of no double layered clothing. We live in W NY and get the coldest winter weather (pdf 20, 35) Access: 8 QUOTES • JPAY’s not allowing incarcerated Individuals to video gram with family and friends Correctional Association of New York 88 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons APPENDIX D | Additional Qualitative Data • How JPAY treats it customers, and removes items purchased without informing I/I, then not wanting to give us our money back (pdf 8, page 3) • JPAY seizing emails and the theft of the paid for stamp currently there is No Electronic communications directive • Here at Attica CF, they only let us go to the commissary once a month or within 3 weeks, when we supposed to go every other week but grievances don’t do nothing... (pdf 18, 19) • The M.A.T program Sexual harassment by officers:1 Staff/Officer misconduct: 19 QUOTES • Abuse by officers then you get set up • Assault by S.E.R.T (pdf 17, 43) • Cell search from officers. Take things and you can’t prove they did after trash cell, allowable items (pdf 21, 115) • When staff lose or throw away your personal property because you cant file grievances on lost or destroyed property (pdf 21, 339) • Four C.Os assaulted me for 5 mins and there was nothing I could do (pdf 22, 307) Package room: 25 QUOTES • Packages a lot of items go missing (pdf 14, 75) • The package room not getting all my stuff that my people or 3rd party vendor has sent (pdf 15, 3) • Officers stealing from incoming packages (pdf 23, 83) Grievance process and personnel: 20 QUOTES • There should be a more organized and responsible way or a person from the outside to be in charge (pdf 11, 75) FOIL requests count: 3 QUOTES • Foil requests take longer than 5 days for receipt (contrary to POL 89) • For example, I had been asking under foil request for my pre-sentence report, but to no avail (pdf 13, 11) Miscellaneous:31 • No response to grievance • KKK COs Correctional Association of New York 89 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons APPENDIX D | Additional Qualitative Data • The fact that these people here are still harassing people about beard permits (facial hair), when we shouldn’t need a permit (pdf 10) • I just so happen to have every complaint I’ve filed here at Eastern. Most of which “clearly show” how prejudicial they are here!!! Would you like my file? (pdf 11, 59) • I’m too afraid to explain (pdf 13, 51) • Can’t think of them at the moment (pdf 15, 19) • Upstate is not following rules • In attached letter (pdf 22, 315) No response: 211 No issues: 2 D16: Alternative methods to submitting grievance reports Give grievance report to another I/I to drop off: 49 Submit to Superintendent / Governor: 3 Give grievance report to officers: 6 Give to grievance clerk: 3 Sent it home for family to file: 9 Send to Albany: 5 Mailbox: 17 QUOTES • The US postal mailbox located inside the block • Write on regular paper through mail (pdf 16, 44) Miscellaneous/Other Methods: 22 QUOTES • You have to go to law library to receive a grievance form • I tried giving it to medical and my (-) officer and was denied (pdf 14, 12) Lawyer/counselor: 2 No response count: 372 Correctional Association of New York 90 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons APPENDIX D | Additional Qualitative Data D18: Reasons for not filing a grievance, despite having reasons to Categorize and Count reasons… .E.g. Fear, time, system unjust, etc. Harassment and Retaliation count: 194 QUOTES • Because the retaliation is not always worth it • Threatened with violence by facility staff if grievance is filed • It’s in my best interest not to. They will beat you (pdf 15, 4) • They will retaliate against me (pdf 15, 36) • I felt it didn’t warrant the retaliation that I’d get (pdf 21, 196) Retaliation from other Incarcerated people: 1 Ineffective system count: 137 QUOTES • I knew nothing would come of it • Because the IGP supervisor cannot be trusted. He is for the staff and security, well the administrations at Eastern and DOCCS, which is totally wrong alright (pdf 14, 28) • The grievance never reaches its destination (pdf 15,44) • They brush our valid issues under the rug. Most of the time, we never hear anything back (pdf 16, 4) • The program does not work (pdf 17, 4) • If it’s a serious grievance like something such as abuse or harassment by a C.O. they just throw the grievance out, then tell the C.O about it then the CO retaliates against you. (pdf 19, 36) • Because its worthless and takes a long time (pdf 21, 172) • Because it is a farce, an attempt to make the system look humane but is corrupt (pdf 21, 324) • Because if you’re not willing to go to court, it would make no sense since most if not all grievances are shot down and it takes years to appeal to Albany (pdf 22, 92) • Lost faith in the process (pdf 23, 20) Has access to supervisors: 6 Fear count: 10 QUOTES • I was in honor block and feared I would lose my housing (pdf 9, page 20) Pending Criminal Appeals: 1 Correctional Association of New York 91 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons APPENDIX D | Additional Qualitative Data Miscellaneous/Other: 15 QUOTES • I’m not too sure why honestly • What the point • Because rules oppose my past troubles (pdf 13, 28) • Cause the police keeps playing with food (pdf 16, 44) • Mistake is terrible (pdf 19, 60) No Knowledge how: 5 QUOTES • Because I don’t understand program (pdf 22, 308) • Because I can’t write and understand English (pdf 25, 284) No response count: 121 D20: Do you think incarcerated individuals are afraid of filing grievances, if yes, why? Retaliation count: 360 QUOTES • Cos once you do, they fuck with you shit, mail, commissary, pks, etc. And sometimes beat you up (pdf 9, page 4) • The CO’s will kick your ass and set you up not to go home like they did me (pdf 14, 12) Violence/Threat of violence: 12 QUOTES • It puts a target on your back some COs are worse than inmates (pdf 14, 76) (x2) • Because they will get beat up (pdf 15, 12) • Cos of beat up squad (pdf 16, 44) Ineffective system: 25 QUOTES • Because nothing happens over it • Not afraid, just find the process not helpful and a waste of time (pdf 22, 220) Lack of education: 5 QUOTES • Some I/I’s cannot read or write a grievance (pdf 8, page 68) Correctional Association of New York 92 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons APPENDIX D | Additional Qualitative Data Miscellaneous/Other: 7 QUOTES • Well be went filing a grievance like anything in prison. Everyone knows about it (pdf 13, 20) Fear: 2 No response: 81 D22: Retaliation from filing a grievance? If yes, from whom? And what kind of retaliation? Violence count: 46 QUOTES • CO’s beat me up, took me off the cams, lie and said, “we need to talk about your grievance” (pdf 9, page 4) • I grieved a CO in Gowanda in XXXX. The sgt has me brought to his office and made the officers beat me until I signed off on the grievance. Then they out me in the box for fake charges on Christmas eve (pdf 11, pg 12) • The officers beat me many times and destroyed all my property (pdf 12, pg 4) • I grieved a man for not letting me outside at loss of rec time he told me he was going to break my jaw and repeatedly kicked me out of the yard (pdf 15,36) • Officers in Gowanda C.F beat me up while cuffed in a elevator (pdf 17, 68) • I was assaulted by Gouverneur CF on XX/XX/XXXX in draft room by 3 officers. I grieved the issue then all of my food in property became missing (pdf 19, 76) • The COs fucked up someone who filed a grievance (pdf 21, 4) • From C.Os and their supervisors. I’ve been shown knives legit knives that I was threatened if I didn’t sign off it would be said the (illegible) was in my cell (pdf 21, 44). • Many times, I have been beat up, targeted, property thrown away, the staff have conspired to get gang members to stab me. Threats (pdf 21, 252) • A SGT in Sing Sing, SGT Alvarato, beat my ass badly and planted weapon in my cell on XX/XX/XXXX (pdf 25, 84) • But something similar – I contact PLS for some assistant and am facing retaliation. I urgently need someone to talk to (pdf 25, 180) • I have been assaulted by officers, illegally confined in my cell, sent to SHU on trumped up charges (pdf 26, 108) Transfer count: 26 QUOTES • I was threatened and harassed until I accepted a transfer (pdf 17, 4) • I was removed to another facility before they can even call me down for the Correctional Association of New York 93 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons APPENDIX D | Additional Qualitative Data grievance (pdf 21, 100) • And I was told by one if I do not remove my grievance, they will keep me in I.C.P • More SHU time (pdf 22, 156) Denied Basic amenities (Food, phone, shower, phone, tablet, etc): 46 QUOTES • I was denied chow, recreation, kiosk, written false behavior reports, been threatened to sign off on the grievance (pdf 12, 44) • Staff – they would cut my power off and set up fights between inmates (pdf 12, 68) • Commissary sheet not given (pdf 14, 42) • Denied notary, law library services, recreation for 352 days. Personal information disclosed to the general population. Denied opportunity to run for IGRC rep, transfer from facility, threatened. (pdf 15, 76) • Officers not letting me out for chow because I filled a grievance and mentioned their names (pdf 17, 29) • I was not fed in SHU for days at a time (pdf 21, 68) • C.O’s spit inside food...(pdf 21, 124) • Gallery officer in regard to shower consideration. Afterward, the same officer continued to not follow procedure when it was my time for showers (pdf 21, 268) • When I filed a grievance about being assaulted by CO’s they started putting chemicals in my food, I know this because I’ve ate my food plenty of times and I throw up blood and urinated blood from this and I have complaints on this (pdf 21, 340) • I was stored in my cell for 3 days. My water was turned off (pdf 22, 108) • C.Os assault. No food trays for 9 days (pdf 22, 132) • I was denied food and held in the SHU for longer than my release date and day (pdf 23, 116) • On numerous occasions, I was not able to go to callouts or meals. Because of my grievance in the past, some staff take it personal and not let people out of cells (pdf 23, 268) • Was taken off special diet for complaining about two bread (pdf 25, 4) Denied access to programs/work assignments: 17 QUOTES • Got me fired from mess hall when I won my ticket (pdf 11, pg 28) • Removed from job post (pdf 19, 21) • Removed from honor dorm. Filed grievance on officer using the N word (pdf 21, 276) • The IGP Sgt. blocked me from certain programs (pdf 23, 20) • CO Kelly. I was removed from school for a semester (pdf 24, 140) Correctional Association of New York 94 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons APPENDIX D | Additional Qualitative Data Confiscated items /cell search count: 51 QUOTES • From Correction Officers who were constantly searching my cell for no legal reason (pdf 14, 68) • Attica – cell searches, harassment, property discarded, etc (pdf 22, 340) Threats/Intimidation: 31 QUOTES • Even if you win the grievance, they do whatever they can to ensure you’re miserable following (pdf 20, 12) • Officer Lamika, he pat frisked me everyday while taunting me about the grievance I wrote (pdf 23, 52) Package room count: 21 Verbal Abuse: 10 QUOTES • Verbal threats by C.O, example GH-XXXXX-XX, C.O Lazerson – stated I would die in prison if I filed grievance (pdf 21, 316) • Verbal abuse from officers saying stop writing grievance it wont help you. No one will (pdf 23, 92) Sexual Assault: 3 QUOTES • The CO’s have tried to rape me when I had my radio/hotpot taken out of my cell when I went to the SHU (pdf 27, 108) Medical access count: 5 Falsified misbehavior reports: 24 QUOTES • I received a tier 3 misbehavior report (pdf 17, 44) • I was sexually assaulted by C.O Connie Rigoli. I notify O.S.I. whom informed Rigoli. I was falsely writing misbehavior report ranging from lewd conduct, threat, direct order (pdf 21, 348) Weapons/Evidence planted on I/I by CO: 14 QUOTES • From officers who see it as snitching on them. I was set up with a weapon I never owned (pdf 15, 60) • From State officials, they planted a weapon on me just like I reported that would happen...(pdf 22, 212) Correctional Association of New York 95 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons APPENDIX D | Additional Qualitative Data Miscellaneous/Other: 32 QUOTES • From the staff, made me on pressure • COs with name tag hidden • Officers • COs (pdf 14) • No, but I’ve witnessed it (pdf 14,52) • Not getting the partial (pdf 18, 28) Refused to answer: 4 QUOTES • That’s a long story • Now you’re asking me to put myself at risk, but for what (pdf 22, 148) No response: 200 D24: Withdrawn a grievance before a hearing? If yes, why? Resolved count: 71 QUOTES • I grieved a missing property bag here at Upstate CF and then a week later it showed up with all its belongings inside (pdf 19, 77) Fear: 5 QUOTES • Did not want to go to the SHU • Fear for my life (pdf 26, 165) Intimidation/retaliation: 63 QUOTES • The way they come at you as it is a threat or else then the way your spoken to by security staff is another story like your damned from the start period (pdf 14, 29) • Fear of retaliation. I just did so this very day for this exact reason – XX/XX/XXXX (pdf 19, 20) • IGRC inmate workers persuade you to because police pressure them to (pdf 19, 37) • I was threatened by C.O’s (pdf 21, 60) • Pressure by correctional officers and Sergeant and staff (pdf 21) • Fear of retaliation or issue was resolved (pdf 21, 148) • Because they told me if I keep going with it, I will have a lot of problem. Th CO’s use inmate to beat on others if we keep up with the procedure (pdf 21, 301) • Other C.Os come in their colleagues’ places and try getting you to sign off (pdf 21, 373) • Because they told me they were going to kill me (pdf 22, 293) Correctional Association of New York 96 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons APPENDIX D | Additional Qualitative Data Ineffective system: 24 QUOTES • They are not going to help (pdf 23, 29) Personal reason: 4 QUOTES • Just because I changed my mind • felt it was in my best interest (pdf 16, 21) No response: 321 E4: what are your thoughts on the informal resolution of grievances? Is it an effective process? WHY, OR WHY NOT? • Yes, when the facility adheres to the resolution. This allows the facility to ‘correct’ problems without admitting fault • Grievance don’t work most of the time • Not fair to prisoner. Always geared toward saving the career of a staff member • I never heard back for it to be effective • It can be but it is not. The inside look out for each other • Nothing is ever resolved unless you challenge DOCCS in outside court by civil suit or Article 78 • Depends on the matter. Medical, police brutality, systemic denial of prison services are very hard to resolve informally. Simpler matters such as getting a common supply item, or a broken phone fixed appear to be the only matters effectively addressed. (Pdf 7, page 65). • It can be but it is not. IGP supervisors are more biased against the I/I population (pdf 8, page 23) • No, this shit is bullshit. These KKK CO’s gotta go I’m not playing. These CO’s hate Black people or City People (pdf 9, page 5) • Really depends on the issue. For minor problems, yes, it is effective (pdf 9, page 21) • He basically told me that I could not win, that I might as well drop the issue (pdf 9, page 45) • No, it is not effective because most grievance against employees of the state don’t get processed (pdf 9, page 61) • I’m not even sure what an informal resolution consists of (pdf 10, page 53) • Yes, I feel that if it can be solved at the lowest level possible, then that’s what’s best. We are all humans, and all make mistakes • It’s not an effective process because no resolution was ever met or agreed upon to begin with (pdf 11) Correctional Association of New York 97 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons APPENDIX D | Additional Qualitative Data • No its not an effective process. Cos you can win and nothing happens, nothing changes. Its like you never put it in in the first place (pdf 11, 29) • No...you barely get results (pdf 11, 45) • No they side with the system regardless to them a criminal is a criminal (pdf 14) • I have not experienced any efforts of informal resolution. The process has always been file, receive grievance number, an official investigates the complaint, and then hearing is held (pdf 15, 29) • The top supervisor never fully advice you of your options (pdf 15,45) • Its bot effective, due to no help from the helper (pdf 20, 5) • No because nothing is done besides on there time. Research is done, just we will get back to you and never do (pdf 21, 141) • The IGP supervisor is one sided and does everything possible to encourage you to sign off on complaints (pdf 24, 77) E28: Can you describe how the grievance program impacted your litigation, if at all? • Grievance program never helped me at all. • I was fairly helped • Prolonged it • Its (grievance program) basically just a formality and something prisoners must do in order to go to court but doesn’t help that they don’t properly investigate grievances and lie about them. • All I showed was I used the whole process before I sued. • It did not impact my litigation (pdf 8, page 23) • It impacted how correction officers treat me (pdf 10, page 7) • They don’t want to investigate code 49 grievances and 100% of the time agree with officers • I let it go instead of following through. I would’ve won in court • Officers threaten to send me to SHU • It was ineffective. But the CO never submitted the grievance or appeals. The officer throw them away in the trash. (pdf 16, 31) • It takes years for IGRC/CORC to send final report/ruling (pdf 18, 39) • The IGP allowed me to prove there was knowledge of faulty recreation equipment (pdf 21, 271). • They beat me up badly (pdf 21, 295). • It compelled me to learn about and how to submit an ARTICLE 78 (pdf 24, 63) • The grievance program is being used to deny inmates the opportunity to pursue further litigation (pdf 24, 183) Correctional Association of New York 98 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons APPENDIX E | Note On Margin Of Error And Responsiveness For survey questions that applied to all respondents who had filed at least one grievance, the margin of error at the 95 percent confidence level ranged from 3 to 6 percent, which is well within accepted standards for surveying populations. For survey questions that applied only to a given subset of the surveyed population (e.g. those who have filed a Code 49 or those who have had a grievance dismissed or denied), the margin of error was at times slightly higher due to the smaller number of respondents. The margin of error for these questions fell between 3 and 14 percent, and only five questions (E9, E10, E11, E12, E25) had a margin of error above 8 percent. Representativeness is crucial in a survey with random sampling because it ensures that the sample accurately reflects the diversity of the overall population, allowing for valid and generalizable conclusions to be drawn from the data. The respondents in our sample closely mirrored the demographic characteristics of the broader population, differing only in median age, which was 30-39 for the broader population and 40-49 in the sample respondents. There are slight variations by race, but the differences are generally smaller than our margin of error, which suggests that the observed variations are likely due to random sampling variation rather than true disparities in the population. Correctional Association of New York 99 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons I QAI\I\' APPENDIX F | DOCCS Response This responds to the Correctional Association of New York’s (CANY) report on the findings from a systemwide survey of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision population regarding the Incarcerated Grievance Program (IGP). While this is a systemwide survey, it is important to note that each of the determinations found in the CANY report are based on survey responses of approximately 1.7% (540 ÷ 30,968) of the entire population under custody in correctional facilities in September 2022. This is a very minute sample, and the findings appear to be mostly based on incarcerated individuals’ beliefs and perceptions of what they think is happening. Unfortunately, if an incarcerated individual chooses not to utilize the IGP for its intended purpose (i.e., complaint resolution) and is only utilizing it to exhaust administrative remedies under Prison Litigation Reform Act, as CANY indicates that 47.3% are solely utilizing the IGP for exhaustion, it would appear that no matter the outcome or findings found through the grievance mechanism, the individuals utilizing the program for this sole purpose would find the results to be immaterial or unacceptable to the grievant. The remainder of our responses, for the purpose of this preliminary report, will focus on the conclusions portion of the report rather than the body of the report, as follows: • “There are misunderstandings about which issues are viable, leading to dismissals at the first stage.” The IGP Supervisors are made aware of the appropriate reasons that the IGRC can vote by majority to dismiss and close a grievance. These reasons are outlined in Directive #4040, § 701.5, (b), (4), (i), which the IGP Supervisors and IGRC representatives have access to, and all incarcerated individuals can review through the Law Library. If an incarcerated individual feels that their grievance was improperly dismissed and closed by the IGRC, they may apply to the IGP Supervisor for review within seven (7) calendar days following receipt of the IGRC’s response. If the grievance is found to have been improperly dismissed, the grievance will be returned to the IGRC for a new hearing and recommendation. If the IGP Supervisor finds that it was properly dismissed, the incarcerated individual retains their right to file a separate grievance that the IGP Supervisor failed to reinstate an improperly dismissed grievance in accordance with Directive #4040, § 701.5, (b), (4), (iii). • “Most people did not vote for the IGRC reps and don’t trust them to represent their issues.” Many facilities follow a very similar format when it comes to the election process, with minor modifications based on local facility operations. The IGP Supervisors conspicuously posts the nomination and election procedures in multiple areas of the facility (ex. housing units, mess hall, libraries, programs areas, etc.) at least five (5) days prior to nominations Correctional Association of New York 100 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons I QAI\I\' APPENDIX F | DOCCS Response being accepted and elections being held. Participation is voluntary and elections are held at a minimum of every six (6) months and all incarcerated individuals who meet the minimum qualifications outlined in Directive #4040, § 701.4, (b), (1), are provided the opportunity to express their interest in running. The completed ballots are routinely counted by ILC incarcerated individuals under the supervision of the IGP Supervisor to ensure a fair election. If there are only two interested candidates who qualify for the position, then those two are automatically appointed as the IGRC representatives by default and no election is held because they would be the only two candidates on the ballot (write-ins are not allowed). Similar to society, the decision to vote in any election is that of the populous. • “The IGP supervisor’s role is unclear to most incarcerated people.” The IGP Supervisor supervises and coordinates the activities of the facility IGRC, and ensures that every incarcerated individual has full, appropriate access and use of the IGP. In addition, they are responsible for: ensuring the facility IGP is operating in accordance with all applicable Departmental Directives and regulations; reviewing complaints received in the IGRC office to determine if they are timely; designating the grievance codes and titles; determining whether a complaint should be directly forwarded to the Superintendent for review for processing under the expedited procedures outlined in Directive #4040, §§ 701.8 – 701.10; reviewing IGRC dismissals for appropriateness when an incarcerated individual applies for such; granting timeframe extensions for filing grievances and/or appeals when mitigating circumstances exist; preparing and forwarding appeals to CORC; and conducting weekly IGP rounds in areas of the facility where incarcerated individuals are unable to obtain physical access to the IGRC office. • “Medical grievances are routinely dismissed at facility level because the IGRC lacks expertise.” There are very few circumstances where it would be appropriate to dismiss a medical grievance and facility IGP Supervisors and IGRC members are aware of this. “Dismissals” of medical grievances are very rare, not routine. DOCCS believes CANY is confusing a “dismissal” with a “denial”. Any “denials” can be appealed by the grievant to the facility Superintendent in accordance with the established procedures for any other complaint types. It is important to note that IGRC responses are written in the form of a recommendation, regardless of the grievance code/subject matter, and the IGRC has the ability to pass any grievance, including medical grievances, through to the Superintendent in order for the grievant Correctional Association of New York 101 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons I QAI\I\' APPENDIX F | DOCCS Response to receive an expeditious and appropriate response if they feel it is warranted. • “Explanations for denial or dismissal rarely address points raised in grievances.” While there is no requirement to address the points raised in a grievance that have been appropriately dismissed and closed by the IGRC, the IGRC response must include the appropriate reason for the dismissal in accordance with Directive #4040. Facility IGRC’s also try to advise the incarcerated individual of the appropriate avenue to address their particular concerns so that they can attempt to resolve these and similar issues in the future. Denials routinely address the issues at hand in order to explain the reasoning behind the action requested being denied. It should be noted that if an incarcerated individual does not feel that a facility response adequately addresses the issues in their grievance, they have the right to appeal that grievance to the next level of review. • “It is unclear when the grievance process is exhausted when time limits are not met.” DOCCS’ position has always been that the IGP process is considered exhausted once the matter has been heard and decided by CORC and a formal CORC disposition has been rendered. This assertion has been included several times in affidavits, declarations, and court hearing testimony. • “Decisions in favor of incarcerated people are not always implemented.” If a facility decision is not implemented or subsequently adhered to within 45 days, the incarcerated individual can appeal to CORC citing lack of implementation as a mitigating circumstance as outlined in Directive #4040, §701.5, (c), (4). In addition, for CORC decisions, verification of compliance regarding any action required by the facility is obtained prior to CORC issuing a disposition. If such verification cannot be obtained prior to a CORC disposition being issued because the action is ongoing, the facility is notified by the IGP Director that the appropriate action must be completed, and verification of such action provided to CORC. This is accomplished via an action letter, which is routinely monitored by Central Office until verification is obtained from the facility. Correctional Association of New York 102 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons I QAI\I\' APPENDIX F | DOCCS Response • “Staff harassment grievances (Code 49) are often misfiled as something else.” In accordance with Directive #4040, “Incarcerated Grievance Program,” facility Superintendents determine if a grievance complaint rises to the level of needing to be designated and investigated as a Code 49 – Staff Conduct complaint based on if the allegations, if true, would represent a bona fide case of harassment or unlawful discrimination. Nonetheless, regardless of the code or title of a grievance, all of the allegations contained therein are investigated and addressed. The mere inclusion of the word “harassment” or “discrimination” in a grievance complaint does not solely necessitate it being filed as a Code 49. • “The IGP does not apply to all aspects of incarceration.” Correct, and it should not apply to all aspects of incarceration as there are many areas which have their own established, written appeal mechanisms to address incarcerated individual concerns and allow for a proper investigation to be conducted and the issue to be addressed. This allows DOCCS to utilize its staff and resources more efficiently and effectively. In addition, grievances concerning the actions or policies of outside agencies or service providers is considered non-grievable as DOCCS does not have the authority to investigate such entities or require them to take a specific action. As such, the IGP has no jurisdiction as outlined in Directive #4040, § 701.3, (f). • “Many incarcerated people cite inaccessibility of the drop box or cannot access forms.” Grievances are not required to be submitted on a Grievance Complaint Form. Grievances can be written on a plain piece of paper, placed in a sealed envelope, and submitted to the IGRC office through regular correspondence. This is applicable to every incarcerated individual regardless of which area in the facility they are housed (i.e., SHU, RRU, GP, Infirmary, etc.). • “There is uncertainty over whether grievances arrive at the IGRC after being filed.” Effective January 2, 2023, a new statewide procedure was implemented which requires for a written notification of receipt to be provided to an incarcerated individual when their grievance complaint is filed. An announcement of this new procedure, see attached, was distributed to facility Superintendents on December 20, 2022, to be posted conspicuously on all housing units, and in the General and Law Libraries. The procedure directed incarcerated individuals to contact the IGP Supervisor if they did not receive written notification of receipt within seven (7) calendar days of a Correctional Association of New York 103 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons I QAI\I\' APPENDIX F | DOCCS Response grievance being submitted to verify that it was received and/or to allow sufficient time for the incarcerated individual to resubmit it in the event it was not received. This should alleviate any concerns over whether a grievance has been received and filed or not. • “Only a small minority of grievances were resolved within time limits specified by the department.” Every effort is made to address and/or resolve grievances within the specified timeframes at each level of the grievance process, however, multiple factors, including, but not limited to the complexity of the issues raised; length of the grievance; number of issues raised in the grievance; availability of staff necessary to respond to the allegations; and coordination with other facilities and/or Central Office to conduct investigations and reviews, may affect the amount of time necessary to ensure all issues are completely and accurately addressed. If a grievance is not answered within the specified timeframes at the facility level, the incarcerated individual has the right to appeal to the next level of review, in accordance with Directive #4040, § 701.6, (g), (2). • “There is widespread retaliation and corresponding fear from filing grievances.” The IGP is non-adversarial, and reprisals are prohibited. An incarcerated individual may pursue a complaint that retaliation has occurred through the grievance process, as outlined in Directive #4040, § 701.6, (b). The incarcerated individual is also encouraged to bring retaliation claims to the attention of supervisory staff at the facility, at the time of incident, for any remedial action warranted. If they feel uncomfortable reporting to facility supervisory staff, an incarcerated individual may also address their concerns to the Office of Special Investigations (OSI). • “Most people do not perceive the IGRC, IGP, Superintendent, or CORC as fair.” The purpose of the grievance program is to promote mediation and conflict resolution, and to clarify local and Departmental policy and procedure. The IGP makes every effort at all levels of the grievance process to fulfill its intent and to provide incarcerated individuals with everything to which they are entitled to by law and/or in accordance with Departmental policy. • “There are very low rates of grievances being found in incarcerated peoples’ favor.” The ultimate outcome determination of a grievance is based upon the action requested by the incarcerated individual. If the incarcerated individual requests a service or item to which they are entitled, the grievance will be Correctional Association of New York 104 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons I QAI\I\' APPENDIX F | DOCCS Response found favorable in relation to the action requested. Conversely, if an incarcerated individual solely requests adversarial actions to be taken or requests a service or item they are not entitled, the grievance may be found unfavorable in relation to the action requested irrespective of the allegations raised in the instant complaint. Currently, the facility IGRC and Superintendent do not have the ability to “Accept In Part”, this option is only available at the CORC level. Grievances at the facility level can only be found favorable or unfavorable. The Department remains committed to ensuring that incarcerated individuals are provided with an orderly, fair, simple, expeditious, and non-adversarial mechanism to resolving grievances and allegations of discriminatory treatment. The program is intended to supplement, not replace, existing formal or informal channels of problem resolution. To that end, we are continually reviewing our policies and procedures to ensure they are administered based on the intent of the policy and undergo a continuous process improvement. Correctional Association of New York 105 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons I QAI\I\' APPENDIX F | DOCCS Response 4 w RK ATE Corrections and Community Supervision KA THY HOCHUL Governor ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI Acting Commissioner MEMORANDUM TO: All Superintendents Facility IGP Supervisors FROM: Anne Marie McGrath, Deputy Commissioner Ci\·~-~('~ SUBJECT: Notification of Receipt of Grievances December 20, 2022 In response to litigation matters and to ensure consistency statewide, effective Monday, January 2, 2023, each facility Incarcerated Grievance Program (IGP) office will be required to issue a written notification of receipt when a grievance complaint is filed and assigned a formal grievance number. Notification shall be provided in the following manner and must be sent to the incarcerated individual within one (1) working day of the grievance filing date: 1.) Make a copy of the 1st page only of the grievance complaint. 2.) In the top right corner of the copy, write the grievance#, title, code, and date filed. *Please note that the above notification procedure does not apply to grievances designated a Code 49.1 - Sexual Abuse or 49.2 - Sexual Harassment. There is already an established statewide notification process in place for these types of grievances, which should continue to be followed . Thank you for your continued cooperation and efforts as we strive to improve and standardize the IGP process. Please refer any questions or concerns regarding this matter to your facility's assigned IGP Regional Coordinator. Cc: Daniel F. Martuscello Ill, Acting Executive Deputy Commissioner Cathy Y. Sheehan, Deputy Commissioner and Counsel Rachael Seguin, Director, IGP Chris VanBergen , Assistant Director, IGP Central Office IGP Coordinators and Supervisors The Harriman State Campus, 1220 Washington Avenue. Alban y. NY 12226-2050 Correctional Association of New York I (518) 457-81 26 I www.doccs.ny.gov 106 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons I QAI\I\' APPENDIX F | DOCCS Response 4 w RK ATE Corrections and Community Supervision ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI Acting Commissioner KATHY HOCHUL Governor AVISO A LA POBLACION ENCARCELADA Notificación de Recibo de Querellas A partir del lunes, 2 de enero de 2023, cada oficina institucional del Programa de Querellas del Encarcelado (IGP) empezará a entregar notificación escrita de recibo cuando se someta una querella y se le asigna un número formal de querellas. Si usted no recibe notificación escrita dentro de siete (7) días calendario de someter una querella a la oficina institucional IGP y no ha firmado la querella, favor de escribirle directamente al Supervisor IGP en la institución donde se sometió la querella para averiguar acerca de su estado. Como recordatorio, de acuerdo con la Directiva 4040, § 701.5 (a) (1), una querella tiene que someterse dentro de veintiún (21) días calendario de un suceso alegado. La querella sólo puede someterse en la institución donde está alojado, aunque tenga que ver con otra institución. FIJE EN TODAS LAS UNIDADES DE VIVIENDA, BIBLIOTECA GENERAL Y LA BIBLIOTECA LEGAL HASTA EL 10/02/2023 The Harriman State Campus, 1220 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12226-2050 │ (518) 457-8126 │ www.doccs.ny.gov Correctional Association of New York 107 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons I QAI\I\' APPENDIX F | DOCCS Response 4 w RK ATE Corrections and Community Supervision ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI Acting Commissioner KATHY HOCHUL Governor NOTICE TO INCARCERATED POPULATION Notification of Receipt of Grievances Effective, Monday, January 2, 2023, each facility Incarcerated Grievance Program (IGP) office will begin issuing a written notification of receipt when a grievance complaint is filed and assigned a formal grievance number. If you do not receive written notification within seven (7) calendar days of submitting a grievance complaint to the facility IGP office and you have not signed-off on the complaint, please write directly to the IGP Supervisor at the facility where the grievance was submitted to inquire about its status. As a reminder, in accordance with Directive #4040, § 701.5 (a) (1), a grievance complaint must be filed within twenty-one (21) calendar days of an alleged occurrence. The complaint may only be filed at the facility where you are housed even if it pertains to another facility. POST ON ALL HOUSING UNITS, GENERAL LIBRARY, AND LAW LIBRARY UNTIL 02/10/2023 The Harriman State Campus, 1220 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12226-2050 │ (518) 457-8126 │ www.doccs.ny.gov Correctional Association of New York 108 Smoke Screen: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons “Smoke Screen”: Experiences with the Incarcerated Grievance Program in New York State Prisons Correctional Association of New York Post Office Box 793 Brooklyn, NY 11207 212-254-5700 (We accept collect calls) info@correctionalassociation.org www.correctionalassociation.org Correctional Association of New York 109