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