State of New York
Offices of the Inspector General

Racial Disparities in the Administration of
Discipline in New York State Prisons

November 2022

Lucy Lang
Inspector General

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The myriad manifestations of systemic racism in the complex web of social systems
throughout New York State and America writ large are well-documented. Criminal justice
systems in particular are rife with racial inequities at every stage, from initial contact to arrest,
trial, and sentence, and through re-entry and beyond, which are themselves inextricably
connected to devastating racial disparities in inter-related and surrounding systems including, for
example, education, housing, and public health.
In December 2016, The New York Times1 reported on a specific alarming instance of such
disparities—those in the allocation of behavioral infraction tickets2 and the attendant punishment
by the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) to
incarcerated individuals in the year 2015.3
Following publication of the New York Times findings, the then governor directed that the
New York State Inspector General “investigate the allegations of racial disparities in discipline
in State prisons” and recommend solutions.4 After an initial review, the Inspector General
recommended that DOCCS engage the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) 5, a federal agency
that is part of the U.S. Department of Justice, to complete a comprehensive assessment based on
their extensive national expertise. The Inspector General oversaw that process and the
implementation of the accepted recommendations.
Over the following half-dozen years, with the cooperation of DOCCS, the Inspector
General continued to monitor these trends to determine whether the NIC recommendations had
the desired impact, to observe the impact of additional measures implemented by DOCCS to
identify and address possible racial bias in its facilities, programs, and disciplinary actions, and

1

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/nyregion/new-york-state-prisons-inmates-racial-bias.html.
DOCCS also refers to Misbehavior Reports as “tickets.”
3
In August 2021, then Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law a bill requiring people serving time in prison in
New York State to be referred to as “incarcerated individuals” rather than “inmates.” Although DOCCS has not
updated all directives to reflect this mandate, this report will substitute “incarcerated individuals” for the term
“inmate.”
4
The then governor, some media coverage, and the subsequent report by the National Institute for Corrections all at
times use the terms “bias” and “disparity” interchangeably. “Bias” is defined in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as
“an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment: prejudice.”
“Disparity,” on the other hand, is defined as “a noticeable and usually significant difference or dissimilarity.” This
report focuses on measurable disparities in behaviors and outcomes, as compared to the subjective temperament that
may motivate such behaviors, and thus will consistently use the term “disparity,” except where directly quoting
another source.
5
The NIC was created in 1974 by the United States Congress in the aftermath of the Attica Uprising.
2

1

to gather more comprehensive data in hopes of conclusively identifying the root causes of the
observed disparities.
As part of that effort, the Inspector General conducted its own comprehensive analysis of
data maintained by DOCCS on the discipline of incarcerated individuals. This analysis
expanded upon the methodology used by the Times6 by covering a broader period (2015-2020),
using an alternate method of tallying of incarcerated populations7, and including reports of rule
violations, which are known as Misbehavior Reports, that were ultimately dismissed.8 In
addition, the Inspector General retained a professor who is an expert in statistics to review and
comment on its analysis.
Regrettably, although this longitudinal analysis was able to eliminate some factors that
might have contributed to said disparities, assigning the overall or specific cause of the
disparities to explicit and implicit racial bias cannot be supported by data alone. Instead, this
report articulates the breadth and depth of the Inspector General’s analysis since the initial
reporting, identifies the existence of continuing concerning trends, including an increase in racial
disparities by some measures, and offers additional recommendations intended to evaluate the
persistent disparities. Notably, one such recommendation calls for increased transparency of
DOCCS infraction data to facilitate future expert analysis and additional remedial interventions
to continue to address racial disparities in the issuance of infraction reports across DOCCS and
eliminate some of the potential variables present for each of the 385,057 reports issued in the sixyear period reviewed that make rendering a more conclusive verdict as to the causes impossible.
The Inspector General also reviewed many factors that may influence or contribute to
such racial disparity within the New York State correctional system. These include the severity
of and type of crimes for which people were incarcerated, time incarcerated, age of the

6
The New York Times’ review of data was limited to substantiated Misbehavior Reports for 2015. These included
both Tier II (moderate) and Tier III (severe) infractions in which an incarcerated individual was subsequently found
to be guilty. The data reviewed by the Inspector General included all Tier II and III Misbehavior Reports for 2015
through 2020, regardless of the ultimate disposition of the infraction. As the Inspector General’s review included
charges that were ultimately dismissed, it provides a more comprehensive view of disparities. DOCCS does not
maintain reviewable data on Tier 1 (minor) infractions.
7
As detailed further in Appendix 2, item 4, the Inspector General identified the actual minimum number of
individuals incarcerated each year based on their unique DOCCS-assigned identification numbers. The Times
averaged two different “snapshots” of the incarcerated population taken in the middle and end of 2015 to estimate
the incarcerated population.
8
See Appendix 22 for DOCCS Misbehavior Report. Note, Misbehavior Reports, which are written by DOCCS staff
for alleged rule violations, are adjudicated in hearings, the findings from which may be appealed.

2

incarcerated population, facility of misbehavior, and corrections workforce demographics. The
Inspector General further analyzed the disparity in rule violations issued by facility and issuing
employee, and the disparity in the dismissal of rule violations by hearing officer, hearing facility,
facility security level, and reporting employee. Grievances filed by incarcerated individuals
alleging racial discrimination were also reviewed by the Inspector General.
The Inspector General’s analysis confirmed that a significant disparity exists in the
issuance of Misbehavior Reports to White, Black, Hispanic, and Other9 incarcerated individuals.
In fact, the review found that during the six-year period examined:
•

A Black incarcerated individual was nearly 22 percent more likely to be issued
a Misbehavior Report than a White incarcerated individual; and

•

A Hispanic incarcerated individual was 12 percent more likely to be issued a
Misbehavior Report than a White incarcerated individual; and

•

An incarcerated individual categorized as Other was nine percent more likely
to be issued a Misbehavior Report than a White incarcerated individual; and

•

Of DOCCS employees who issued 50 or more Misbehavior Reports during
the period reviewed, 226 employees issued them to only non-White
incarcerated individuals, including 114 employees who issued them to only
Black or Hispanic incarcerated individuals.

The disparities increased slightly between 2017 and 2019, before increasing significantly
in 2020, when Black and Hispanic incarcerated individuals were nearly 38 percent and 29
percent more likely than White incarcerated individuals to have been issued a Misbehavior
Report, respectively. Non-White incarcerated individuals also were issued more Misbehavior
Reports, per person, than White incarcerated individuals. In addition, racial/ethnic disparities
against non-White incarcerated populations were often more significant for Misbehavior Reports
requiring less physical evidence, allowing for more discretion and possible bias by the reporting
DOCCS employee.

9

The racial categories referenced in this report are consistent with the categories referenced by DOCCS and the
Times. The Inspector General obtained data from DOCCS that included the following racial/ethnic categories:
White, African American, Hispanic, Native American, Asian, Other, and Unknown. Like the Times, the Inspector
categorized incarcerated individuals based on their race and ethnicity as either non-Hispanic White (White), nonHispanic Black (Black), Hispanic, or Other. The “Other” category includes incarcerated individuals that are Asian
or Native American, those with no reported race or ethnicity, and other miscellaneous races and ethnicities.
According to DOCCS, incarcerated individuals self-identify their race/ethnicity.

3

Racial/Ethnic Disparities in the Likelihood of Being Issued a Misbehavior Report

mm

40°'6

JS,o

30%

cl
,';

mm
25°~

BIii

20%

!203'ol

~

"'...
~

Q

~

cl

"'"'...

11, •··I

mm

j 1s.J,.j

15%

113.4••1
IO~o

0

I10··"•1

0

~

5%

o~.
2015

-

Black vs White

2016

-

2017

Hispanic vs White

2018

Other vs White

20 19

2020

Non-White vs White

As noted above, during the investigation, DOCCS took steps to address possible
inequities in the discipline of incarcerated individuals. Some were in response to
recommendations made by the NIC that, at the recommendation of the Inspector General, in
February 2017, reviewed DOCCS’s disciplinary policies, procedures, and practices. These
actions included revising disciplinary policies, reducing discretion of hearing officers, and
increasing the use of statewide commissioner’s hearing officers—trained attorneys working for
DOCCS’s Central Office who are arguably less likely to be influenced by facility leadership—to
conduct hearings for the most serious of rule violations. At its own initiative, DOCCS took other
measures including clarifying Misbehavior Report sentencing guidelines, continuing the
diversification of its workforce, and providing training by outside experts to all staff for three
successive years (2019-2021) on recognizing and mitigating implicit bias.
Of particular significance, in 2017, DOCCS established the Commissioner’s Diversity
Management Advisory Council (CDMAC), which includes an Incarcerated Individual Discipline
and Grievance Subcommittee tasked with analyzing relevant data and strategizing ways to
address incidences and/or trends that disproportionally affect incarcerated individuals. In
furtherance of CDMAC’s and the subcommittee’s efforts, since 2018, DOCCS collects, tracks,
and analyzes data on race and ethnicity of incarcerated individuals, including data related to the
issuance of Misbehavior Reports and the subsequent disposition of disciplinary matters, among
4

other categories. This data analysis is summarized in quarterly “Race/Ethnicity Dashboards” and
presented to CDMAC and the subcommittee for review and for the subcommittee to make
remedial recommendations to DOCCS executive staff. The dashboards and a summary of
observed trends are also provided directly to DOCCS executive staff for its review and
consideration.
Unfortunately, since its inception, the Incarcerated Individual Discipline and Grievance
Subcommittee has made no recommendations to DOCCS executive staff to further analyze
and/or provide potential solutions to address negative trends revealed in the Race/Ethnicity
Dashboard reports in the discipline of incarcerated individuals.10 Additionally, DOCCS
executive staff have not formulated strategies to further delve into negative trends and racially
disparate outcomes seen in the dashboard reports.
Indeed, DOCCS could have further analyzed its data on the discipline of incarcerated
individuals as the Inspector General has done in this investigation and presented in this report.
Such analyses might have provided further insight into the possible causation of such racial
disparities and prompted corrective action.
The identification of the root causes of these trends in racial disparities remains elusive
and many diverse factors beyond explicit and implicit racial bias may contribute to this outcome.
For instance, the role played by the more than 41 percent decline in DOCCS’s prison population
since 201511 and the now greater percentage of violent felony offenders among the prison
population is unclear. Other considerations could include the age of the incarcerated population
and their socioeconomic background, among other factors. The Inspector General determined
that racial disparity trends are likely not directly linked to such factors as the severity of crimes
leading to incarceration, how long an individual has been incarcerated, or the demographics of
DOCCS’s workforce.
An expert12 in statistical analysis and a professor of psychology who teaches graduate
statistics courses at Columbia University was retained by the Inspector General to review and
consult regularly on the data analyses described in the report. He advised, “I believe the findings

10
CDMAC and its subcommittees met infrequently in 2020 and 2021 due to shifting priorities during the height of
the COVID-19 pandemic.
11
According to DOCCS, between 2015 and July 2022, its incarcerated population decreased by 41.06 percent. See,
https://doccs.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2022/07/doccs-fact-sheet-july-2022.pdf.
12
See Appendix 23 for Niall Bolger’s CV.

5

in this report are accurate and provide a detailed accounting of the prevalence and change in
racial disparities in misconduct reports in NYS correctional facilities.” He further advised:
The results show that although racial disparities in misconduct reports display
noteworthy variation (across facilities, [incarcerated individuals], and DOCCS
employees), they are present on average and widespread in the NYS DOCCS
system. Furthermore, except for 2020 (a COVID year), the racial disparities were
largely stable over the six years examined. The obvious question arises: Are these
disparities the result of racial bias, or do they reflect genuine differences in
misconduct? Despite the thoroughness of the OIG analyses, the results do not
allow us to say.
Some conclusions are nonetheless possible. Disparities were not confined to only
a few facilities, nor were they confined to “a few bad apples” among DOCCS
employees in any given facility. Of the characteristics of incarcerated persons
examined by OIG, only offense severity [of the underlying crime for which
someone was serving a sentence] predicted increased disparities. However, given
that even less severe offenses were linked to marked disparities, offense severity
cannot account for the main results. In sum, although this report cannot identify
the underlying causes of racial disparities in misconduct reports, it provides an
extensive and illuminating account of their prevalence in the DOCCS system.
As the root causes of these disparities remain unidentified, the Inspector General
recommends that DOCCS:
•

Further analyze these disparate outcomes and address any unequal application
of disciplinary processes that may be revealed, particularly at the issuing
employee and facility-levels. Specifically, these analyses should focus on
determining if racial disparities and identified trends can be linked to certain
employees who issued Misbehavior Reports and/or facilities. Any such
analyses should be thorough and well documented, conclusions should be
shared with CDMAC and executive management, and any actions taken or
decisions not to act on findings should be documented and explained.

•

Capture data on minor (Tier I) violations, as is already required pursuant to
DOCCS policy, and incorporate such data in the analysis of racial disparities.

•

Provide guidance to facility review officers on the tiering of violations.

•

Clarify vague policy statements about when disciplinary action should be
taken to lessen the opportunity for personal interpretation.

•

Make the specialized training on implicit bias an annual requirement for all
staff.

•

Expand the use of statewide commissioner’s hearing officers for the most
serious of rule violations (Tier III) hearings.

•

Periodically publish anonymized disciplinary data and results of relevant
analyses.
6

Notably, during the period of this review, DOCCS began a long-term capital project to
overhaul existing fixed camera systems and install new cameras to provide broad coverage of all
correctional facilities across the state. Also during this period, DOCCS implemented the
utilization of wearable body cameras for staff members interacting with incarcerated individuals
at a number of its facilities. This program, which will improve safety for DOCCS staff and
incarcerated individuals alike, is ongoing with additional facilities awaiting deployment and
necessary technical upgrades. There is reason to be hopeful that not only will the proliferation of
cameras improve safety for DOCCS staff and incarcerated individuals alike, but also that the
more frequent existence of surveillance video within the facilities will serve to reduce disputes
about the factual underpinnings of disciplinary tickets going forward.
BACKGROUND
On December 3, 2016, The New York Times published an article on what it described as
racial bias and racism in New York State correctional facilities operated by DOCCS. The article,
entitled, “The Scourge of Racial Bias in New York State’s Prisons13,” resulted from interviews
of incarcerated individuals, record reviews, and the analysis of data obtained from DOCCS
disciplinary cases that occurred in 2015 in which an incarcerated individual was found guilty of
violating a rule and punished.
The article reported on claims made by incarcerated individuals of systemic racism
replete with disparaging epithets, threats, abuse, and disparate disciplinary treatment made by a
largely White workforce against a population of incarcerated individuals that is mostly Black and
Hispanic. The Times’ analysis of 2015 DOCCS disciplinary data revealed that in most New
York State correctional facilities, Black and Hispanic incarcerated individuals were disciplined at
a greater rate than White incarcerated individuals, and in some cases, at a rate double that of
White incarcerated individuals. Additionally, the article reported that Black and Hispanic
incarcerated individuals were sent to Special Housing Units (SHU, also known as solitary
confinement) at a greater frequency and for longer durations than White incarcerated
individuals.14 According to the article, Black incarcerated individuals in 2015 were 30 percent
13

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/nyregion/new-york-state-prisons-inmates-racial-bias.html.
During the investigation, DOCCS implemented provisions of a settlement and consent decree stemming from
litigation brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) regarding SHUs and alleging, among other
claims, concerns of disproportionate placement and confinement of Black and Hispanic incarcerated individuals in
SHU. Additionally, at the end of March 2022, DOCCS began the implementation of the Humane Alternatives to
14

7

more likely to have been issued a Misbehavior Report than White incarcerated individuals and
65 percent more likely to be sentenced to time in SHU as punishment.
The article reported that disparities were found to be greatest for rule violations where
correction officers have discretion to determine if a rule has been broken and where no
production of physical evidence is required. For example, in 2015, 56 percent of Black
incarcerated individuals were issued violations for refusing to obey a direct order—a violation
initiated by a correction officer at his or her subjective discretion and not requiring the
production of physical evidence—while only 32 percent of White incarcerated individuals were
charged and found guilty of the same. Additionally, the article stated that DOCCS did not have
systems in place to track racial trends and inequity in its disciplinary system.
The Times, in reporting on the limits of its data analyses, wrote, “The underlying data
[obtained from DOCCS] . . . cannot fully explain the reasons for the disparities in discipline and
parole beyond showing the extent to which the disparities exist.” The article noted that the
Times did not review incarcerated individuals’ complete arrest, incarceration, and disciplinary
histories and whether required programs had been successfully completed. The article also
reported that DOCCS had advised that possible contributing factors to this skewed relationship
might include the fact that a greater number of Black incarcerated individuals are jailed in New
York State correctional facilities for violent offenses as opposed to White incarcerated
individuals, and non-White incarcerated individuals are disproportionately younger, among other
factors.
In the wake of this article, on December 5, 2016, then New York Governor Andrew M.
Cuomo directed then Inspector General Catherine Leahy Scott to “investigate the allegations of
racial disparities in discipline in State prisons and to recommend appropriate reforms for
immediate implementation.”15

Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act (HALT), which further restricts the use of segregated confinement, limits its
duration, establishes therapeutic and rehabilitative options to such confinement, and excludes certain persons from
being placed in segregated confinement. Notably, in July 2022, DOCCS reported that 425 incarcerated individuals
were then confined in SHU as a disciplinary sanction or pending a disciplinary hearing. This total represents an
almost 75.8 percent reduction in the use of SHU since the beginning of the year. Given these ongoing and evolving
efforts, the Inspector General did not review possible racial disparities in SHU confinement of incarcerated
individuals.
15
Statement of then Governor Andrew Cuomo on December 6, 2016:
https://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/269913/cuomo-orders-investigation-into-alleged-racial-bias-in-prisons/

8

FINDINGS OF FACT
DOCCS and the Discipline of Incarcerated Individuals
DOCCS16, which currently manages and operates 44 correctional facilities17 in New York
State, also contains the Board of Parole, an independent body that makes release decisions for
incarcerated individuals who are eligible for parole and supervises parolees. As of July 2022,
DOCCS employed approximately 25,048 full-time staff members, including approximately
16,970 security staff and 7,086 civilians/administrative staff to oversee approximately 30,852
incarcerated individuals, and approximately 992 staff members to supervise approximately
28,825 parolees.18 DOCCS is governed by state law, administrative rules and regulations that it
has promulgated, and directives and memoranda setting forth procedures.
DOCCS operates a three-tier disciplinary system to address misbehavior and unlawful
conduct19 caused by incarcerated individuals: Tier I (minor infractions), Tier II (moderate), and
Tier III (severe). DOCCS’s disciplinary policy for incarcerated individuals is set forth in
DOCCS Directive 4932—Standards Behavior & Allowances.20
The directive’s general policies on the discipline of incarcerated individuals states in part:
Disciplinary action shall be taken only in such measures and degree as is necessary to:
•

Regulate an incarcerated individual’s behavior within acceptable limits;

•

Assist in achieving compliance by the entire incarcerated individual
population with required standards of behavior; and

•

Preserve the confidence of all concerned (i.e., the incarcerated individual
population and the staff) in the administration’s sincere belief in and
determination to maintain the required standards of behavior.

•

All control of incarcerated individual activities, including disciplinary action,
must be administered in a completely fair, impersonal and impartial manner
and must be as consistent as possible (given the need for individualized
decisions).”21

16

In April 2011, the former New York State Department of Correctional Services and the New York State Division
of Parole merged to form a single agency, the New York State Department of Corrections and Community
Supervision (DOCCS).
17
During the course of this investigation, DOCCS closed ten correctional facilities.
18
See DOCCS Fact Sheet July 1, 2022, https://doccs.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2022/07/doccs-fact-sheet-july2022.pdf.
19
For violations of New York State Penal Law, DOCCS may refer incarcerated individuals to law enforcement
agencies for prosecution and, if convicted, sanctions may be imposed by DOCCS for the offense.
20
New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Directive 4932, Chapter V, Standards
Behavior & Allowances, October 2, 2018. See Appendix 22 for complete policy.
21
NYS DOCCS Directive 4932 § 250.2(c)(1-4).

9

DOCCS further directs that disciplinary measures should not be overly severe, arbitrary, or
capricious, or administered for the purpose of retaliation or revenge.
Designation and Adjudication of Violations
Generally, rule violations must be reported in written Misbehavior Reports.22 Each
correctional facility designates review officer(s) of the rank of lieutenant or above to conduct
daily evaluations of all facility Misbehavior Reports and refer them to the “lowest appropriate”
tier level for action.23 Tier I violations are handled by a violation officer, Tier II by a
disciplinary hearing officer, and Tier III are forwarded to the superintendent to assign a hearing
officer to conduct a “Superintendent’s Hearing.” A review officer may also dismiss or return a
Misbehavior Report for failure to state a valid charge and release incarcerated individuals that
are in keeplock24 due to pending Misbehavior Reports if they are no longer threats to the safety
and security of the facility or themselves.25
For Tier I (minor) violations, penalties may be imposed including counseling and/or
reprimand, the loss of recreation or certain privileges (e.g., television, commissary purchases,
radio use, package receipt, etc.) for up to 13 days, or the imposition of a work task for up to one
week. Tier I hearings (Violation Hearings) are usually conducted by a sergeant working in the
facility and may involve offenses such as Disorderly Conduct, Creating a Disturbance,
Disobeying a Direct Order, or being Out of Place or not in one’s Assigned Area, among other
Tier I offenses. Records of Tier I offenses are removed from the incarcerated individual’s file
two weeks after the disposition at which time the electronic data is no longer made readily
available to DOCCS personnel for review.26

22

See, DOCCS Directive 4932 § 251-3.1. In some instances, no report is required. Minor infractions or other
violations of rules and policies governing the behavior of incarcerated individuals “that do not involve danger to life,
health, security, or property” should be dealt with by an employee through counseling, warning, and/or
reprimanding of an incarcerated individual and are not required to be reported. See, DOCCS Directive 4932 § 2511.5.
23
Directive 4932 § 251-2.2(a), (b).
24
“Keeplock” is the term used to describe disciplinary confinement in one’s own cell, dorm, or in a housing unit
separate from the general population.
25
In some instances, incarcerated individuals may be immediately confined for observed misbehavior. When a
correction officer has reasonable grounds to believe that an incarcerated individual presents an immediate threat to
the safety, security, or order of the facility; is an immediate danger to other persons or property; or where such
action appears reasonably necessary for protection of the incarcerated individual, the incarcerated individual may be
immediately confined to a room or cell for up to 72 hours. Incarcerated individuals who refuse or are unable to
participate in assigned activities may also be confined to a room or cell. See, Directive 4932 § 251-1.6(a), (b).
26
According to DOCCS, this Tier I data is unreliable.

10

For Tier II (moderate) violations, a Disciplinary Hearing is conducted by a hearing
officer of the rank of lieutenant or above. Offenses, including such conduct as Assault, Fighting,
Sex Offenses, and Threats, among many others, may result in counseling/reprimand, the loss of
certain privileges for up to 30 days, restitution for property damage, the imposition of a work
task for up to one week, and/or confinement to a cell or special housing unit for up to 15 days.27
Tier III (severe) violations are adjudicated in Superintendent’s Hearings, which are
conducted by either the facility superintendent, a captain, a Central Office commissioner’s
hearing officer, or another employee designated by the superintendent. Offenses include many
of those listed above under Tier II violations as well as Escape, among others. Such hearings
may result in dispositions including counseling/reprimand, the loss of certain privileges for a
specified period, restitution for property damage, forfeiture of contraband money, the imposition
of a work task for up to one week, and/or confinement to a cell for a specified period.
Additionally, Tier III violations may lead to the recommended loss of good behavior allowances.
DOCCS maintains information from Tier II and III disciplinary actions in electronic databases.
Disciplinary decisions may be appealed, and certain incarcerated individuals may receive
good behavior allowances to offset a percentage of the term of their sentence.28
DOCCS Commissioner’s Diversity Management Advisory Council
In January 2017, DOCCS formed the Commissioner’s Diversity Management Advisory
Council (CDMAC) “to address a variety of topics to ensure diversity and inclusion permeates the
entire agency.” CDMAC consists of a steering committee, which is overseen by the
commissioner, and several subcommittees that address distinct issues. Part of CDMAC’s
mandate is to review policies related to grievances, discipline, programming, and work
assignments to ensure practices employed by DOCCS are fair and equitable.

27

Of note, DOCCS advised that it is currently revising Directive 4932 and some provisions of this directive have
been modified by other directives. Here, Directive 4933 (Special Housing Units) places a limit on SHU
confinement to 15 consecutive days or 20 total days in any 60-day period, with some exceptions, and defines a
number of incarcerated individuals who are ineligible for SHU (e.g., those 21 or younger and 55 or older, having a
defined disability, pregnant, etc.). See, Directive 4933 § III(A), June 28, 2022. Directive 4933D (Residential
Rehabilitation Units or RRUs), includes the same definition for incarcerated individuals ineligible for such
confinement. RRUs, separate housing units used for therapy, treatment, and rehabilitative programming, are for
those “determined to require more than 15 days of segregated confinement . . ..” See, Directive 4933D § II, June 29,
2022.
28
Additionally, assistance is provided to illiterate and Limited English Proficient incarcerated individuals, and those
that are sensorially disabled are provided with other reasonable accommodations.

11

One subcommittee, the Incarcerated Individual Discipline & Grievance Subcommittee, is
charged with, among other things, “seek[ing] to analyze data and strategiz[ing] ways to address
incidences and/or trends that disproportionately affect incarcerated and formerly incarcerated
minority/protected class members.” According to the CDMAC Charter, this “may be
accomplished, in part, by tracking and monitoring tickets (the writers, recipients, hearing
officers, outcomes, etc.) and parole violations.” Another subcommittee, the Training &
Development Subcommittee, “should seek to ensure that appropriate curriculum is in place to
create awareness regarding implicit bias and reinforce the Department’s policies on diversity and
inclusion.”
The National Institute of Corrections Technical Assistance Report
In February 2017, the Inspector General by letter recommended that DOCCS seek the
assistance of the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) to address claims of racial disparity and
discrimination in its disciplinary program for incarcerated individuals and conduct a review of
relevant policies, procedures, and processes. As stated on its website, the NIC, a federal agency
under the U.S. Department of Justice that delivers specialized services to federal, state, and local
corrections agencies, “provides leadership to influence correctional policies, practices, and
operations nationwide in areas of emerging interest and concern . . . [and] practical assistance in
planning and implementing improvements . . .”
Later that same month, DOCCS acting Commissioner Anthony J. Annucci requested of
the NIC that it provide technical assistance to review the “policies, procedures, processes,
appeals and outcomes of the [Incarcerated Individual’s] Discipline Program statewide and issue
recommendations for improvement based on NIC’s experience.”
After meeting with DOCCS executive staff and Inspector General staff, on June 22, 2017,
a consultant working for NIC released a Technical Assistance Report to DOCCS detailing the
findings of his review of DOCCS’s Incarcerated Individual Discipline Program. According to
the report, the purpose of the review was to “assess if there were any policies or procedures in
place that may have contributed to racial bias” in DOCCS’s disciplinary system. The report
noted that DOCCS’s policies were measured against American Correctional Association
standards, United States Department of Justice Guiding Principles for Restrictive Housing, and
nationally accepted correctional practices. In summary, the report concluded that DOCCS had
opportunities to reduce possible racial biases in decision-making by providing clearer direction
12

to staff, reducing discretion, and increasing consistency and safeguards to ensure impartiality and
accountability.
The report’s central findings included: (1) DOCCS’s disciplinary procedures are not
centralized into a single policy; (2) DOCCS policies contain vague language and lack sufficient
definition; (3) DOCCS policies allow for too much discretion and do not provide sufficient
guidance for greater department-wide consistency in hearing decisions and time allowances; (4)
The use of too many hearing officers could amplify inconsistencies in the disciplinary process
that could impact perceptions of unfairness, and; (5) DOCCS lacks a gender responsive
disciplinary management philosophy or sanctions for female incarcerated individuals.
The report also contained additional findings that: (1) Disciplinary policies do not state
what will not be tolerated and do not establish clear performance expectations for staff; (2)
Disciplinary policies lack a direct relationship to the actual flow of the disciplinary process; (3)
Annual comprehensive training and testing of hearing officers is necessary; and (4) Time
Allowance Committees, which make recommendations as to the amount of good time credits
granted to incarcerated individuals, could “become an area where perceived or actual biases
occur.” The report also noted the strengths found in DOCCS’s disciplinary policies, which
included an excellent appeal process, supports for incarcerated individuals with physical and
mental health disabilities, and notifications and time frames for disciplinary process that are
consistent with nationally accepted practices.
In summary, the report recommended that DOCCS:
1. Promulgate a disciplinary policy statement that specifies fair disciplinary
procedures and practices, clearly communicates DOCCS’s values, and “succinctly
states the zero tolerance of any personal bias in the application of the disciplinary
program.”
2. Consolidate the several relevant directives and memoranda addressing the
disciplinary process into a single policy/directive to provide staff clear direction.
3. Clarify vague policy statements about when disciplinary action should be taken to
provide for greater consistency and accountability and lessen the opportunity for
personal interpretation.29

29

For example, one vague policy, Directive 4932, § 250.2(c)(1), reads, “Disciplinary action shall be taken only in
such measures and degree as is necessary to . . . regulate an [incarcerated individual’s] behavior within acceptable
limits.”

13

4. Track Tier I (minor) incidents and the informal resolutions that result. As DOCCS
does not require that Tier I incidents be documented or tracked, patterns of behavior
by incarcerated individuals and staff are not discoverable.
5. Disciplinary hearings should be conducted by hearing officers outside the regular
chain of command at the facility where an incarcerated individual is housed to
enhance consistency of application and impartiality.
6. Prohibit running disciplinary confinement sanctions consecutively (“stacking” of
sanctions) for offenses arising out of the same incident and non-violent and nondangerous offenses occurring while in disciplinary confinement. In addition to
running sanctions concurrently, sanctions should not routinely exceed the initial
placement sanction and alternative sanctions should be utilized when appropriate.
7. Reduce the wide range of days in disciplinary confinement that an incarcerated
individual can receive as a sanction for a rule violation as this could lead to
inconsistencies in the length of time imposed by hearing officers system-wide for
the same offense. Tier II confinement sanctions should not exceed 30 days, while
Tier III sanctions should be capped at 99 days.
8. Reconstruct Tier I, II and III matrices to list maximum allowable for Good Behavior
Time, Loss of Privileges, Housing Restrictions, and confinement days for each
sanction for transparency, consistency, and training purposes.
9. Revise a Hearing Officer Reference Book provision that allows for hearing officers
to deviate from suggested incapacitation periods and impose longer periods when
a determination has been made that “in order to keep staff and incarcerated
individuals safe and/or correctional facilities secure, a longer period of
incapacitation is needed.”
10. Amend disciplinary documentation to provide direction to staff on what will not be
tolerated and to establish clear performance expectations.
11. Create a flowchart of the disciplinary process and provide supporting information
for each step of the process so that a reader will understand the procedural and
decision-making requirements of the policy.
12. Develop an annual curriculum-based training and proficiency testing for new and
experienced hearing officers in conjunction with DOCCS attorneys that includes
constitutional, legal and process issues and remedies.
13. Create a matrix to standardize the process for earning and losing Good Behavior
Allowances rather than relying on discretionary recommendations made by a Time
Allowance Committee so as to provide equal application and lessen possible biases.
DOCCS’s Response to the NIC Technical Assistance Report
After receiving the NIC Technical Assistance Report, DOCCS convened a workgroup to
review the recommendations and consider remedial action. In February 2018, the workgroup
issued a report to the acting commissioner on its recommendations. DOCCS advised that after
discussions with the NIC consultant and internal review, some recommendations were
14

implemented while others were deemed either not applicable, operationally infeasible, or in
conflict with an earlier settlement with the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU).30
Pursuant to the NIC report’s first recommendation that DOCCS promulgate a disciplinary
policy statement, DOCCS revised Directive 4932 to read, in part:
It is the policy of [DOCCS] to eliminate, mitigate, and respond to racial disparities
so as to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of benefits and burdens in the
placement of [incarcerated individuals] in housing unit assignments, institutional
work assignments, and programs; and the proper post-release supervision of
parolees to include, but not limited to, supervision level, violation processes, and
early discharge/merit terminations. Moreover, it is our policy that any DOCCS
administrative processes associated with any [incarcerated individuals] or parolee
who may be subject to discipline and grievances are conducted fairly, to ensure that
decisions are not influenced by stereotypes or bias based on race, color, ethnicity,
or national origin. To do so, the Department shall provide ongoing staff training,
monitoring, and auditing systems to ensure compliance with all provisions of this
policy. The Department shall develop programs to help [incarcerated individuals]
work and live together regardless of their identity and backgrounds.31
DOCCS also consolidated its relevant directives and memoranda addressing the
disciplinary process into a single directive, further revised Directive 4932 to provide direction to
staff on what will not be tolerated and to establish clear performance expectations, and
articulated definitions for each sanction. In addition, DOCCS created a disciplinary process
flowchart to be included in a booklet for hearing officers explaining the steps. DOCCS, in
response to the NIC recommendation that it develop annual training and proficiency testing for
hearing officers in conjunction with DOCCS attorneys, noted that it annually updates hearing
officer training and works in conjunction with the Office of the New York State Attorney
General, which represents DOCCS in these matters.
As for the NIC’s recommendation that disciplinary hearings be conducted by hearing
officers outside the regular chain of command at the facility where an incarcerated individual is
housed, DOCCS implemented this in part. DOCCS advised that more disciplinary hearings for
Tier III violations are now being conducted by commissioner’s hearing officers. These trained

30

See footnote 10 regarding the NYCLU settlement. DOCCS also advised the Inspector General that after
consultation with the NIC consultant about two recommendations made in the NIC’s Technical Assistance Report
with which DOCCS disagreed, those recommendations were subsequently withdrawn by the consultant. In addition,
DOCCS disagreed with a third recommendation and concluded that the NIC consultant was incorrect in his
understanding of DOCCS policy. As such, those recommendations are not included in the enumerated list above.
31
NYS DOCCS Directive 4932, Chapter V, Standards Behavior & Allowances, § 250.1, Policy and Applicability
(October 2, 2018).

15

attorneys operate outside each facility’s chain of command and are therefore less likely to be
susceptible to internal pressure at a facility. This contrasts with hearing officers who are not
trained attorneys and who have other full-time duties in the same facility in which they also
conduct hearings. In 2015, commissioner’s hearing officers conducted approximately 15 percent
of Tier III hearings. By 2020, commissioner’s hearing officers were utilized more frequently,
but still conducted less than 26 percent of all Tier III hearings. DOCCS, in noting that such a
recommendation was difficult to implement in all its facilities spread across the State, generally
does not utilize hearing officers outside the regular chain of command at each facility to conduct
Tier II violation hearings.
DOCCS disagreed with many of the NIC consultant’s recommendations. In response to
the recommendation that DOCCS clarify vague policy statements about when disciplinary action
should be taken to lessen the opportunity for personal interpretation, DOCCS advised that its
hearing officers should have a certain degree of discretion and their decisions should be clearly
articulated. DOCCS also disagreed that it should track Tier I (minor) incidents and resolutions to
analyze trends. DOCCS reported that most informal resolutions result in the incarcerated
individual complying with staff direction, and to track the same would be too labor intensive.
Additionally, DOCCS reported that it did not engage in “stacking”—running disciplinary
confinement sanctions consecutively—for offenses arising out of the same incident
(recommendation 6 above). When incarcerated individuals are charged with multiple rule
violations arising from the same incident, DOCCS combines the charges into one hearing, and if
the incarcerated individual is found guilty, he or she is only sanctioned for the most serious
offense. However, if an incarcerated individual is later charged with a new offense while in
disciplinary confinement, he or she may then be sentenced to new sanctions, which will run
consecutively.
At the time, NIC also recommended that DOCCS reduce and cap the wide range of days
in disciplinary confinement an incarcerated individual can receive for a rule violation (limit Tier
II confinement sanctions to 30 days and Tier III to 99 days).32 Although DOCCS disagreed with
this recommendation, stating it was acting pursuant to terms agreed upon in the NYCLU
settlement, the subsequent HALT legislation resulted in limits on such confinement.

32

As noted earlier, HALT, which was implemented in late March 2022, placed greater restrictions on SHU
confinement.

16

In addition, DOCCS disagreed with the recommendation that it reconstruct the Tier I, II
and III matrices to list maximum possible days for good behavior time, loss of privileges,
housing restrictions, and confinement. According to DOCCS, regulations for Tier I and II
hearings (and for some Tier III hearings) already address this and to create such a matrix would
tie the hands of hearing officers regarding loss of privileges. Further, DOCCS noted that any
sanction for Loss of Good Time is merely a recommendation that is reviewed by the Time
Allowance Committee. Lastly, regarding the NIC’s recommendation that DOCCS create a
matrix for earning/losing Good Behavior Allowances rather than relying on discretionary
recommendations made by a Time Allowance Committee, DOCCS advised that this is too
complex, and the committee must have independence to review each case on its own merit,
documenting the reasons for its decisions.
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S ANALYSIS OF DOCCS’S DISCIPLINARY DATA
The Inspector General conducted a comprehensive analysis of selected aspects of the
discipline of incarcerated individuals by DOCCS. The focus of this review was to determine
whether racial disparities existed in the following steps in DOCCS’s disciplinary process:
•

Reporting violation of rules by incarcerated individuals

•

Issuance of Misbehavior Reports for such rule violations

•

Dismissal/overturning of violations and Misbehavior Reports

In many ways, the Inspector General’s methodology mirrored that employed by the
Times33 for its 2016 article, which analyzed and reported on DOCCS’s disciplinary data from
2015. The Inspector General obtained data from DOCCS on Misbehavior Reports, associated
violations, and incarcerated populations and, like the Times, categorized incarcerated individuals
based on their race and ethnicity as either non-Hispanic White (White), non-Hispanic Black
(Black), Hispanic, or Other; and placed these individuals into one of the following age groups:
under 25, 25 to 29, 30 to 39, or 40 and above.
The Inspector General reviewed a larger set of data than the Times in that it examined
records for the six-year period from 2015 through 2020, as opposed to only 2015, and had access
to review all Tier II and III Misbehavior Reports, regardless of the ultimate adjudication.34

33

The Times’ methodology is available online at https://github.com/newsdev/nyt_incarcerated individuals.
The Inspector General did not analyze Tier I Misbehavior Reports as, according to a DOCCS representative, the
data DOCCS has available for Tier I offenses is unreliable and likely incomplete.
34

17

In addition, rather than relying on an estimated average of the incarcerated population35,
the Inspector General was able to identify the actual minimum number of individuals
incarcerated each year based on their unique DOCCS-assigned identification numbers.36 The
Inspector General’s methodology resulted in both a larger number of Misbehavior Reports and
an increased incarcerated population. Specifically, for 2015, the Times reviewed 59,354
Misbehavior Reports issued to an estimated population of 51,329 incarcerated individuals. For
the same year, the Inspector General reviewed 66,997 Misbehavior Reports issued to an
incarcerated population of 63,328.37 Further details on the Inspector General’s methodology is
attached as Appendix 2.
The Inspector General’s analysis identified numerous statistical disparities in the
discipline of different races/ethnicities of incarcerated individuals. These racial/ethnic disparities
existed in the issuance of Misbehavior Reports and charging of individual rule violations. In
most cases, the disparities reflected a disproportionately higher likelihood of Black, and to a
lesser extent, Hispanic and Other non-White incarcerated individuals being charged with
violating rules compared to White incarcerated individuals. Some of the most noteworthy
disparities are summarized below.
•

Overall, Black incarcerated individuals were nearly 22 percent more likely to
have been issued a Misbehavior Report than White incarcerated individuals.
Hispanic and Other incarcerated individuals were 12 percent and nine percent
more likely than White incarcerated individuals to have been issued a
Misbehavior Report. Analyzed annually, these disparities were generally
consistent each year until 2020, when disparities between non-White and White
incarcerated individuals saw a significant increase. In 2020, Black and Hispanic
incarcerated individuals were respectively nearly 38 percent and 29 percent more
likely than White incarcerated individuals to be issued a Misbehavior Report.

•

Black, Hispanic, and Other incarcerated individuals were issued approximately
57, 38, and 29 percent more Misbehavior Reports, on average, than White
incarcerated individuals. Between 2015 and 2020, the average number of

35

The Times averaged two different “snapshots” of the incarcerated population—one taken in the middle of 2015
and the other at the end of 2015. The combined total of 102,657 incarcerated individuals from these two snapshots
was divided by two to calculate an estimated population of 51,329.
36
DOCCS assigns each incarcerated individual a unique Departmental Identification Number (DIN). To calculate
incarcerated populations, the Inspector General identified all unique DINs reported by DOCCS for a given year in
either the incarcerated population data or Misbehavior Report data.
37
Both methodologies relied on incarcerated populations reported by DOCCS as of the middle and end of each year.
Because these sources were points in time as opposed to a cumulative list of all incarcerated individuals, it was not
possible to identify the actual population of all individuals incarcerated at any point in a given year.

18

Misbehavior Reports issued to non-White incarcerated individuals increased at a
rate more than 16 times greater than for White incarcerated individuals.
•

The disparities in the average number of Misbehavior Reports issued to the nonWhite incarcerated population compared to the White incarcerated population
decreased or remained relatively consistent from 2015 through 2017. In 2018
and 2019, these disparities steadily increased before increasing significantly in
2020. In 2020, Black incarcerated individuals, on average, were issued
approximately 61 percent more Misbehavior Reports than White incarcerated
individuals, while the disparities between Hispanic and Other incarcerated
individuals compared to the White incarcerated population were 49 percent and
37 percent, respectively.

•

Non-White incarcerated individuals were also generally more likely to have
repeatedly been issued Misbehavior Reports and less likely to have never been
issued a Misbehavior Report when compared to White incarcerated individuals.
For example, Black and Hispanic incarcerated individuals were 89 percent and
61 percent more likely than White incarcerated individuals, respectively, to have
been issued more than 10 Misbehavior Reports and 27 percent and 16 percent
less likely to have never been issued a Misbehavior Report.

•

Non-White incarcerated individuals were typically more likely than White
incarcerated individuals to have been issued a Misbehavior Report for the same
category of incident. Many of the largest disparities existed for incidents
categorized as “Assaultive.” For example, Black incarcerated individuals were
185 percent more likely than White incarcerated individuals to have been issued
a Misbehavior Report categorized as “Assaultive.” Hispanic and other nonWhite incarcerated individuals were 158 percent and 98 percent more likely than
a White incarcerated individual, respectively, to have been issued a Misbehavior
Report for an “Assaultive” offense. When analyzed by DOCCS facility and
Incident Category, these disparities were even larger. The largest disparity
involved Downstate Correctional Facility, where Black and Hispanic
incarcerated individuals were over five times more likely than White incarcerated
individuals to have been issued a Misbehavior Report for an “Assaultive”
incident.

•

Black incarcerated individuals were charged with a disproportionately higher
share of rule violations while White incarcerated individuals were charged with
a disproportionately lower share of rule violations. Specifically, Black
incarcerated individuals were charged with 56 percent of all rule violations
despite representing under 47 percent of the incarcerated population, while White
incarcerated individuals were charged with 18 percent of all rule violations
despite representing over 27 percent of the incarcerated population.

•

For nearly eight out of every nine DOCCS rules, the Black incarcerated
population was more likely than the White incarcerated population to be charged
with a violation. Black incarcerated individuals were at least 50 percent more
likely than White incarcerated individuals to be charged with a violation for twothirds of rules, and at least twice as likely for over 40 percent of rules. The largest
disparities existed for assaults by incarcerated individuals on other incarcerated
19

individuals, engaging in gang activity, and involvement in a demonstration
detrimental to facility order. Black incarcerated individuals were over five times
more likely than White incarcerated individuals to be cited for violating these
rules, while Hispanic incarcerated individuals were over three times more likely.
Notably, many of the rules that the White incarcerated population was more
likely to be charged by DOCCS with violating were less subjective, offering less
opportunity for bias. Such rules included tattooing, which leaves physical
evidence on the incarcerated individual, drug use, which is based on a failed
urinalysis test, and possession of unapproved literature, which requires physical
evidence. Conversely, many of the rules that the non-White incarcerated
population was more likely to violate, such as engaging in gang activities,
unauthorized assembly, and assault by an incarcerated individual, were arguably
more subjective, offering more opportunity for bias.
The Inspector General also analyzed the dismissal of violations as a result of a hearing or
appeal and again found racial/ethnic disparities. However, in many instances, these disparities
contrasted those found for the issuance of Misbehavior Reports and actually favored non-White
incarcerated populations over White incarcerated populations. Black incarcerated individuals
were slightly more likely to have all charges associated with a Misbehavior Report dismissed and
also had the highest rate of individual violations being dismissed at a hearing, whereas White
incarcerated individuals had the lowest likelihood of having a violation dismissed at a hearing.38
Notably, between 2015 and 2020, all races and ethnicities generally had a progressively larger
portion of their violations dismissed, although dismissal rates for Black incarcerated individuals
declined slightly in 2019 and 2020.
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY CONTRIBUTING
FACTORS RESULTING IN THE DISPARITY
The Inspector General examined numerous variables in an attempt to ascertain the extent
to which such factors may have contributed to these disparities. Two such factors, which were
cited in the Times article and attributed to DOCCS, are the severity of the offense leading to
imprisonment and the age of the incarcerated individual being issued a Misbehavior Report.
According to the article, DOCCS claimed, “A greater share of black inmates are in prison for
violent offenses, and minority inmates are disproportionately younger, factors that could explain
why an inmate would be more likely to break prison rules.”39 While the Inspector General’s
38

All races/ethnicities had very similar rates of dismissal following an appeal. White incarcerated individuals had
1.6 percent of violations dismissed following an appeal, Hispanic and Other had 1.4 percent dismissed, while Black
incarcerated individuals had 1.3. percent dismissed.
39
The New York Times, “The Scourge of Racial Bias in New York State’s Prisons” (December 3, 2016),
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/nyregion/new-york-state-prisons-inmates-racial-bias.html.

20

analysis confirmed that non-White incarcerated individuals were more likely than White
incarcerated individuals to be convicted of violent felony offenses, the Inspector General’s
analysis was unable to conclude that the severity of the underlying crime for which the person
was incarcerated was linked to a greater likelihood of non-White incarcerated individuals being
charged with violating prison rules. As DOCCS asserted, non-White incarcerated populations
were generally younger than White incarcerated populations and the Inspector General found
that disparities in the issuance of Misbehavior Reports were indeed larger for the younger
incarcerated population.
While non-White incarcerated individuals were more likely to have been convicted of
violent crimes and, once incarcerated, were much more likely to have been issued Misbehavior
Reports, the extent to which crime severity contributed to racial/ethnic disparities in the issuance
of Misbehavior Reports could not be determined from these analyses. Notably, the Inspector
General compared the likelihood that different races/ethnicities of incarcerated individuals
convicted of the same crime severity were issued Misbehavior Reports and found non-White
populations were more likely than White populations to have been issued Misbehavior Reports
across each crime severity type40. These disparities were larger for incarcerated individuals
convicted of violent offenses. For example, in 2020, Black violent felony offenders were 46
percent more likely to be issued a Misbehavior Report than White violent felony offenders, while
Black coercive/violent offenders were 56 percent more likely to be issued a Misbehavior Report
than White coercive/violent offenders.
However, this pattern did not consistently apply across all facilities. In some instances,
facilities with the largest racial disparities for Misbehavior Reports had a higher population of
violent felony offenders. Conversely, some facilities with relatively small racial disparities for
Misbehavior Reports also had a high population of violent felony offenders. While the data
suggests crime severity could contribute in some instances to these disparities, this could not be
confirmed due to other possible causal factors.
Although younger incarcerated individuals of all races/ethnicities were disproportionately
more likely than the rest of the prison population to have been issued Misbehavior Reports, such
disparities were relatively minimal, and the extent to which they contributed to Misbehavior

40

DOCCS categorizes incarcerated individuals into one of three groups based on their primary criminal conviction:
violent felony offenders, other coercive/violent offenders, and property/drug/other felony offenders.

21

Report disparities could not be confirmed. These disparities were larger for non-White
incarcerated individuals. For example, 79 percent of Black incarcerated individuals under 25
were issued a Misbehavior Report compared to 63 percent of White incarcerated individuals
under 25.
The Inspector General considered the possible effect of numerous other variables on the
above-described disparities. One such variable was the facility in which a Misbehavior Report
was issued. In some instances, the facility where an individual was incarcerated may have
factored into their likelihood in being issued a Misbehavior Report. Some of the most
noteworthy findings from this analysis follow:
•

When analyzed by facility, between 2015 and 2020, approximately 56 percent of
incarcerated individuals were issued a Misbehavior Report. The facilities most
likely to issue Misbehavior Reports were Auburn, Clinton, Great Meadow,
Shawangunk, and Sullivan, with each issuing Misbehavior Reports to over 70
percent of their incarcerated population. Moriah, Rochester, Lincoln, and Hale
Creek were the least likely to issue Misbehavior Reports, with each issuing
Misbehavior Reports to less than 25 percent of their incarcerated population.
Additionally, thirteen facilities issued an increasingly larger number of
Misbehavior Reports despite seeing their incarcerated population decrease.

•

The facilities with the largest racial/ethnic disparities in issuing Misbehavior
Reports were Downstate, Clinton, Elmira, Attica, and Five Points.41 At
Downstate, non-White incarcerated individuals were over 85 percent more likely
to have been issued a Misbehavior Report and were issued, on average, 178
percent more Misbehavior Reports than White incarcerated individuals. At
Elmira, non-White incarcerated individuals were over 102 percent more likely
and were issued, on average, 164 percent more Misbehavior Reports than White
incarcerated individuals.

•

When facility disparities were further analyzed by the rule violated, two rules,
engaging in gang activities and assaults by incarcerated individuals on other
incarcerated individuals, stood out. Larger racial disparities also existed for
engaging in lewd conduct and various violations pertaining to telephone use by
incarcerated individuals. The largest overall disparity existed at Great Meadow
for engaging in gang activities, where Black incarcerated individuals were over
14 times more likely to be cited than White incarcerated individuals. Similarly,
at Washington, Black and Hispanic incarcerated individuals were over 10 times
more likely than White incarcerated individuals to be cited for engaging in gang
activities, while at Wende, Black incarcerated individuals were over 12 times
more likely than White incarcerated individuals to be cited for assaults by
incarcerated individuals on other incarcerated individuals and over nine times

41

Based on each facility’s racial disparities in the likelihood of issuing Misbehavior Reports and average number of
Misbehavior Reports issued. As noted later in this report, the Inspector General’s ranking of facilities’ racial
disparities in issuing Misbehavior Reports was weighted to avoid skewed results for smaller facilities.

22

more likely than White incarcerated individuals to be cited for lewd conduct and
engaging in gang activities.
The Inspector General also reviewed whether the racial demographics of DOCCS’s
workforce at each facility may have contributed to the Misbehavior Report disparities. The
Inspector General compared the racial demographics of DOCCS’s workforce to racial
demographic data published by the US Census Bureau for the county, economic region, and
DOCCS Hub (a regional cluster of facilities that share administrative, support and program
services) and found the racial breakdown of DOCCS’s facility staff was generally representative
of the communities in which the facilities were located.
Conversely, the race/ethnicity of DOCCS workforce was often not representative of the
facilities’ incarcerated population and these racial disparities were typically significant.42 For
example, approximately 58 percent of the incarcerated population at Upstate was Black
compared to less than one percent of Upstate’s workforce, while 27 percent of the incarcerated
population at Ogdensburg was Hispanic compared to less than one percent of Ogdensburg’s
workforce. However, while racial disparities between DOCCS’s workforce and the incarcerated
population may have contributed to racial disparities in the issuance of Misbehavior Reports at
some facilities, such workforce disparities did not appear to be a consistent factor contributing to
the Misbehavior Report disparities.
The Inspector General further analyzed Misbehavior Reports by the DOCCS employees
that issued the reports and identified a number of employees whose reports reflected significant
racial/ethnic disparities. Most notable were 226 employees who only issued Misbehavior
Reports to non-White incarcerated individuals, including 114 employees who only issued
Misbehavior Reports to Black or Hispanic incarcerated individuals.43 For many of these
employees, the pattern of not issuing Misbehavior Reports to White incarcerated individuals
occurred across multiple years and/or at multiple facilities, suggesting their disparities were not
caused by singular incidents that skewed their results. DOCCS should further scrutinize the
circumstances surrounding these disparities to identify potential causal factors. For example, the
Inspector General’s review found one DOCCS employee reported 88 violations at a single
42

In this context, the Inspector General subjectively considered a facility’s staff to be representative of their
community or incarcerated population if the difference between a race/ethnicity’s percentage of a facility’s
workforce and that race/ethnicity’s share of the community or incarcerated population was 10 percent or less.
43
This review excluded DOCCS employees who issued fewer than 50 Misbehavior Reports in total during the
period reviewed.

23

facility, all of which were against Hispanic incarcerated individuals. Further scrutiny revealed
that this employee was an English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher whose classes were
likely attended by non-White incarcerated individuals, which may explain the racial/ethnic
disparities observed in this instance.
The Inspector General’s review of grievances filed by incarcerated individuals revealed
that less than one percent of all grievances alleged unlawful discrimination by a DOCCS
employee, which encompasses all forms of discrimination including racial. While such
grievances were relatively rare, they steadily increased between 2016 and 2021. Over 90 percent
of the unlawful discrimination grievances were filed by non-White incarcerated individuals. Of
these unlawful discrimination grievances, approximately 10 percent specifically alleged racial
discrimination, with the majority filed by individuals incarcerated at Upstate or Attica.
Additionally, a small number of DOCCS employees were subjects of multiple racial
discrimination grievances. Ultimately, nearly 23 percent of grievances alleging racial
discrimination resulted in a favorable outcome for the incarcerated individual. This is another
area warranting additional review by DOCCS.
Despite these many analyses, the Inspector General was unable to determine the cause for
the observed disparities as various factors beyond racial bias, including socioeconomic factors,
could be to blame. Because of the numerous variables that could affect the behavior of
incarcerated individuals and correction officers, other corroborating evidence would be
necessary to draw a conclusion whether racial bias contributed to these disparities.
More detail pertaining to the Inspector General’s analysis can be viewed in the
appendices to this report.
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S DETERMINATIONS
DOCCS has Taken Some Steps to Mitigate Possible Racial Bias in the Discipline of Incarcerated
Individuals
The investigation found that DOCCS has taken numerous significant steps to review
racial disparity in its programs and update its disciplinary processes and policies to mitigate
possible racial bias and ensure disciplinary decisions are not influenced by racial bias.
First, at the recommendation of the Inspector General, DOCCS had its incarcerated
individual disciplinary policies reviewed by the NIC in 2017 and implemented a number of the
NIC’s recommendations including promulgating a policy statement of fair disciplinary
24

procedures free of personal bias, reducing discretion of hearing officers, and utilizing statewide
hearing officers to conduct hearings of more Tier III violations, among other remedial actions.
Significantly, as part of these reforms, DOCCS required that all Misbehavior Reports be
classified at the “lowest appropriate” tier level; however, DOCCS does not provide practical
guidance to review officers on how to accomplish this. Additionally, DOCCS created a matrix
with confinement guidelines for each offense thereby reducing discretion at the hearing level.
Also notable, DOCCS increased its use of commissioner’s hearing officers, statewide officers
working out of Central Office who are arguably not beholden to facility hierarchy. In 2020,
these hearing officers conducted approximately 25 percent of all hearings involving the most
serious of offenses (Tier III hearings), dismissing 5 percent of Misbehavior Reports and 18
percent of rule violations cited within those reports.
Second, in 2017, DOCCS established the CDMAC to advise its executive staff on
diversity. A subcommittee of this group, the Incarcerated Individual Discipline & Grievance
Subcommittee, was also established to review relevant policies to ensure DOCCS practices are
fair and equitable and analyze data to strategize ways to address trends disproportionately
affecting non-White incarcerated individuals.
In furtherance of this effort, in 2018, DOCCS adopted a quarterly Race/Ethnicity
Dashboard Report to assist with its analysis of racial disparities (see relevant excerpts from one
such report below). These reports are provided to executive staff, the CDMAC, and its
Incarcerated Individual Discipline & Grievance Subcommittee for review. The reports, which
track numerous statistics of incarcerated and paroled individuals by race/ethnicity, capture
disciplinary incidents and Unusual Incidents44 among many other categories.45 They are a vital
tool in understanding the scope of the issue and revealing both positive and negative trends.

44

DOCCS files reports for “Unusual Incidents” (UIs) occurring at its facilities. According to DOCCS Directive
4004, an incident is reportable when it is a serious occurrence that may impact upon or disrupt facility operations,
affect DOCCS’s public image, or arouse widespread public interest, and includes incidents involving the use of
chemical agents, use of force, and contraband. A UI may be generated for a matter not involving the misbehavior of
an incarcerated individual. See, Directive § 4004, Unusual Incident Report (May 2, 2022).
45
The quarterly Race/Ethnicity Dashboard Reports also track categories including crime category and region of
commitment, new court commitments, incarcerated individuals’ age, releases to parole and elsewhere, recidivism,
segregated confinement counts and consecutive days, program attendance, education level, job wages, and parolee
statistics, among other data. In other reports, DOCCS tracks preferred jobs for incarcerated individuals at its
correctional facilities to ensure they are assigned in a manner representative of the race/ethnicity of the facility
population.

25

DOCCS RACE/ETHNICITY DATA DASHBOARD - Q2 2020
%
Black

%
White

%
Hispanic

%
Native
American

%
Asian

%
Other/
Unknown

Custody Population (July 1, 2020)
Disciplinary Incidents (Q2 2020)

49%

23%

25%

1%

1%

2%

54%

18%

26%

1%

0%

1%

Number of Disciplinary Incidents
Tier 2 Guilty Incidents
Tier 2 Dismissed Incidents
Tier 3 Guilty Incidents
Tier 3 Dismissed Incidents

54%
52%
53%
57%
64%

18%
20%
19%
14%
14%

26%
25%
27%
27%
17%

1%
1%
0%
1%
1%

0%
1%
0%
0%
0%

1%
2%
1%
1%
3%

Tier 2 Avg. KL Sanction days
Tier 3 Avg. KL Sanction days
Tier 3 Avg. SHU Sanction days

22.7
55.2
101.1

22.3
47.8
87.3

I
I

23.2
51.1
113.1

23.4
50.3
56.0

23.9
96.2

20.5
57.4
109.4

Total Unusual Incidents
Disciplinary Incident Types (Most Serious Rule category)

55%

17%

I

26%

1%

0%

1%

100%

t

Data
Category

I

I
I

I

Penal Law

0%

Escape

46%

I

21%

Assaults
Violent
Drugs and Alcohol
Potentially Violent
Life Safety
Non-Violent

59%
55%
46%
57%
49%
53%

I
I

9%
14%
28%
15%
25%
19%

I
I

I
I
I

0%

0%

0%

0%

32%

0%

0%

0%

31%
28%
23%
25%
23%
25%

0%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%

0%
0%
1%
0%
1%
0%

1%
1%
1%
2%
2%
2%

UI Incidents (Race/Ethnicity of Perpetrators & Suspects)(Q2 2020)
Total Unusual Incidents

55%

17%

26%

1%

0%

1%

Staff Assaults
Inmate Assaults
Contraband Incidents
Disruptive Behavior Incidents
Inmate Injuries*

58%
72%
46%
61%
56%

12%
5%
24%
12%
17%

28%
23%
27%
25%
25%

1%
0%
1%
1%
1%

1%
0%
1%
0%
1%

1%
1%
2%
2%
2%

t================1I I I I I I
* Injuries due to accidents, self-inflicted injury, or suicide attempts are excluded.

Color Coding Key
Comparison Numbers
Difference of 5% or 5 Units in Correct Direction
Difference of 5% or 5 Units in Wrong Direction
Difference of 6% or more or 6 or More Units in Wrong Direction
No Difference or within 5% or 5 Units of Comparison Group
Difference is reverse coded (e.g. disproportionately high=good)

No Color

Excerpts From DOCCS Race/Ethnicity Dashboard Report (2nd Quarter 2020)

Third, over a three-year period (2019 through 2021), DOCCS conducted targeted training
of all staff on racial bias. These “Commissioner’s Initiative” trainings, which were provided by
outside experts46, focused on specific related topics including implicit bias (subjective,
unconscious preferences that can lead to unfair treatment), racial anxiety (heightened
stress/emotions when interacting with other races), and stereotype threat (an individual’s fear
that their actions/behaviors will confirm negative images about a group to which they belong).
Each approximately one-to-two-hour training included an interactive session. In addition to the

46

This training was provided by the Perception Institute. See, https://perception.org/.

26

Commissioner’s Initiative trainings, DOCCS recruits47 and staff receive trainings on related
topics including language access, diversity, cultural awareness, and equal employment
opportunity.
Fourth, DOCCS continued its ongoing efforts to diversify its workforce. According to
DOCCS, in 2015, its workforce was approximately 82 percent White, 10 percent Black, 5
percent Hispanic, and 3 percent Other or unknown. As of 2022, DOCCS reported that its
workforce was 76.3 percent White, 11.7 percent Black, 6.3 percent Hispanic, and 5.7 percent
Other or unknown. Notably, and as revealed in the Inspector General’s analysis, although
DOCCS’s workforce, in many instances, aligns with the demographics of the regions in which a
correctional facility is located, at most facilities, DOCCS’s workforce does not reflect the racial
composition of the incarcerated population at those facilities.
Racial Disparities in the Discipline of Incarcerated Individuals Increased Since 2018
Despite DOCCS’s efforts to gather and present data on the discipline of incarcerated
individuals and implement remedial actions if needed, the analysis conducted by the Inspector
General revealed that since 2018, racial disparities have increased, with particularly significant
increases occurring in 2020.
In 2017, non-White incarcerated individuals were over 20 percent more likely than White
incarcerated individuals to be issued a Misbehavior Report and, on average, were issued
approximately 30 percent more Misbehavior Reports than White incarcerated individuals. By
2020, non-White incarcerated individuals were over 34 percent more likely than White
incarcerated individuals to be issued a Misbehavior Report. White incarcerated individuals, on
average, were issued approximately 57 percent more Misbehavior Reports than White
incarcerated individuals.
The CDMAC Incarcerated Individual Discipline & Grievance Subcommittee Has Failed to
Address Racial Disparity in the Discipline of Incarcerated Individuals
DOCCS established the CDMAC in 2017 to provide the commissioner with
recommendations to address issues of fairness in all areas of employment practices, policies, and
operations. The CDMAC’s Incarcerated Individual Discipline & Grievance Subcommittee was
47
As of 2022, DOCCS reported that recruits receive 320 hours of “residential” and 160 hours of “field” training at
its Academy. Included in this training is a four-hour submodule on “Diversity and the Workplace,” an “interactive
program focusing on the origin of core beliefs, avoiding cultural destructiveness, communication skills, and the
benefits of workplace diversity.”

27

also established around that time and tasked with reviewing relevant policies to ensure DOCCS’s
practices are fair and equitable and analyzing data to find ways to address trends
disproportionately affecting incarcerated individuals. According to the CDMAC’s charter, such
analyses by the subcommittee may include the tracking and monitoring of Misbehavior Reports
with respect to “the writers, recipients, hearing officers, outcomes, etc.”
The Inspector General’s investigation, however, found that the subcommittee, which
understandably met infrequently during the COVID-19 pandemic due to shifting priorities of its
members, conducted no analyses of observed racial disparities in discipline, and made no
recommendations of possible corrective measures to the superintendent. In particular, the
subcommittee did not pursue analyses based on the tracking and monitoring of Misbehavior
Reports with respect to “the writers, recipients, hearing officers, outcomes, etc.,” as is outlined in
the CDMAC Charter.
And although since 2018, DOCCS’s Research Department has gathered and analyzed
disciplinary data on a quarterly basis, produced comprehensive and detailed Race/Ethnicity
Dashboard Reports, and submitted these reports and a summary of findings (negative and
positive trends) to DOCCS executive management and the CDMAC, this resulted in little follow
through or corrective action by either the CDMAC or executive management. Further analyses
were not conducted in an effort to determine the possible causes of observed trends in racial
disparity in the issuance of Misbehavior Reports. Additional analyses would have revealed more
specific evidence of disparities, enabling the creation of strategies to remedy them. Indeed, the
Inspector General’s analyses of DOCCS data found more than 200 staff members who issued
Misbehavior Reports solely to non-White incarcerated individuals. Such a finding shows the
value of conducting this type of analysis and the need for further review.
The DOCCS executive deputy commissioner advised the Inspector General that
executive management reviews dashboard reports and compares them to Unusual Incident
reports, and these reviews often show that negative trends are closely aligned with particular
events, such as gang altercations. However, the Inspector General was not provided with
documentation of these reviews and thus is unable to confirm any correlation between such
activity and the issuance of infractions, or to confirm the extent or efficacy of such review.
The Inspector General recognizes the inherent difficulty of attempting to determine the
causes of trends in racial disparity due to the numerous possible factors involved. Additionally,
28

the Inspector General recognizes the unprecedented demands and shifting priorities posed by the
COVID-19 pandemic—both on staff and incarcerated individuals—and new responsibilities
placed on DOCCS in the implementation of the NYCLU settlement and HALT. But these
factors do not absolve DOCCS of its duty to uncover and address any racial bias in its
incarcerated individual disciplinary system.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DOCCS
Further Analyze Disciplinary Data and Evaluate Racial Disparities Found at the Facility and
Issuing Employee Levels
The Inspector General recommends that DOCCS analyze its data on the discipline of
incarcerated individuals at the facility and issuing employee levels, as the Inspector General has
done in this review. The Inspector General also recommends that DOCCS expand on its current
analyses of disciplinary data to identify whether racial disparities and identified trends can be
linked to certain employees who issue Misbehavior Reports and/or facilities. Additionally,
DOCCS should develop procedures to further investigate significant disparities for possible
evidence of explicit or implicit bias. In furtherance of this, the Inspector General recommends
that the Incarcerated Individual Discipline & Grievance Subcommittee meet regularly and
strategize ways to further analyze racial Misbehavior Report data at the facility and issuing
employee levels.
Include Data on Tier I Violations in Its Analysis of Racial Disparities
The Inspector General also recommends, as did the NIC, that DOCCS include data on
minor (Tier I) violations, which must be captured pursuant to DOCCS policy, in its analysis of
racial disparities. A more complete picture of discipline at all levels can only benefit analyses.
To that end, DOCCS should implement procedures to ensure its Tier I violation data is complete
and reliable.
Provide Guidance to Facility Review Officers on the Tiering of Violations
Each correctional facility designates review officer(s) to evaluate Misbehavior Reports
generated at that facility and refer them to the “lowest appropriate” tier level for action. As
many violations can be categorized as either Tier I, II, or III, the review officer’s determination,
according to DOCCS directive, may be based on such subjective factors as “the particular
circumstances involved,” the incarcerated individual’s “behavior pattern,” and “the atmosphere
of the facility.” For example, “Interference with an Employee or Other Person” can be charged
29

as either a Tier I, II, or III offense, carrying sentences that run the gamut from verbal admonition
(as a Tier I) to segregated confinement (as a Tier III). Currently, DOCCS provides no objective
guidance to facility review officers on making tier determinations. To reduce this discretion
afforded to review officers, DOCCS should provide guidance outlining the factors to consider
and weight to be given to these factors.
Clarify Vague Policy Statements About When Disciplinary Action Should be Taken to Lessen
the Opportunity for Personal Interpretation.
The Inspector General agrees with the NIC’s recommendation that DOCCS clarify vague
policy statements about when disciplinary action should be taken to lessen the opportunity for
personal interpretation. DOCCS rejected this recommendation and advised that its hearing
officers should have a certain degree of discretion and their decisions should be clearly
articulated. However, this response does not speak to the NIC’s recommendation.
Make Specialized Training on Implicit Bias an Annual Requirement for All Staff
Although DOCCS conducted Commissioner’s Initiative trainings on implicit bias for a
three-year period to address racial disparity issues, DOCCS should consider making such
specialized training an annual requirement for all staff. Given the significance of this topic, the
providing of annual training will demonstrate the agency’s commitment to this issue.
Increase the Use of Statewide Commissioner’s Hearing Officers for Tier III Hearings
The Inspector General also recommends that DOCCS consider increasing its use of
statewide commissioner’s hearing officers, who are arguably less likely to be influenced by
facility leadership. The commissioner’s hearing officers’ separation from facility leadership
helps to mitigate actual or perceived unfairness in the hearing process.
Periodically Publish Anonymized Disciplinary Data and Results of Relevant Analyses
In the interest of enhanced transparency and to facilitate additional analysis, the Inspector
General recommends that DOCCS periodically publish anonymized disciplinary data and results
of relevant analyses.
The Inspector General will continue to inspect DOCCS facilities, audit and monitor
DOCCS’s implementation of the reforms discussed in this report, provide training to DOCCS,
and work toward the elimination of both explicit and implicit bias in DOCCS’s disciplinary
system for incarcerated individuals.
30

DOCCS’S RESPONSE TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S INVESTIGATION AND
REPORT
The Department of Corrections and Community Supervision would like to thank the Office of the
State Inspector General (OSIG) for the detailed investigation and analysis of numerous complex
data sets that comprise its findings. As outlined in the report, DOCCS recognizes that racial
disparities exist in every layer of the criminal justice system; including the decision to initially
arrest, the filing of indictments, representation by the defense bar, control of plea bargaining by
district attorneys, the conduct of trials, sentencing by the judiciary, supervision by probation
departments, incarceration at the state and local levels, and re-entry to and supervision within the
community. Through continued analysis, education, and training, DOCCS will continue to
emphasize our vision of a fair and just criminal justice system during the period of incarceration
and when an individual is released to the community under supervision. DOCCS welcomes
continued engagement in a continuous process of improving its services and methods for ensuring
that environment.
Response to Recommendations
1. Further analyze disciplinary data and evaluate racial disparities found at the facility
and issuing employee levels.
DOCCS Response: The complexity of attempting to link causal factors of racial disparity in
the criminal justice system is well documented in the social science literature. As the report
states, it is difficult to determine with confidence whether or not any particular racial disparity
is the result of implicit or explicit bias or is the result of structural, legal, social, or
environmental factors. DOCCS’s Commissioner’s Diversity Management Advisory Council
(CDMAC) subcommittee on Individual Discipline & Grievance and the Office of Program
Planning, Research, and Evaluation will identify ways to conduct such analysis with the
available data.
DOCCS anticipates that unusual incident report data, governed by DOCCS Directive #4004,
Unusual Incident Report will be one factor that will be used in this analysis. DOCCS Directive
#4004 defines the types of incidents or behaviors that constitute an “unusual incident.” The
use of this policy limits subjectivity and the abuse of discretion in the reporting of unusual
incidents by staff or management at a particular facility. The examination unusual incident
report data will allow DOCCS to compare defined serious behavior with that of disciplinary
infractions. In particular, this will allow compassion to Tier 3 disciplinary infractions , which
are the only level that can result in disciplinary confinement.
For example, the unusual incident report data contained in the dashboard on page 26 of the
report revealed disparities amongst groups of incarcerated individuals being reported for
assaults on staff or other incarcerated individuals in Quarter 2 of 2020. This disparity
indicates that behavior is likely a factor generating some of the disparity in the issuance of
Tier 3 misbehavior reports. Additional study is required to examine rates of disciplinary
charges relative to separate and previously substantiated incidents of misbehavior.

31

2. Include data on Tier 1 violations in its analysis of racial disparities.
DOCCS Response: While aggregate data about Tier 1 violations may exist, New York State
Code, Rules and Regulations, Title 7, § 252.5 - Dispositions at Violation Hearing, part (d),
requires that all misbehavior reports for violation hearings are to be destroyed 14 days after
the hearing is held. This means that dispositions for violation hearings cannot be made part of
any incarcerated individual’s institutional records.
Without the information about individual Tier 1 violations, any substantive analysis of the
remaining aggregate data may be of limited use in providing an analysis of general trends and
is not currently maintained in a way that would allow for that analysis. However, we will
explore ways this can potentially be included in our analysis.
3. Provide Guidance to Facility Review Officers on the Tiering of Violations.
DOCCS Response: DOCCS will issue a Review Officers Manual to all review and hearing
officers. The manual will, among other things, provide guidance on the tiering of misbehavior
reports. It will also reiterate DOCCS policy to eliminate, mitigate, and respond to racial
disparities and ensure that any incarcerated individual subject to discipline in a DOCCS
administrative processes has that hearing conducted fairly. The manual will also to ensure that
decisions are not influenced by stereotypes or bias based on race, color, ethnicity, or national
origin.
4. Clarify vague policy statements about when disciplinary action should be taken to
lessen the opportunity for personal interpretation.
DOCCS Response: As outlined on page 15 of the report, DOCCS has already made efforts
to clarify its policies about disciplinary action by consolidating its relevant directives and
memoranda addressing the disciplinary process into a single directive and revising Directive
4932. These revisions provide direction to staff on what will not be tolerated, established clear
performance expectations, and articulated definitions for each sanction. DOCCS will continue
these efforts by issuing a Review Officers Manual to all review and hearing
officers. Additionally, this manual will be available to all staff to provide clear understanding
of when disciplinary action is appropriate and at what level.
5. Make specialized training on implicit bias an annual requirement for all staff.
DOCCS Response: Over a three-year period (2019-2021), DOCCS launched the
“Commissioner’s Training Initiative.” This initiative included targeted training of all staff on
racial bias and focused on the topics of implicit bias, racial anxiety, and stereotype threats.
DOCCS will consider the development and implementation of additional training on implicit
bias to be provided to all staff on an annual basis.

32

6. Increase the use of statewide Commissioner’s Hearing Officers for Tier III hearings.
DOCCS Response: DOCCS has recently established additional Commissioner’s Hearing
Officer positions and is in the process of filling the positions in various parts of the State. This
hiring initiative faces challenges given the wide geographic scope of DOCCS’s work.
7. Periodically publish anonymized disciplinary data and results of relevant analyses.
DOCCS Response: As part of the recently enacted Humane Alternatives to Long Term
(HALT) segregated confinement, DOCCS publishes anonymized disciplinary data online on a
monthly basis. If additional data sets are identified that may shed light on these trends, we
will publish the analysis and the associated anonymized data.
Conclusion
In order to meet the Department’s mission to improve public safety we strive to ensure that we
operate a fair system in all aspects, from program and work assignments to the disciplinary process.
This includes providing a continuity of appropriate treatment services in safe and secure facilities
where all incarcerated individuals’ needs are addressed, and they are prepared for release. The
discipline process is an important component of DOCCS’s efforts to provide that safe environment
and is one way in which we endeavor to foster an environment that prepares incarcerated
individuals for release. DOCCS is happy to engage in a continuous process of improving its
services and methods for ensuring that environment, including to the discipline process.

33

APPENDIX 1: DETAILS OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S ANALYSIS
Analysis of Incarcerated Population
The DOCCS incarcerated population steadily decreased by a total of over 31 percent
between 2015 and 2020 from approximately 63,328 to 43,220, with the White population
declining the most (35 percent) followed

DO

by Black (31 percent), Hispanic (30

l.ncarcented Population by Race/E thnicity
201 5-2020
0th r

J.O~.

~oc Rt J>Or1td
O.J~.

percent), and Other (24 percent).
During this period, approximately 47
percent of the incarcerated population
was Black, 27 percent was White, 23
percent was Hispanic, and three percent
was categorized as Other. Each
race/ethnicity’s share of the total
incarcerated population was relatively
consistent between 2015 and 2020,
although in 2020, the population of Black incarcerated individuals increased slightly while the
population of White incarcerated individuals decreased slightly.
Incarcerated Population
Race/Ethnicity

2015

2016

2017

Black
White
Hispanic
Other
Not Reported
Total

31,167
16,166
14,057
1,730
208
63,328

30,280
15,999
13,925
1,879
178
62,261

29,602
15,630
13,825
1,877
169
61,103

l l

2018
...
...
I

28,167
14,934
13,120
1,777
183
58,181

++-

I

2019

2020

Overall (*)

% of Total

26,515
13,980
12,409
1,643
156
54,703

21,437
10,563
9,777
1,320
123
43,220

55,325
32,487
26,911
3,613
391
118,727

46.6%
27.4%
22.7%
3.0%
0.3%

l

% Change
(2020 vs 2015)
-31.22%
-34.66%
-30.45%
-23.70%
-40.87%
-31.75%

(*) Overall numbers refer to the number of unique individuals incarcerated at any point between 2015 and 2020. Individuals incarcerated in multiple years are only counted once in these totals.

Race/Ethnicity
Black
White
Hispanic
Other
Not Reported

2015
49.2%
25.5%
22.2%
2.7%
0.3%

I

Percentage of Total Incarcerated Population
2016
2017
2018
2019
48.6%
48.4%
48.4%
48.5%
25.7%
25.6%
25.7%
25.6%
22.4% I 22.6%
22.6% I 22.7%
3.0%
3.1%
3.1%
3.0%
++0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%

I

2020
49.6%
24.4%
22.6%
3.1%
0.3%

I

Overall
46.6%
27.4%
22.7%
3.0%
0.3%

The age of the incarcerated population trended older during the period reviewed. In
2015, 32 percent of the population was under 30, with 68 percent 30 or older. By 2020, over 76
percent of the population was 30 or older. The largest changes occurred in the under-25 and 401

and-older age groups. The non-White incarcerated population was, in general, slightly younger
than the White incarcerated population. Approximately 11.4 percent of the non-White
incarcerated populations were under 25, with 39.2 percent 40 or older. Comparatively, less than
eight percent of the White incarcerated population was under 25, while 42 percent was 40 or
older.

Age Group
Under 25
25 to 29
30 to 39
40 and Older
Totals

Age Group
Under 25
25 to 29
30 to 39
40 and Older
Totals

2015
14%
18%
29%
39%
100%

Percentage of Incarcerated Population (By Year and Age Group)
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
12%
12%
10%
10%
8%
18%
18%
17%
17%
16%
30%
31%
31%
32%
32%
40%
40%
41%
41%
44%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

Overall
10%
18%
32%
40%
100%

Percentage of Incarcerated Population (By Race/Ethnicity and Age Group)
White
Black
Hispanic
Other
Not Reported
Overall
7.6%
11.8%
10.8%
11.2%
8.7%
10.4%
16.7%
18.3%
17.2%
19.2%
18.7%
17.7%
33.5%
30.9%
32.0%
32.4%
34.0%
31.9%
42.2%
39.0%
40.0%
37.2%
38.6%
40.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

The majority of incarcerated individuals served time for convictions of violent offenses
and this majority consistently increased during the period reviewed, based on both the crime type
and crime class of their primary offenses. Overall, roughly 52 percent of incarcerated
individuals served time for statutorily defined violent felony offenses (VFO); 38 percent were
incarcerated for property, drug, and other felonies (PDO); while eight percent were incarcerated
for other coercive/violent offenses (CVO).48 When analyzing each year independently, violent
felony offenders represented an even greater share of the incarcerated population; between 61
and 69 percent. In 2020, the prevalence of individuals incarcerated for VFO crimes increased,
while the share of individuals incarcerated for PDO crimes decreased.

48
DOCCS categorizes incarcerated individuals into one of three groups based on their primary criminal conviction.
See, https://doccs.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2021/08/2020-court-commitments-final.pdf One percent of the
population had no reported primary crime type, as these were incarcerated individuals not included in DOCCS’s
incarcerated population data.

2

Number of Incarcerated Individuals, By Primary Crime Type
Primary Crime Type
VFO
PDO
CVO
Unknown
Totals

2015
38,989
17,937
4,388
2,014
63,328

2016
39,006
18,464
+4,448
+343
62,261

2017
38,011
18,164
4,472
456
61,103

2018
36,749
17,059
4,204
169
58,181

2019
35,124
15,547
3,851
181
54,703

2020
29,758
10,436
2,926
100
43,220

Overall
61,917
45,002
9,521
3,123
119,563

Percentage of Incarcerated Population
2015
61.6%
28.3%
6.9%
3.2%
100.0%

2016
62.6%
29.7%
7.1%
0.6%
100.0%

2017 2018
62.2% 63.2%
29.7% 29.3%
+7.3% +- 7.2%
0.7% 0.3%
100.0% 100.0%

2019
64.2%
28.4%
7.0%
0.3%
100.0%

2020 Overall
68.9% 51.8%
24.1% 37.6%
+6.8% +- 8.0%
0.2% 2.6%
100.0% 100.0%

The non-White incarcerated population was more likely to have been convicted of a VFO
crime than White incarcerated

Rre•kdow·n or lnnrcera ttd Popul1tlon h,• Priman1 Crimt T,:xH~ and Rae
For the Penod 2015-2020

individuals and less likely to have been
convicted of a PDO crime. Indeed, over

6000•.

58 percent of Black incarcerated
individuals, 54 percent of Hispanic, and
52 percent of Other incarcerated
individuals were convicted of VFOs,
compared to only 39 percent of White

1000•.

incarcerated individuals. Conversely,

1000•.

over 47 percent of White incarcerated

no

individuals were convicted of PDO

C\'O
■ Blad.:

■ 1b,1wuc

■ \\lure

PDO

• Othei

■ O\·mitl

crimes compared to less than 34 percent for the non-White incarcerated population.49
The primary crime class50 for approximately 29 percent of incarcerated individuals was a
class D felony, followed by class B felony (25 percent), and class C felony (20 percent). The
annual breakdown by primary crime class was generally consistent, although in 2020, the
percentage of individuals incarcerated for A1 and B felonies increased slightly while the
percentage of individuals incarcerated for D and E felonies saw a slight decrease.
Black and Hispanic individuals were more typically incarcerated for higher-level felonies
while White individuals were more commonly incarcerated for lower-level felonies.
Specifically, Black incarcerated individuals represented a disproportionally high population of
class A1, A3, B, and C felonies and a disproportionately low population for class A2, D, and E

49

Approximately 11 percent of White incarcerated individuals were convicted of CVO crimes. All other groups had
lower rates: Black (6.7 percent), Hispanic (6.6 percent), and Other (8.8 percent).
50
Primary crime class refers to the level of an incarcerated individual’s most serious felony conviction. These
include the following felony crime classes: A1, A2, A3, B, C, D, and E, with “A” crimes as the most serious.

3

felonies. White incarcerated individuals had a disproportionately high population for class D and
E felonies, while Hispanic individuals were disproportionately high for class A1, A2, and B
felonies.51
Racial/Ethnic Disparities in the Primarv Crime Class of Incarcerated Population
Difference Between Share of Population for Crime Class vs. Share ofTotal Incarcerated Population

60.0•.

co.oo.
10.0'!o

JO.O'!o

10.00.-.,

10.0"o

0.0t.

■

(10.0'\)

(lO.O',)

(JO... ,)

~
~

<

I
~
~

<

~
~

<

-

■

,.

a

.,2

I

I

,.

,.

,.

6

6

0

~

w

~

C

/.

~

'"

I I I
~

~

<

~

■

~
d
.,

~

. .

~

<

Rlad,,:

lil
u

\Vhnc

I

~

~

C

I -I
?:

"0
~

'"

?:

!l
~

<

?:

!l
~

<

-

■

~
d
.,...

6., 6
~

c..,

f
C

■

,.
/.

0

lil
...

'"

Hi,-mc

Po~1ll\'c Vailuo Rxe'Edmic-il)' had disp.-op0rtio11111ely high slutrc ofp0pul11.tion for crime cl.us c:omp,3red 10 1h~ir share of1hc 101111 in arcmi.1cd 1>0pub11iou.
N,:gatt\·e Values=- Racc/E1hniciry had dispropon ionatcly low s.hare of population for crime class compared to 1hcir share of the 101al ir.cart<..-ntl<.-d J>Opu ln1iou

52

Approximately 67 percent of the population had been incarcerated less than five years,
while 83 percent of the population had been incarcerated less than 10 years at the time of this
analysis. The length of incarceration across different races/ethnicities was generally consistent,
although Black and Hispanic individuals were more likely to be incarcerated longer than White
and Other individuals.53

51

Individuals whose race/ethnicity was categorized as Other saw no significant disparities concerning primary crime
class.
52
A3 felonies are only reported in the chart for Black incarcerated individuals because they were the only
race/ethnicity with individuals incarcerated for such crimes (a total of three during the period reviewed).
53
Over 17 percent of Black and 14 percent of Hispanic incarcerated individuals were incarcerated more than 10
years, compared to 10 percent of White and Other.

4

Breakdown of lncarccrat

cars Incarcerated

13reakdown of Incarcerated Population by Race/Ethnicitv and Years Incarcerated
60.0%

30 .0%

20 .0%

10.0°0

0 .0%

II I
"'~

in

l

j j

:,;:

L~ss Than I

.,,,
!E

;;;

l I
·"'
:,;:

I toS

-1;

0

IIIII I I
~

in

l

j

i0

:,;:

.,,,

lE
a;

l I
·"'
:,;:

S 10 10

10 1020

5

III
~

"'~
in

I., I

l i
·"'
:,;:

20

o.- ~lore

-1;
0

•...
~

in

■
.I!

!

·"':,;:

■

j

U nknown

■

~

The primary criminal offenses causing incarceration most typically occurred in
populated, urban areas of the State and the incarcerated population was generally representative
of each region’s share of the State population. For example, the primary crime committed by 40
percent of the incarcerated population occurred in New York City, where approximately 43
percent of the State population resides.54 This same pattern existed for other regions of the State,
with the only notable exception being Long Island, which has over 14 percent of the State
population yet only seven percent of crimes leading to incarceration occurred there.
J\C .\R([RAIJ.D POPll \](O\ B\ fOl '""f\ \\Jl[Rf fRl'I \R\ fRl \l f. \\,\, <O\J\UU[D

\'[II \'ORK POPlT.\TIO\ 8\' COi \TI"

Analysis of Incarcerated Population by Facility
During the period reviewed, 54 DOCCS facilities55 were operational at some point. Of
those, 30 were medium security, 17 were maximum security, six were minimum security, and
one was designated as a drug treatment center. Between 2015 and 2020, approximately 56
percent of incarcerated individuals were housed in medium-security facilities, while nearly 32
percent were in maximum-security facilities.56 During this same period, incarcerated
populations at minimum-security facilities decreased, on average, 44 percent, while medium- and
maximum-security facilities saw average population decreases of 40 percent and 27 percent,
respectively. The population at the drug treatment center decreased nearly 58 percent.
The facilities with the largest incarcerated populations were Clinton, Attica, Greene,
Elmira, Gowanda, and Green Haven. All but one of the 54 facilities, Rochester, saw a decrease
54

US Census Bureau: 2020 Decennial Census Data:
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=United%20States&t=Race%20and%20Ethnicity&g=0400000US36,36%2405
00000&tid=DECENNIALPL2020.P2
55
As of this writing, four of these facilities closed between 2019 and 2021, and six closed in 2022, leaving 44 still
operational.
56
Approximately nine percent were at minimum-security facilities while three percent were at the drug treatment
center.

6

in their incarcerated population between 2015 and 2020, including 37 facilities that decreased
more than 25 percent.
The Statewide incarcerated population analyzed at the facility level was categorized as 49
percent Black, 25 percent White, 23 percent Hispanic, and three percent Other.57 When
compared to these Statewide figures,
about half of the facilities had a
disproportionately higher Black
population while the other half had a
disproportionately lower Black
population. For example, 30 percent
of individuals incarcerated at Albion
were Black, which is nearly 19
percent lower than the Statewide
average Black population of 49
percent. Conversely, Southport’s
and Sing Sing’s 59 percent Black
populations were 10 percent higher
than the Statewide average. Of the
54 facilities, 31 had a
disproportionately higher Hispanic
population, including Lincoln, which

Largest Racial/Ethnic Disparities Compared to Statewide Average
Race/Ethnicity
% of Incarcerated Population Statewide Average
Black
29.9%
48.8%
White
8.1%
24.8%
Hispanic
10.8%
23.1%
White
12.5%
24.8%
White
12.5%
24.8%
Black
36.9%
48.8%
White
13.2%
24.8%
White
13.3%
24.8%
Black
37.5%
48.8%
White
13.6%
24.8%

Facility
Albion
Queensboro
Albion
Sing Sing
Ulster
Groveland
Upstate
Southport
Collins
Otisville

Disparity
(18.9%)
(16.7%)
(12.4%)
(12.4%)
(12.3%)
(12.0%)
(11.6%)
(11.6%)
(11.3%)
(11.3%)

Largest Reverse Racial/Ethnic Disparities Compared to Statewide Average
Facility
Race/Ethnicity
% of Incarcerated Population Statewide Average Disparity
Albion
White
56.3%
24.8%
31.5%
Bedford Hills
White
46.1%
24.8%
21.3%
Groveland
White
44.9%
24.8%
20.1%
Rochester
White
44.7%
24.8%
19.9%
Collins
White
41.2%
24.8%
16.4%
Taconic
White
40.4%
24.8%
15.6%
Lincoln
Hispanic
38.1%
23.1%
14.9%
Moriah
White
39.2%
24.8%
14.4%
Gowanda
White
36.9%
24.8%
12.1%
Lakeview
White
36.3%
24.8%
11.5%
Largest Reverse Black and Hispanic Disparities Compared to Statewide Average
Facility
Race/Ethnicity
% of Incarcerated Population Statewide Average Disparity
Lincoln
Hispanic
38.1%
23.1%
14.9%
Southport
Black
59.3%
48.8%
10.4%
Sing Sing
Black
58.5%
48.8%
9.7%
Queensboro
Hispanic
32.6%
23.1%
9.5%
Upstate
Black
58.1%
48.8%
9.3%
Green Haven
Black
57.0%
48.8%
8.2%
Great Meadow
Black
57.0%
48.8%
8.2%
Ulster
Hispanic
31.3%
23.1%
8.2%
Auburn
Black
56.8%
48.8%
8.0%
Attica
Black
56.7%
48.8%
7.8%

had a Hispanic population of 38 percent, nearly 15 percent higher than the Statewide average of
23 percent. Albion had a Hispanic population of 11 percent, over 12 percent lower than the
Statewide average. Thirty-two facilities had a disproportionately lower White population,
including Queensboro, whose White population was nearly 17 percent lower than average.58

57

As described in detail in Appendix 2, the Inspector General separately identified the incarcerated population both
overall and at the facility level. The facility-level incarcerated population accounts for each unique combination of
DIN and facility, whereas the overall population simply accounts for each unique DIN.
58
As noted in the accompanying charts in this paragraph and unless otherwise noted in this report, a racial/ethnic
disparity refers to a situation in which a race/ethnicity is over-represented compared to Statewide averages or when
non-White incarcerated individuals are more likely than White incarcerated individuals to experience a negative
consequence (i.e., be issued a Misbehavior Report). A reverse disparity denotes a race/ethnicity is underrepresented compared to Statewide averages or when non-White incarcerated individuals are less likely than White
incarcerated individuals to experience a negative consequence.

7

Demographics of DOCCS’s Workforce
Overall, approximately 79 percent of staff at DOCCS facilities were reported as White,
with 11 percent Black, 5.5 percent Hispanic, and 1.5 percent Other.59 While staffing at some
facilities mirrored the Statewide numbers, the demographics at many facilities varied
significantly from the overall averages. Staff at many facilities, particularly those located in
upstate New York, were predominately White, with very few Black or Hispanic staff.
Conversely, the majority of staff at some facilities in downstate New York were Black or
Hispanic.
•

At 29 of the 52 facilities reviewed, more than 90 percent of staff were White,
including seven facilities with over 95 percent White staff. This included
Ogdensburg60 (99 percent), Riverview (97 percent), Watertown*, Clinton, Bare
Hill, and Cape Vincent (96 percent), and Upstate (95 percent). At these same 29
facilities, plus one additional facility, less than five percent of staff were Black,
including nine facilities with less than one percent of staff being Black. The nine
facilities were Ogdensburg* (.2 percent); Upstate, Bare Hill, Riverview, and
Cape Vincent (.4 percent); Gouverneur and Franklin (.5 percent); Clinton (.6
percent); and Watertown* (.9 percent). All these facilities are located in the
North Country region of the State in DOCCS’s Watertown* or Clinton Hubs.

•

Conversely, more than 50 percent of staff at five facilities were Black, including
Queensboro (63 percent), Edgecombe (56 percent), Sing Sing (54 percent),
Bedford Hills (53 percent), and Taconic (50 percent). By the same token, each
of these facilities had the lowest representation of White staff, ranging from 15
percent to 21 percent, far lower than the 79 percent Statewide average. Notably,
each of these facilities is located in DOCCS’s New York City Hub, which
geographically includes the largest population of Black residents.

•

Facilities with the largest Hispanic workforce included Sing Sing (22 percent),
Downstate* (20 percent), Edgecombe (18 percent), Taconic (18 percent), Fishkill
(17 percent), and Bedford Hills (16 percent). Twelve facilities located in
DOCCS’s Watertown*, Clinton, Central, Elmira, and Wende Hubs had less than
one percent Hispanic staffing.
The following chart summarizes the racial breakdown of staffing at the 52 facilities

reviewed:

59
The race/ethnicity for three percent of staff Statewide was not reported. By facility, these exceptions ranged from
.42 percent to 6.8 percent.
60
Ogdensburg Correctional Facility was closed in 2022. Facilities closed at the time of this report will hereafter be
designated by an asterisk.

8

RACIAL COMPOSITION OF FACILITY STAFF
REGION
BLACK
HISPANIC
WHITE

FACILITY

HUB

COUNTY

OTHER

NOT REPORTED

TOTAL

Hale Creek

Central

Fulton

Mohawk Valley

4.8%

4.1%

87.0%

0.6%

3.5%

100%

Marcy

Central

Oneida

Mohawk Valley

2.2%

0.7%

92.5%

0.9%

3.7%

100%

Midstate

Central

Oneida

Mohawk Valley

2.7%

1.2%

91.9%

0.7%

3.6%

100%

Mohawk

Central

Oneida

Mohawk Valley

1.7%

0.8%

90.3%

0.4%

6.8%

100%

Adirondack

Clinton

Essex

North Country

1.1%

0.4%

93.1%

1.0%

4.4%

100%

Altona

Clinton

Clinton

North Country

1.8%

1.2%

94.7%

1.5%

0.9%

100%

Bare Hill

Clinton

Franklin

North Country

0.4%

0.4%

96.3%

1.8%

1.1%

100%

Clinton

Clinton

Clinton

North Country

0.6%

0.8%

96.4%

0.4%

1.8%

100%

Franklin

Clinton

Franklin

North Country

0.5%

1.2%

94.7%

1.1%

2.5%

100%

Upstate

Clinton

Franklin

North Country

0.4%

1.0%

95.1%

1.0%

2.5%

100%

Auburn

Elmira

Cayuga

Central

3.3%

1.7%

92.2%

1.3%

1.5%

100%

Cayuga

Elmira

Cayuga

Central

1.9%

1.0%

94.1%

1.0%

2.0%

100%

Elmira

Elmira

Chemung

Souther Tier

2.2%

1.7%

90.2%

0.8%

5.0%

100%

Five Points

Elmira

Seneca

Finger Lakes

3.1%

1.9%

90.6%

0.9%

3.6%

100%

Southport

Elmira

Chemung

Souther Tier

2.3%

0.8%

94.4%

0.3%

2.2%

100%

Willard

Elmira

Seneca

Finger Lakes

1.8%

1.8%

93.4%

0.9%

2.1%

100%

Coxsackie

Great Meadow

Greene

Capital District

6.4%

4.8%

83.2%

2.4%

3.2%

100%

Great Meadow

Great Meadow

Washington

Capital District

3.6%

1.9%

90.6%

0.9%

3.0%

100%

Greene

Great Meadow

Greene

Capital District

8.6%

5.4%

81.2%

1.2%

3.5%

100%

Hudson

Great Meadow

Columbia

Capital District

6.5%

4.4%

84.4%

1.0%

3.7%

100%

Moriah

Great Meadow

Essex

North Country

1.2%

2.2%

92.8%

0.0%

3.7%

100%

Washington

Great Meadow

Washington

Capital District

4.0%

2.3%

90.2%

0.6%

2.8%

100%

Downstate

Green Haven

Dutchess

Hudson Valley

32.2%

20.5%

42.2%

2.6%

2.6%

100%

Fishkill

Green Haven

Dutchess

Hudson Valley

30.9%

17.2%

46.4%

2.3%

3.2%

100%

Green Haven

Green Haven

Dutchess

Hudson Valley

22.8%

14.2%

57.4%

1.3%

4.3%

100%

Shawangunk

Green Haven

Ulster

Hudson Valley

6.6%

9.2%

79.2%

1.0%

4.0%

100%

Wallkill

Green Haven

Ulster

Hudson Valley

7.3%

11.2%

74.6%

1.6%

5.3%

100%

Bedford Hills

NYC

Westchester

Hudson Valley

53.2%

16.2%

19.4%

5.2%

6.0%

100%

Edgecombe

NYC

New York

NYC

56.1%

18.3%

15.5%

5.8%

4.3%

100%

Queensboro

NYC

Queens

NYC

63.2%

12.3%

17.1%

4.8%

2.5%

100%

Sing Sing

NYC

Westchester

Hudson Valley

54.0%

21.7%

17.5%

4.1%

2.7%

100%

Taconic

NYC

Westchester

Hudson Valley

50.5%

18.1%

21.7%

4.0%

5.6%

100%

Eastern

Sullivan

Ulster

Hudson Valley

7.9%

8.3%

80.6%

0.6%

2.6%

100%

Otisville

Sullivan

Orange

Hudson Valley

10.9%

14.2%

69.2%

1.0%

4.7%

100%

Sullivan

Sullivan

Sullivan

Hudson Valley

6.6%

7.9%

80.2%

0.8%

4.4%

100%

Ulster

Sullivan

Ulster

Hudson Valley

10.2%

11.7%

73.3%

1.0%

3.8%

100%

Woodbourne

Sullivan

Sullivan

Hudson Valley

8.7%

6.0%

79.0%

1.5%

4.9%

100%

Cape Vincent

Watertown

Jefferson

North Country

0.4%

0.3%

96.1%

1.1%

2.1%

100%

Gouverneur

Watertown

St. Lawrence

North Country

0.5%

0.7%

94.2%

1.3%

3.4%

100%

Ogdensburg

Watertown

St. Lawrence

North Country

0.2%

0.1%

99.1%

0.2%

0.5%

100%

Riverview

Watertown

St. Lawrence

North Country

0.4%

0.7%

97.0%

1.0%

1.0%

100%

Watertown

Watertown

Jefferson

North Country

0.9%

1.9%

96.4%

0.4%

0.4%

100%

Albion

Wende

Orleans

Finger Lakes

13.0%

3.0%

79.2%

0.8%

4.1%

100%

Attica

Wende

Wyoming

Finger Lakes

1.6%

1.4%

94.2%

0.6%

2.3%

100%

Collins

Wende

Erie

Western

1.9%

1.4%

94.0%

1.4%

1.3%

100%

Gowanda

Wende

Erie

Western

2.0%

1.1%

93.8%

1.6%

1.5%

100%

Groveland

Wende

Livingston

Finger Lakes

3.5%

1.0%

92.6%

1.0%

2.0%

100%

Lakeview

Wende

Chautauqua

Western

2.7%

3.5%

91.9%

1.0%

0.8%

100%

Orleans

Wende

Orleans

Finger Lakes

6.8%

2.2%

86.4%

0.8%

3.8%

100%

Rochester

Wende

Monroe

Finger Lakes

21.8%

6.7%

64.2%

2.6%

4.7%

100%

Wende

Wende

Erie

Western

20.4%

3.7%

73.0%

0.9%

1.9%

100%

Wyoming

Wende

Wyoming

Finger Lakes

4.2%

1.8%

90.5%

0.7%

2.9%

10.9%

5.5%

79.2%

1.4%

3.0%

OVERALL

I

100%

I

0%

Facility Staff vs. Community Population61
Statewide, DOCCS’s facility staff, when compared to the community population in the
DOCCS’s Hub where the facilities were located, was overly White and under-representative of
other races and ethnicities. Specifically, 79 percent of DOCCS workforce was White, despite the
Statewide resident population being only 55 percent White. Conversely, only five percent of the
DOCCS’s workforce was Hispanic, and one percent was Other, despite those groups
61

Community population or resident population refers to the population in 2020, as report by the US Census
Bureau, in the geographic area (county, region, DOCCS Hub) where a facility is located.

9

representing 20 percent and 11 percent of the State’s resident population, respectively. The
divide with the Black population was relatively insignificant by comparison (11 percent of
DOCCS’s workforce was Black vs. 14 percent of the State population).
This general pattern existed in all DOCCS Hubs with the exception of Green Haven and
New York City. In those Hubs, the Black workforce significantly over-represented community
populations while the White workforce was significantly under-represented. The following
charts summarize this analysis by Hub:
COMPARISON OF RACIAL DEMOGRAPHICS OF DOCCS WORKFORCE TO COMMUNITY POPULATIONS (BY DOCCS HUB)

HUB

Central
Clinton
Elmira
Great Meadow
Green Haven
NYC
Sullivan
Watertown
Wende
OVERALL

DOCCS
Staff
2%

BLACK
Community
DOCCS
DISPARITY
Population
Staff
3%
(0.9%)
1%

HISPANIC
Community
DOCCS
DISPARITY
Population
Staff
5%
(4.0%)
91%

WHITE
OTHER
Community
DOCCS Community
DISPARITY
DISPARITY
Population
Staff Population
89%
2.2%
1%
3%
(2.1%)

1%

3%

(2.3%)

1%

3%

(2.1%)

96%

91%

4.7%

1%

3%

(2.3%)

3%

6%

(3.3%)

2%

5%

(3.1%)

92%

85%

6.9%

1%

4%

(3.0%)

6%

7%

(1.0%)

4%

6%

(2.1%)

86%

82%

3.7%

1%

5%

(3.8%)

24%

9%

15.4%

16%

17%

(1.9%)

55%

69%

(14.3%)

2%

5%

(2.8%)

55%

17%

37.2%

18%

26%

(7.7%)

18%

42%

(23.9%)

5%

14%

(9.7%)

9%

9%

0.1%

9%

18%

(8.7%)

77%

69%

8.3%

1%

5%

(3.7%)

0%

3%

(2.5%)

1%

4%

(3.3%)

96%

91%

5.5%

1%

2%

(1.3%)

7%

11%

(4.0%)

2%

7%

(4.5%)

88%

78%

9.5%

1%

4%

(3.3%)

11%

14%

(3.1%)

5%

20%

(14.5%)

79%

55%

24.2%

1%

11%

(9.6%)

RACIAL DISPARITIES BET"1EEN DOCCS WORKFORCE AND
C O ~ T Y POPULATIONS
By DOCCS Hub
50.00/4

40.00/4

30.00/4

20.00/4

10.00/4

0.00/4

( 1 0.0o/o)

(20.0%)

(30.0o/o)

Centra l

Clin.ton

Ebnira

Great
:Meadow

• BLACK

Green
Haven

HISPANIC

10

NYC
• V.'HITE

Sullivan
OTHER

'\Vaterto'\.¥11

VVende

OVERALL

Of the 52 facilities reviewed, the Black workforce at 43 facilities was representative of
the community population in the DOCCS Hubs where the facilities were located.62 Exceptions
to this rule primarily existed for facilities in DOCCS’s New York City and Green Haven Hubs63:
•

The community population in the New York City Hub was approximately 17
percent Black. However, 63 percent of the workforce at Queensboro was Black,
while 56 percent of the workforce at Edgecombe was Black. Other facilities in
that Hub also had significant over-representation of Black staff including Sing
Sing (54 percent), Bedford Hills (53 percent), and Taconic (51 percent).

•

In the Green Haven Hub, located in the Mid-Hudson region, only nine percent of
the community population is Black. However, at Downstate*, Fishkill, and
Green Haven, the workforce was between 23 and 32 percent Black.
The Hispanic workforce at 49 of the 52 facilities was representative of the community

population in the DOCCS Hubs where the facilities were located. The three exceptions (Sullivan
and Woodbourne, both in the Sullivan Hub, and Queensboro, in the New York City Hub) all had
relatively low Hispanic staffing levels. For example, the community population in the New York
City Hub was 26 percent Hispanic, yet Queensboro’s workforce was only 12 percent Hispanic.
The White workforce at 32 of the 52 facilities was representative of the community
population in the DOCCS Hubs where the facilities were located. Of the remaining 20 facilities,
nine facilities had an under-representation of White staff while 11 had an over-representation.
The nine facilities with an under-representation are the same as those described above with an
over-representation of Black staff. The 11 facilities with an over-representation of White staff
were in the Wende, Sullivan, Great Meadow, and Green Haven Hubs. For example, Attica,
located in the Wende Hub, had a 94 percent White workforce, while the community population
in that Hub was only 78 percent White. A chart summarizing this analysis for each facility is
attached as Appendix 15.
Facility Staff vs. Incarcerated Population
The race/ethnicity of facility staff was often significantly different than the race/ethnicity
of the incarcerated individuals in the facilities. At almost every facility, the majority of the
incarcerated population was Black or Hispanic, yet the workforce was overwhelmingly White.
62
As previously stated, the Inspector General subjectively considered a facility’s staff to be representative of their
community population if the difference between a race/ethnicity’s percentage of a facility’s staff and that
race/ethnicity’s share of the community population was 10 percent or less.
63
In the Wende Hub, 11 percent of the community population is Black, yet Rochester’s* workforce was 22 percent
Black.

11

Overall, DOCCS’s workforce was 79 percent White, while the incarcerated population was only
25 percent White. Conversely, 11 percent of DOCCS’s workforce was Black, much lower than
the facilities’ incarcerated population, which was 49 percent Black. Similarly, five percent of
DOCCS workforce was Hispanic compared to 23 percent of the incarcerated population.64
This racial disparity existed in all DOCCS Hubs other than New York City, where the
DOCCS workforce generally mirrored the incarcerated population. In the New York City Hub,
the DOCCS workforce was 55 percent Black, 18 percent Hispanic, 18 percent White, and five
percent Other, whereas the incarcerated population was 52 percent Black, 24 percent Hispanic,
21 percent White, and three percent Other. By comparison, in the Elmira Hub, the incarcerated
population was 54 percent Black, 21 percent Hispanic, 22 percent White, and three percent
Other. Yet the workforce was only three percent Black, two percent Hispanic, and 92 percent
White. The following charts summarize the racial disparities for each DOCCS Hub.
Comparison of Racial Demographics by DOCCS Hub
DOCCS Workforce vs. Incarcerated Population
120.0%

100.0%

80.0%

60.0%

40.0%

20.0%

0.0%

Central

Clinton

Elmira
■

64

Great Meadow Green Haven

DOCCS Workforce

■

NYC

Sullivan

Wate1town

Wende

Incarcerated Population

About one and half percent of the workforce was Other compared to three percent of the incarcerated population.

12

HUB

Central
Clinton
Elmira
Great Meadow
Green Haven
NYC
Sullivan
Watertown
Wende
OVERALL

DOCCS
Staff
2%

COMPARISON OF RACIAL DEMOGRAPHICS OF DOCCS WORKFORCE TO INCARCERATED POPULATION (BY DOCCS HUB)
BLACK
HISPANIC
WHITE
OTHER
Incarcerated
DOCCS Incarcerated
DOCCS Incarcerated
DOCCS Incarcerated
DISPARITY
DISPARITY
DISPARITY
DISPARITY
Population
Staff
Population
Staff
Population
Staff
Population
42%
(39.8% )
1%
22%
(20.5% )
91%
33%
58.2%
1%
3%
(2.5%)

1%

51%

(50.0% )

1%

25%

(24.0% )

96%

21%

74.3%

1%

3%

(2.1%)

3%

54%

(51.7% )

2%

21%

(19.4% )

92%

22%

70.5%

1%

3%

(1.7%)

6%

51%

(45.0% )

4%

24%

(20.2% )

86%

22%

64.3%

1%

3%

(2.0%)

24%

53%

(28.4% )

16%

26%

(10.0% )

55%

18%

36.4%

2%

3%

(1.2%)

55%

52%

2.8%

18%

24%

(5.5%)

18%

21%

(2.8%)

5%

3%

1.8%

9%

52%

(42.9% )

9%

29%

(19.7% )

77%

16%

61.4%

1%

3%

(2.1%)

0%

48%

(48.0% )

1%

26%

(25.2% )

96%

22%

74.1%

1%

3%

(2.3%)

7%
11%

46%
49%

(39.0% )
(38.5% )

2%
5%

18%
23%

(16.3% )
(17.4% )

88%
79%

33%
25%

54.9%
54.7%

1%
1%

3%
3%

(1.7%)
(1.6%)

For the vast majority of DOCCS facilities, significant racial disparities existed between
the DOCCS workforce and incarcerated population. The most significant disparities existed for
Black populations. Specifically, at 43 of the 52 facilities reviewed, the Black workforce was
more than 25 percent lower than the Black incarcerated population, including ten facilities where
the difference was more than 50 percent, as reflected below.
Facilities with the Largest Disparities Between Black DO
Black Incarcerated Population

S Workforce and

Upstate

ou1hp011
Anica

Great Meadow
Five Poi111s
Cliutou
Elmim

Bare Hill

bawangunk
0 00°0

10 .00°0
■ DOCCS

70 00°0

20 .00°0

Workforce

□ Di sparity

■ lucarceratedPopl~atiou

Upstate had the largest disparity between the Black DOCCS workforce and Black
incarcerated population. Approximately 58 percent of the incarcerated population at Upstate was
Black compared to less than one percent of Upstate’s workforce. Next in line was Southport*
13

(DOCCS workforce 2 percent, incarcerated population 59 percent), Attica (DOCCS workforce
under 2 percent, incarcerated population 57 percent), and Auburn (DOCCS workforce 3 percent,
incarcerated population 57 percent).
Facilities with the largest disparities in Black populations typically had a workforce that
was disproportionately White. For example, Upstate, which had the greatest underrepresentation of Black employees in its workforce, was 95 percent White, despite its
incarcerated population only being 13 percent White. As reflected below, other facilities with
the greatest over-representation of White employees in its workforce included Southport*
(DOCCS workforce 94 percent, incarcerated population 14 percent), Ogdensburg* (DOCCS
workforce 94 percent, incarcerated population 20 percent), and Clinton (DOCCS workforce 96
percent, incarcerated population 20 percent).
Facilities with the Largest Disparities Between White Workforce and White
Incarcerated Po ulation

Ups1a1c

outhpon

Ogdc11Sburg

Clinton

20 00°0
■

DO

10

oo•o

S Workforce

60 oo•o

D Disp.ari1y

■

so 00°.

100.00",

120.000o

h1carcerni.d Poptdaiion

When examining the Hispanic populations, like with the Black population, the majority
of facilities’ Hispanic workforce was under-representative of their Hispanic incarcerated
population, although the disparities were less significant than those for the Black population.
The largest disparity existed for Ogdensburg*, whose incarcerated population was 27 percent
Hispanic compared to a workforce that was 0.1 percent Hispanic. The following chart portrays
the facilities with a Hispanic workforce that is most under-represented compared to their
Hispanic incarcerated population.
14

Facilities with the Largest D isparities Between Hispanic Workforce and
Bi aoic Incarcerated Po uJatioo

Ogdensburg

Cape Vincent

Woodbournc

Wnttno,,11

-

Riverview

O.OO~o

1s.oo,•

5.0000
■D

Workforce

□ Di

parity

zo.oo~.
■ Incarcerated

2s .oo••

30 .00• o

Pop1tlatio11

A complete summary of each facilities’ demographics is attached as Appendix 16.
Disparities in the Issuance of Misbehavior Reports
Between 2015 and 2020, DOCCS issued 385,057 Misbehavior Reports. The number of
Misbehavior Reports issued each year was relatively consistent before significantly decreasing in
2020. However, when coupled with the decreasing incarcerated population, there was a steady
annual increase in the average number of Misbehavior Reports issued to each incarcerated
individual.
Number of Misbehavior Reports Issued, by Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
White
Other
Not Reported
Total

2015
36,298
15,212
13,621
1,683
183
66,997

2016
35,039
14,877
13,834
1,876
103
65,729

2017
35,973
15,715
14,224
1,955
138
68,005

2018
35,759
15,389
13,928
2,130
123
67,329

15

2019
35,032
15,092
12,977
1,959
122
65,182

2020
29,022
12,273
8,883
1,522
115
51,815

Total
207,123
88,558
77,467
11,125
784
385,057

% of Total
53.8%
23.0%
20.1%
2.9%
0.2%
100.0%

Black incarcerated individuals were issued a higher share of Misbehavior Reports when
compared to their share of the total incarcerated population. Specifically, Black incarcerated
individuals were issued nearly 54

Racial/Ethnic Disparities Between Incarcerated Population and Misbehavior Reports Issued

percent of all Misbehavior

Race/Ethnicity

Reports while representing under
47 percent of the incarcerated
population. Conversely, White
incarcerated individuals’ share of

Black
Hispanic
White
Other
Not Reported

% of Overall Incarcerated % of Misbehavior Reports
Population
Issued
46.6%
53.8%
22.7%
23.0%
27.4%
20.1%
3.0%
2.9%
0.3%
0.2%

Disparity
7.19%
0.33%
-7.24%
-0.15%
-0.13%

Misbehavior Reports issued was over seven percent lower than their share of the total
incarcerated population. For other race/ethnic groups, this comparison resulted in only minimal
disparity.
The Inspector General found the non-White incarcerated population was more likely to
have been issued a Misbehavior Report than White incarcerated individuals. Overall, Black
incarcerated individuals were nearly 22 percent more likely to have been issued a Misbehavior
Report than White incarcerated individuals and eight percent more likely than Hispanic
incarcerated individuals. Hispanic incarcerated individuals were over 12 percent more likely to
have been issued a Misbehavior Report than White incarcerated individuals.65 As reflected
below, these disparities in Misbehavior Reports were generally consistent each year until 2020,
when disparities between Black and Hispanic compared to White incarcerated individuals saw a
significant increase.

65

Other incarcerated individuals who were not reported as Black, Hispanic, or White were over nine percent more
likely to have been issued a Misbehavior Report than White incarcerated individuals.

16

Racial /E thnic Di spariti es in th e Likelihood of Being Iss ued a Mi sbehav ior Report

mm

40°'.

Js,~
30~ii

1111
tl
,";

BIii

25,.ii

~

,:,:
~

w.
~

l'.! o.-ool

20o/o

~
u
,:,:

l11s ci l
0

j20.3°o l

1111

Q

l,ol

mm

j1s3••i

IS o/o

...

Iu..i••I

~

IlOA ai
0

lO~o

ls.5°ol

s,,

19.40.,

1s.,ool

OC!- o

2015

-

Black vs Whi te

20 16

-

20 17

Hi panic vs White

2018

Other vs Wh ite

20 19

2020

on-White vs White

Racial/Ethnic Disparities in the Likelihood of Being Issued a Misbehavior Report
Comparison
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
OVERALL
Black vs White
26.5%
24.1%
23.3%
24.5%
25.1%
37.8%
21.7%
Black vs Hispanic
8.1%
8.1%
6.9%
6.6%
8.5%
7.1%
8.2%
Black vs Other
16.6%
12.4%
12.7%
8.0%
15.1%
21.5%
11.3%
Hispanic vs White
17.0%
14.8%
15.3%
16.8%
15.3%
28.7%
12.5%
Hispanic vs Other
7.9%
4.0%
5.4%
1.4%
6.1%
13.5%
2.9%
Other vs White
8.5%
10.4%
9.4%
15.3%
8.7%
13.4%
9.4%
Non-White vs White 23.0%
20.7%
20.3%
21.8%
21.5%
34.1%
18.3%
Values represent the greater percentage likelihood that an individual in the first group was issued a Misbehavior Report
compared to an individual in the second group

When analyzing the average number of Misbehavior Reports issued, the Inspector
General again found disparities between the non-White and White incarcerated populations.
Overall, Black incarcerated individuals were issued the largest average number of Misbehavior
Reports, approximately 3.7 per individual, which was nearly 57 percent higher than White
incarcerated individuals. Hispanic and Other incarcerated individuals were issued 38 and 29
percent more Misbehavior Reports, on average, than White incarcerated individuals,
respectively. Between 2015 and 2020, the average number of Misbehavior Reports issued to
Black, Hispanic, and Other non-White incarcerated individuals increased at a rate more than 16
times greater than for White individuals. By comparison, the average number of Misbehavior
17

Reports issued to White incarcerated individuals actually decreased slightly in 2020 compared to
2015.66
Average Misbehavior Reports Issued per Incarcerated Individual, by Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Black
Hispanic
White
Other
Not Reported
Total

1.16
1.08
0.84
0.97
0.88
1.06

1.16
1.07
0.86
1.00
0.58
1.06

1.22
1.14
0.91
1.04
0.82
1.11

1.27
1.17
0.93
1.20
0.67
1.16

1.32
1.22
0.93
1.19
0.78
1.19

1.35
1.26
0.84
1.15
0.93
1.20

Overall (*) % Change (2020 vs 2015)
3.74
3.29
2.38
3.08
2.01
3.24

16.25%
16.00%
-0.19%
18.52%
6.27%
13.32%

(*) For overall rates, the denominator used was the number of unique individuals incarcerated at any point between 2015 and 2020. Individuals
incarcerated in multiple years were only counted once for this calculation.

The disparities in the average number of Misbehavior Reports issued to the non-White
incarcerated population vs. the White incarcerated population decreased slightly between 2015
and 2017. Specifically, in 2015, Black, Hispanic, and Other incarcerated individuals were
issued, on average, 38, 28, and 15 percent more Misbehavior Reports, respectively, than White
incarcerated individuals. In 2017, these disparities lowered to 33.5 percent for Black individuals,
25 percent for Hispanic individuals, and 14.5 percent for Other incarcerated individuals.
However, in 2018, 2019, and particularly in 2020, these disparities increased significantly: the
disparity between Black and White incarcerated individuals increased to 61 percent, the disparity
between Hispanic and White incarcerated individuals increased to 49 percent, while the disparity
between Other and White incarcerated individuals increased to 37 percent. For each of these
comparisons, the disparities were the largest for younger incarcerated individuals.

66

Prior to 2020, the average number of Misbehavior Reports issued to White incarcerated individuals steadily
climbed and were more in line with other races/ethnicities. Between 2015 and 2019, the average number of
Misbehavior Reports increased as follows: Black – 13.4 percent, Hispanic – 12.4 percent, White – 10.2 percent,
Other – 22.6 percent.

18

Racial /E thnic Disparitie s in Averai: e Mi s behavior Reports Issued
0%

mm
60%

50 %

~
~

~

VI

40~.

mm

mm

Q
l.ll
(.:)

~

z

30%

tl

:i::
t..

"'

mm

20%

l•~-~¾I
10%

0%,
201 5

-

Black vs Wltite

-

2019

201 7

2016

Hi panic vs White

-

Oilier vs. White

2020

ou-Wlti te v . White

See Appendix 3 and Appendix 4 for more details on this disparity analysis.67
Non-White incarcerated individuals were also generally more likely to be repeatedly
issued Misbehavior Reports and less likely to have never been issued a Misbehavior Report
when compared to White incarcerated individuals. For example, Black and Hispanic
incarcerated individuals were 88 percent and 61 percent more likely than White incarcerated
individuals, respectively, to have been issued more than 10 Misbehavior Reports and 27 percent
and 16 percent less likely, respectively, to have never been issued a Misbehavior Report.
Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Misbehavior Report Recidivism Based on Quantity of Misbehavior Reports Issued
Comparison
Black vs White
Black vs Hispanic
Hispanic vs White
Black vs Other
Other vs White

None
(27.5%)
(13.8%)
(15.9%)
(17.7%)
(11.9%)

1
(5.8%)
2.4%
(8.1%)
5.4%
(10.7%)

2 to 5
19.4%
7.7%
10.9%
6.3%
12.3%

6 to 10
51.1%
11.6%
35.4%
15.1%
31.4%

More than 10
88.8%
17.4%
60.9%
37.5%
37.3%

Above values represent the greater or (lesser) percentage likelihood that, overall between 2015 to 2020, an individual in the first race/ethnic group was issued the specified
quantity of Misbehavior Reports compared to an individual in the second race/ethnic group

67

For each comparison, a positive disparity means individuals in the first group were issued that percentage more
Misbehavior Reports, on average, than the second group. Conversely, a negative disparity means individuals in the
first group were issued that percentage fewer Misbehavior Reports, on average, than the second group.

19

The Inspector General further analyzed racial/ethnic disparities in the issuance of
Misbehavior Reports using various other factors.
Severity of Underlying Offenses
DOCCS reports the severity of offenses two different ways. First, DOCCS assigns a
severity score to each underlying rule violation and totals these individual scores to calculate an
overall Incident Severity Score for each Misbehavior Report.68 Secondly, DOCCS categorizes
each Misbehavior Report into one of eight Incident Categories69, based on the most severe
violation. For both classifications, values are not assigned if either a hearing was not held, or the
charges were dismissed.70
Black incarcerated individuals had the highest average Incident Severity Score, which
was approximately four percent higher
than Hispanic and 22 percent higher than
White incarcerated individuals, who had
the lowest average Incident Severity
Scores. The average Incident Severity
Scores for all groups generally increased
each year, with the overall Incident
Severity Scores in 2020 being
approximately 12 percent higher than in

!OJI.I

2016
■ Bbd,

■ llhp:uu,:.

■ \\lull'

• OOn

2015.
Non-White incarcerated individuals were typically more likely than White incarcerated
individuals to have been issued a Misbehavior Report for the same Incident Category. For
example, Black incarcerated individuals were 185 percent more likely than White incarcerated
individuals to have been issued a Misbehavior Report categorized as “Assaultive.” Similarly,
Hispanic and Other non-White incarcerated individuals were 158 percent and 98 percent more
likely than White incarcerated individuals, respectively, to have been issued a Misbehavior
Report for an “Assaultive” offense. These disparities were the largest in 2017 and 2018 before
68

Each violation has a pre-determined severity score based on which rule was violated. The scores range from one
to seven with seven being the most severe.
69
Ranked from most severe to least severe, the categories are Penal Law (1), Escape (2), Assaultive (3), Violent (4),
Drugs/Alcohol (5), Potentially Violent (6), Life/Safety (7), and Non-Violent (8).
70
Of the 385,057 Misbehavior Reports, all charges were dismissed for 18,420, with the remaining 366,637
Misbehavior Reports resulting in at least one guilty charge.

20

generally declining in 2019 and 2020. For “Potentially Violent” offenses, Black and Hispanic
incarcerated individuals were 72 percent and 45 percent, respectively, more likely to have been
issued a Misbehavior Report than White incarcerated individuals. Overall, Black and Hispanic
incarcerated individuals were more likely than White incarcerated individuals to have been
issued a Misbehavior Report for seven of the eight incident categories. The only exceptions
were Black incarcerated individuals being about three percent less likely than White incarcerated
individuals to have been issued a Misbehavior Report for “Drugs/Alcohol” offenses, while
Hispanic incarcerated individuals were nearly 14 percent less likely than White incarcerated
individuals to have been issued a Misbehavior Report for “Penal Law” offenses.71 See Appendix
5 for further details on this review.
Primary Crime Leading to Conviction
The Inspector General also examined the primary crime for which recipients of
Misbehavior Reports were originally

Pen:enh1ge of ;\fobeh•vlor Reports h,uetl
r\ggregntetl by Primary Crime Type Cuu,iag lae11rcertttioa

convicted. The vast majority of
Misbehavior Reports were issued to

80.0'.
..0.00'.

those convicted of violent felony

60.a-.

offenses (VFOs) and this correlation

~-0--•

generally increased between 2015 and

40.()lt.

2020. In 2020, nearly three-quarters

30.0-.

of Misbehavior Reports were issued to

~-<>-•

those convicted of VFOs, with

100-,

. ,.

...

6.1•,

approximately 20 percent and six

o.o-.

t41:?'9

.z,.~.

. ,..

--.!!::

:?01:'lo

:?016

-

percent issued to those convicted of

..,.

e

-....

"

. ...

\ rO

.

-

~-.

. ,::.----

·Joa.

61.1• •

14.~

•

u •••

.... .,.. ----....

""

0.-1 ...

0-1•11

~p

~II

1019

\ "O

PDO

L'ttkno,\-11

:OJ••

-

OJ-.
=:010

property, drug, and other felony offenses (PDOs) and coercive/violent offenses (CVOs),
respectively.
When Misbehavior Reports issued to individuals within each of these three crime types
were individually analyzed by race/ethnicity, Black and Hispanic incarcerated individuals were
consistently found to have a disproportionately higher likelihood of being issued a Misbehavior
Report when compared to their share of the incarcerated population, although such disparities
71

A total of only 28 Misbehavior Reports were issued for “Penal Law” offenses, including five to Hispanic
incarcerated individuals and seven to White incarcerated individuals. As such, disparity analyses of such
Misbehavior Reports are not statistically significant.

21

were relatively small. For example, while 53 percent of all individuals incarcerated for a VFO
crime were Black, over 58 percent of all individuals convicted of a VFO crime that were issued a
Misbehavior Report were Black. Conversely, White incarcerated individuals had a lower
likelihood of being issued Misbehavior Reports for all three crime types when compared to their
incarcerated population, and such disparities were more significantly favoring the White
population.
Disparities in Misbehavior Reports Issued vs. Primarv Crime Tvpe
:2000.
1~00.

IOO'e

'.'i

o-.

00'.
(5 O',)

I
I

I-

(100',)

(15

I

I

I

■

\\'bne

Otha

O'.)

(100',)
(21 O',)

(30 O'e)

Block

\\'hue

Hispanic

Otha

Black

Hispanic

\'FO

Race/Ethnicity Primary Crime Type

Wlutc

Otha

Block

llispantc

PDO

C\'O

Share of Misbehavior
Reports for Crime Type

Share of Incarcerated
Population for Crime Type

% Disparity
(Misbehavior Reports vs. Population)

Black
Black
Black
Black
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
White
White
White

VFO
CVO
PDO
Unknown
VFO
CVO
PDO
Unknown
VFO
CVO
PDO

58.2%
44.7%
43.8%
52.4%
23.4%
21.9%
22.1%
23.4%
15.3%
29.5%
31.0%

52.4%
39.5%
40.0%
49.7%
23.7%
18.8%
22.1%
22.1%
20.6%
38.1%
34.6%

11.1%
13.3%
9.7%
5.4%
(1.1%)
16.4%
0.0%
5.8%
(25.6%)
(22.4%)
(10.3%)

White
Other
Other
Other
Other

Unknown
VFO
CVO
PDO
Unknown

20.8%
2.8%
3.6%
2.9%
3.0%

24.6%
3.1%
3.4%
3.0%
3.1%

(15.6%)
(7.5%)
5.7%
(3.2%)
(3.5%)

Overall, Black individuals incarcerated for a VFO crime were nearly 17 percent more
likely to have been issued a Misbehavior Report than White individuals incarcerated for a VFO
crime. Among individuals incarcerated for a CVO crime, Black and Hispanic individuals were
22

22 percent and 19 percent more likely than White incarcerated individuals to have been issued a
Misbehavior Report, respectively. Analyzed annually, the racial/ethnic disparities based on
primary crime type were more significant. For example, Black incarcerated individuals
convicted of a VFO crime were between 29 and 46 percent more likely to have been issued a
Misbehavior Report than White incarcerated individuals convicted of a VFO crime. Disparities
between Black and White incarcerated individuals were similar for individuals convicted of
CVO crimes (between 21 and 56 percent).
Racial/Ethnic Disparities in the Likelihood of Being Issued a Misbehavior Report, By Primary Crime Type
Comparison

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Overall

Black VFO vs White VFO
29.5%
29.3%
31.2%
32.0%
29.0%
45.9%
16.8%
Black CVO vs White CVO
36.4%
21.9%
25.4%
33.3%
41.4%
56.0%
22.3%
Black PDO vs White PDO
10.9%
9.0%
4.8%
5.0%
8.0%
13.8%
13.9%
Black VFO vs Hispanic VFO
9.4%
8.3%
6.2%
5.7%
8.3%
6.9%
5.6%
Black CVO vs Hispanic CVO
(2.7%)
1.0%
(1.2%)
4.9%
3.5%
6.4%
3.1%
Black PDO vs Hispanic PDO
5.8%
6.9%
8.6%
7.1%
7.9%
5.5%
10.6%
Hispanic VFO vs White VFO
18.4%
19.4%
23.6%
24.9%
19.1%
36.4%
10.6%
Hispanic CVO vs White CVO
40.2%
20.7%
26.9%
27.1%
36.6%
46.6%
18.7%
Hispanic PDO vs White PDO
4.9%
1.9%
(3.5%)
(1.9%)
0.2%
7.9%
3.0%
Other VFO vs White VFO
8.7%
14.5%
16.5%
20.8%
7.8%
18.5%
7.9%
Other CVO vs White CVO
10.0%
11.6%
4.5%
13.6%
26.1%
28.0%
7.1%
Other PDO vs White PDO
4.7%
0.1%
(3.9%)
4.3%
5.0%
(3.6%)
1.8%
Values represent the greater or (lesser) percentage likelihood that an individual in the first race/ethnic group was issued a Misbehavior Report compared to
an individual in the second race/ethnic group

Length of Time Individuals Incarcerated
The Inspector General next considered the length of time individuals were incarcerated at
the time they were issued Misbehavior
:! .. (1000

Reports. Individuals who were
incarcerated between one and five years,
by far, were issued the most Misbehavior
Reports, nearly 57 percent of all reports.
The next largest group, issued 16 percent
of all reports, were those incarcerated 5 to
10 years when they were issued a

:oo_ooo

t

°' ,. o_ooo

i
:,

]

100000

§
z

<o.000

Misbehavior Report. Individuals
t~na.i11

incarcerated longer than 10 years

~Pf"

1u.,.,
•'UlU•cYni ► lu,;ah.Cf

,101C>
1ai.-,::o
ZOl"f'\1....-e
r('J\\htulk~ I ucda\h,.twJa&\l"-"fR.q>«I

progressively were issued a smaller number of Misbehavior Reports.
While the length of incarceration strongly correlated to the likelihood of being issued a
Misbehavior Report, it’s effect, if any, on racial/ethnic disparities in the issuance of Misbehavior
23

Reports was less evident. The majority (between 55 percent and 64 percent) of each
race/ethnicity’s incarcerated population were incarcerated between one to five years when they
were issued a Misbehavior Report. When comparing this Misbehavior Report data to the total
population of individuals incarcerated between one to five years, each race/ethnicity was issued a
disproportionately higher share of Misbehavior Reports, but the associated disparities were
generally consistent across race/ethnicities. As reflected below, this same pattern held across
other incarceration lengths for recipients of Misbehavior Reports.
Racial/Ethnic Dis11arities in Misbeha\'ior Reports Issued ,s. Time Incarcerated

600',

...

- 11.
I

00',

(60.CJll•l

tlOOO-•l

~

a;

• "
• ~
:t
i

~0

..J
..J

;:i

~

~

a;

~

i

~"

• "

:t

,Tow I

110 ~

j
0

...
~

g

1.
2i

"

!"'

~

•

:t

!

..J
..J

;;i
~

4
2i

i"'

•
:t

"

~

0
~

TO 10

10 10:?0

~

..J
..J

;:i

g

~

2i

~

i

•

"

~

~

:t

~

!'.:
0

20 or Mort

Po,111v \':alu = Group~ 1h:u Wtrt h sutth Dl ~pro1>0rtlonattly lllgbtr hart' or ~11 btha,lor Rtpo11 Compart<l 10 Thtlr hart, or Popubflon
Ntg_ath•t Valuts = Groups 1ba1 Wtre lssutd a Dlsproponlon:111tl~• Low hart of l\llsbtbavlor Rtpons Compaml 10 Thtlr hart of Popula1lon

Age of Incarcerated Population
Over 70 percent of the incarcerated population during the period reviewed was 30 or
older, including 40 percent being 40 or above. While the population of all age groups declined
annually, the trend from 2015 to 2020 was towards an older population with those aged under 25
declining over 60 percent and those aged 25 to 29 declining 39 percent, compared to a decrease
of approximately 24 percent for ages 30 and above.
The age group that saw the largest percentage of Misbehavior Reports was 30 to 39,
which were issued approximately 30 percent of all Misbehavior Reports. This was nearly
24

identical to this age group’s share of the total incarcerated population. Disparities existed for
other age groups where younger incarcerated individuals were more likely and those 40 and
older were less likely to have been issued Misbehavior Reports. Specifically, incarcerated
individuals under 25 were issued 23 percent of all Misbehavior Reports despite representing only
10 percent of the total population. Those 40 and older were issued 23 percent of all Misbehavior
Reports despite representing over 40 percent of the total population.
This same pattern applied to all races/ethnicities, however, the disparities in the younger
population being issued Misbehavior Reports were most significant for the Black incarcerated
population. For example, Black individuals under 25 represented six percent of the incarcerated
population but were issued 13 percent of all Misbehavior Reports, a difference of approximately
seven percent. Hispanic and White incarcerated individuals under 25 also were issued a
disproportionately higher share of Misbehavior Reports, yet their differences were only 2.6 and
0.8 percent, respectively. See Appendix 6 for a summary of this analysis.
Across all age groups, non-White incarcerated individuals were once again more likely
than White incarcerated individuals to have been issued a Misbehavior Report. The largest
disparities generally existed for the younger incarcerated population. For example, in the under
25 age group, Black, Hispanic, and Other incarcerated individuals were approximately 25
percent, 18 percent, and 14 percent more likely than White incarcerated individuals, respectively,
to have been issued a Misbehavior Report. Relatively small annual fluctuations were common
with these age-based disparities. However, in 2020, racial disparities across multiple age groups
saw a significant increase. In 2020, all non-White incarcerated individuals under 25 were over
30 percent more likely than White incarcerated individuals to have been issued a Misbehavior
Report, while Black incarcerated individuals 40 and older were 36 percent more likely than
White incarcerated individuals to have been issued a Misbehavior Report, with the latter
representing a near doubling of the prior year’s disparity. The following chart summarizes the
Inspector General’s analysis of racial/ethnic disparities in the issuance of Misbehavior Reports
by age group.

25

Racial/Ethnic Disparities in the Likelihood of Being Issued a Misbehavior Report, by Age Group
Comparison

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Overall

Black vs White / Under 25
Black vs White / 25 to 29
Black vs White / 30 to 39
Black vs White / 40 and Older
Black vs Hispanic / Under 25
Black vs Hispanic / 25 to 29
Black vs Hispanic / 30 to 39
Black vs Hispanic / 40 and Older
Hispanic vs White / Under 25
Hispanic vs White / 25 to 29
Hispanic vs White / 30 to 39
Hispanic vs White / 40 and Older
Other vs White / Under 25
Other vs White / 25 to 29
Other vs White / 30 to 39
Other vs White / 40 and Older

29.7%
25.3%
18.6%
17.7%
7.6%
11.9%
8.3%
0.4%
20.5%
12.0%
9.5%
17.3%
14.5%
7.6%
(4.7%)
6.4%

21.1%
27.0%
17.0%
17.8%
7.6%
9.9%
10.3%
1.0%
12.6%
15.5%
6.0%
16.7%
8.8%
15.2%
(1.7%)
4.7%

29.0%
23.8%
14.0%
16.9%
2.2%
11.6%
7.9%
1.0%
26.3%
11.0%
5.7%
15.7%
13.9%
7.7%
2.6%
0.3%

27.3%
23.9%
15.7%
20.8%
11.1%
8.4%
9.0%
(2.6%)
14.6%
14.4%
6.1%
24.0%
6.1%
16.0%
14.1%
4.0%

22.8%
28.3%
18.2%
18.4%
9.8%
11.8%
8.5%
2.9%
11.9%
14.7%
8.9%
15.0%
9.0%
14.5%
1.0%
(1.1%)

37.3%
29.9%
27.1%
36.0%
5.2%
6.1%
9.4%
3.7%
30.4%
22.4%
16.2%
31.1%
30.8%
10.7%
5.4%
2.0%

25.3%
23.7%
18.8%
16.0%
6.3%
9.8%
9.3%
3.5%
17.8%
12.6%
8.6%
12.1%
13.9%
11.4%
4.9%
2.5%

Above values represent the greater or (lesser) percentage likelihood that an individual in the first group was issued
a Misbehavior Report compared to an individual in the second group

Misbehavior Reports Issued by Facility
Nearly 97 percent of all Misbehavior Reports were issued at DOCCS’s 47 medium and
maximum-security facilities. The individual facilities with the largest number of Misbehavior
Reports issued were Clinton,
Gowanda*, Great Meadow,
Auburn, and Midstate, while
Rochester*, Lincoln*, Moriah*,
Edgecombe, and Hudson issued

Annual Percentage of Misbehavior Reports
Security Level

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Total

Medium
Maximum
Minimum
DTC

58.4% 55.0% 53.5% 51.9% 51.4% 49.6% 53.5%
37.9% 41.5% 43.4% 45.2% 45.9% 48.1% 43.5%
2.5% 2.3% 2.3% 2.1% 1.5% 1.2% 2.0%
1.2% 1.2% 0.9% 0.7% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0%

% Change
(2020 vs. 2015)
(15.0%)
26.9%
(51.2%)
(10.9%)

the fewest. The annual number of Misbehavior Reports issued by each facility trended down,
with 41 of the 54 facilities issuing fewer Misbehavior Reports in 2020 than 2015. Maximumsecurity facilities issued an increasing share of all Misbehavior Reports, while the portion issued
by other facility types generally remained neutral or decreased. (See Appendix 7.)
In the period reviewed, 13 facilities issued an increasingly larger number of Misbehavior
Reports despite seeing their incarcerated population decrease. For example, Southport’s*
incarcerated population decreased 41 percent between 2015 and 2020 but Southport* issued over
20 percent more Misbehavior Reports. This equated to a doubling of the average number of
Misbehavior Reports issued per incarcerated individual. Similarly, Gouverneur’s incarcerated
population decreased over 34 percent, yet 23 percent more Misbehavior Reports were issued at
this facility. (See Appendix 8.)

26

Maximum-security facilities issued the highest average number of Misbehavior Reports
to each incarcerated individual. Between 2015 and 2020, minimum-security facilities were the
only facility type that saw a
decrease in the average number of

Security Level

Misbehavior Reports issued. The

DTC
Maximum
Medium
Minimum

facilities that issued the highest
average number of Misbehavior

Trends by Facility Type, 2020 vs 2015
Change in Incarcerated Change in Misbehavior
Population
Reports Issued
-57.92%
-31.07%
-26.87%
-1.88%
-40.53%
-34.27%
-44.20%
-62.22%

Difference
26.86%
24.99%
6.26%
-18.02%

Reports were Sullivan, Sing Sing, Clinton, Shawangunk, and Great Meadow, while Moriah*,
Rochester*, Lincoln*, Hale Creek, and Ulster had the lowest average. Thirty-two facilities
issued more Misbehavior Reports on average in 2020 than in 2015, while 22 issued less. (See
Appendix 9.)
Between 2015 and 2020, approximately 57 percent of incarcerated individuals across all
facility types were issued a Misbehavior Report.72 Approximately 62 percent of individuals
incarcerated at maximum-security facilities were issued a Misbehavior Report, while 30 percent
of individuals incarcerated at minimum-security facilities were issued a Misbehavior Report.73
The facilities most likely to issue Misbehavior Reports were Auburn, Clinton, Great Meadow,
Shawangunk, and Sullivan, with each issuing Misbehavior Reports to over 70 percent of their
incarcerated population. Conversely, Moriah*, Rochester*, Lincoln*, and Hale Creek were the
least likely to issue Misbehavior Reports, with each issuing Misbehavior Reports to less than 25
percent of their incarcerated population. Overall, incarcerated individuals were progressively
more likely to have been issued Misbehavior Reports each year, although this increasing
likelihood was relatively small. (See Appendix 10.)
The Inspector General once again found White incarcerated individuals were generally
less likely to have been issued a Misbehavior Report than non-White incarcerated individuals.
For example, at minimum-security facilities, Black, Hispanic, and Other incarcerated individuals
were 67, 44, and 45 percent more likely, respectively, than White incarcerated individuals to
have been issued a Misbehavior Report. Similar, although smaller, disparities existed at

72

This is based on analyzing data at a facility-level, where the population separately accounts for each unique
combination of DIN and facility. When simply analyzing data by each unique incarcerated individual, and not
factoring in where they were incarcerated, approximately 63 percent of incarcerated individuals were issued a
Misbehavior Report.
73
59 percent of individuals incarcerated at medium-security facilities or DOCCS’s drug treatment center were
issued Misbehavior Reports.

27

maximum and medium-security facilities, while at DOCCS’s drug treatment center, these
disparities were generally insignificant and at times reflected the White incarcerated population
being more likely to have been issued a Misbehavior Report.
Racial/Ethnic Disparities In The Likelihood Of Being Issued a Misbehavior Report
By Facility Security Level
Security Level

Comparison

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Overall

Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Minimum
Medium
Medium
DTC
Medium
Maximum
Medium
DTC
DTC
DTC

Black vs White
Other vs White
Hispanic vs White
Black vs White
Hispanic vs White
Other vs White
Black vs Hispanic
Black vs White
Black vs Hispanic
Other vs White
Hispanic vs White
Black vs Hispanic
Other vs White
Black vs Hispanic
Black vs White
Hispanic vs White

81.0%
83.7%
56.4%
29.3%
21.3%
8.5%
15.7%
14.6%
8.5%
2.4%
5.7%
6.6%
3.0%
(0.1%)
(17.6%)
(17.5%)

58.5%
(10.3%)
46.1%
31.6%
23.7%
23.2%
8.5%
11.2%
8.7%
26.0%
2.3%
6.3%
2.3%
6.5%
5.4%
(1.0%)

51.1%
47.9%
35.2%
27.0%
19.6%
11.5%
11.8%
11.6%
7.1%
3.3%
4.2%
6.2%
7.0%
(0.5%)
0.4%
0.9%

67.4%
76.9%
37.5%
28.4%
24.6%
21.8%
21.8%
10.5%
7.9%
16.2%
2.4%
3.0%
5.5%
(2.1%)
(3.2%)
(1.2%)

68.0%
52.8%
47.8%
31.8%
21.4%
15.1%
13.7%
8.5%
6.1%
2.3%
2.2%
8.5%
(0.8%)
2.1%
7.4%
5.2%

92.7%
(32.1%)
50.5%
45.9%
42.4%
24.1%
28.0%
19.7%
7.6%
(4.0%)
11.2%
2.5%
6.1%
1.8%
(5.8%)
(7.5%)

67.1%
45.5%
44.4%
41.0%
35.1%
28.9%
15.8%
13.4%
7.7%
6.6%
5.2%
4.4%
3.2%
0.8%
(2.8%)
(3.5%)

Values represent the greater or (lesser) percentage likelihood that an individual in the first race/ethnic group was issued a Misbehavior Report
compared to an individual in the second race/ethnic group

Racial/ethnic disparities in issuing Misbehavior Reports were, in some instances, even
more significant when analyzing data for specific DOCCS facilities. For example, at Elmira,
Hispanic and Black incarcerated individuals were more than twice as likely as White
incarcerated individuals to have been issued a Misbehavior Report. At Downstate*, Black and
Hispanic incarcerated individuals were 90 and 78 percent more likely, respectively, and Other
incarcerated individuals were 83 percent more likely than White incarcerated individuals to have
been issued a Misbehavior Report.
There were some exceptions to this general rule where White incarcerated individuals
were more likely than other groups to have been issued a Misbehavior Report. However, such
exceptions were typically insignificant and usually did not apply to comparisons of White
incarcerated individuals against Black or Hispanic incarcerated individuals. For example,
individuals categorized as Other incarcerated at Rochester* were 46 percent less likely than
White incarcerated individuals to have been issued a Misbehavior Report, while at Adirondack,
Hispanic incarcerated individuals were 14 percent less likely than White incarcerated individuals
to have been issued a Misbehavior Report. Below are the top 20 racial/ethnic disparities and
reverse racial/ethnic disparities identified by the Inspector General. (Complete results, broken
down by year, are attached as Appendix 11.)
28

Largest Facility-Level Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Issuing
Misbehavior Reports (*)

Largest Facility-Level Reverse Racial/Ethnic Disparities in
Issuing Misbehavior Reports (*)

Comparison

Facility

% Disparity

Comparison

Facility

% Disparity

Hispanic vs White
Black vs White
Black vs White
Other vs White
Black vs White
Hispanic vs White
Black vs White
Other vs White
Black vs White
Black vs White
Other vs White
Other vs White
Other vs White
Black vs White
Black vs Hispanic
Black vs White
Black vs Hispanic
Other vs White
Hispanic vs White
Hispanic vs White

Elmira
Elmira
Downstate
Downstate
Moriah
Downstate
Lakeview
Lincoln
Hudson
Lincoln
Hudson
Lakeview
Elmira
Bedford Hills
Lincoln
Rochester
Moriah
Coxsackie
Bedford Hills
Hudson

116%
100%
90%
83%
79%
78%
67%
66%
57%
53%
53%
53%
49%
49%
48%
47%
44%
39%
38%
37%

Other vs White
Other vs White
Other vs White
Other vs White
Hispanic vs White
Other vs White
Other vs White
Other vs White
Other vs White
Black vs Hispanic
Other vs White
Hispanic vs White
Black vs Hispanic
Other vs White
Other vs White
Black vs Hispanic
Other vs White
Black vs Hispanic
Black vs Hispanic
Hispanic vs White

Rochester
Otisville
Sullivan
Shawangunk
Adirondack
Albion
Orleans
Cape Vincent
Gowanda
Elmira
Cayuga
Hale Creek
Groveland
Fishkill
Queensboro
Wallkill
Riverview
Collins
Midstate
Watertown

(46.0%)
(16.6%)
(16.4%)
(16.0%)
(14.2%)
(11.9%)
(11.2%)
(10.9%)
(7.2%)
(7.1%)
(6.8%)
(6.5%)
(6.5%)
(6.4%)
(5.8%)
(5.5%)
(5.5%)
(3.9%)
(3.8%)
(3.6%)

(*) % Disparity represents the greater or (lesser) percentage likelihood that an individual in the first race/ethnic group was Issued a M isbehavior Report compared to an
individual in the second race/ethnic group

The Inspector General ranked DOCCS facilities based on their overall racial/ethnic
disparities in the likelihood of issuing a Misbehavior Report between 2015 and 2020 and
adjusted those rankings to factor in each facility’s share of the incarcerated population and
Misbehavior Reports issued.74 These weighted rankings showed the facilities with the largest
racial/ethnic disparities in issuing Misbehavior Reports were Clinton, Downstate*, Lakeview,
Five Points, and Coxsackie. Clinton had the third highest disparities between Black and White
and Other and White, and the fourth highest disparities between Hispanic and White and Black
and Hispanic incarcerated individuals. Downstate* had the largest disparity between Other and
White, and the second largest disparity between Black and White and Hispanic and White
incarcerated individuals.
The overall ranking for some facilities improved due to their having relatively small
disparities between Black and Hispanic incarcerated individuals. When excluding this
comparison and solely comparing non-White incarcerated populations to White incarcerated
populations, Elmira was most disparate, followed by Downstate*, Clinton, and Attica. Elmira

74
The Inspector General’s ranking was based on its calculation of racial disparities in Misbehavior Reports issued
by each facility between the following groups: Black vs. White, Black vs. Hispanic, Hispanic vs. White, and Other
vs. White. The Inspector General weighted the overall disparities to prevent skewing of rankings for facilities with
smaller populations.

29

had the largest disparities between Black and White and Hispanic and White incarcerated
individuals, and the second largest disparity between Other and White incarcerated individuals.75
Facilities with the largest racial/ethnic disparities in issuing Misbehavior Reports tended to be
higher security. While this variable could contribute to such disparities in some instances, the
security level of facilities had no consistent correlation to racial/ethnic disparities in issuing
Misbehavior Reports. A complete summary of the Inspector General’s ranking of DOCCS
facilities is attached as Appendix 12.
Racial/ethnic disparities in facilities’ issuance of Misbehavior Reports remained
significant, and in many cases increased, when analyzed further by incident category. For
example, Black and Hispanic individuals incarcerated at maximum and medium-security
facilities were between 144 and 183 percent more likely than White incarcerated individuals to
have been issued a Misbehavior Report for an “Assaultive” incident.76 Alarmingly, Black
individuals incarcerated at minimum-security facilities were over eight times as likely to have
been issued a Misbehavior Report for an “Assaultive” incident as White individuals incarcerated
at those facilities.
Largest Overall Racial/Ethnic Disparities in the Likelihood of Being Issued a Misbehavior Report for
a Specific Incident Category, By Facility Security Level
Facility Security Level

Incident Category

Comparison

% Disparity

Minimum
Maximum
Maximum
Medium
Medium
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Minimum
Minimum
Maximum
Minimum
Maximum
Medium
Maximum
Minimum
Maximum
Minimum
Minimum
Maximum

Assaultive
Assaultive
Assaultive
Assaultive
Assaultive
Assaultive
Potentially Violent
Violent
Potentially Violent
Drugs/Alcohol
Violent
Assaultive
Potentially Violent
Assaultive
Non-Violent
Drugs/Alcohol
Escape
Non-Violent
Life/Safety
Life/Safety

Black vs White
Black vs White
Hispanic vs White
Black vs White
Hispanic vs White
Other vs White
Black vs White
Black vs White
Black vs White
Hispanic vs White
Hispanic vs White
Black vs Hispanic
Hispanic vs White
Other vs White
Black vs White
Other vs White
Black vs White
Black vs White
Black vs White
Black vs White

745.4%
182.8%
171.4%
156.3%
143.6%
112.7%
104.8%
96.8%
91.7%
87.5%
86.3%
86.1%
83.5%
79.1%
70.5%
69.7%
67.7%
66.2%
65.8%
64.5%

Above limited to incident categories for which a facility security level issued at least 50 Misbehavior Reports to incarcerated individuals from each
race/ethnicity. % Disparity represents the greater or (lesser) percentage likelihood that an individual in the first race/ethnic group was Issued a
Misbehavior Report compared to an individual in the second race/ethnic group

75

Elmira had the smallest disparity between Black and Hispanic incarcerated individuals.
At DOCCS’s drug treatment center, the disparities still existed but were less significant (e.g., Black individuals
were 41 percent more likely to have been issued a Misbehavior Report).
76

30

These disparities were more noteworthy at specific DOCCS facilities. Many of the
largest disparities again existed for incidents categorized as “Assaultive.” For example, Black
and Hispanic individuals incarcerated at Downstate* were more than five times as likely as
White incarcerated individuals to have been issued a Misbehavior Report for an “Assaultive”
incident. At Elmira, Black incarcerated individuals were 216 percent more likely than White
incarcerated individuals to have been issued a Misbehavior Report for an “Assaultive” incident
and 180 percent more likely for “Potentially Violent” incidents. As discussed above in this
report, an exception to this pattern existed for “Drugs/Alcohol” incidents. At multiple facilities,
Black and Hispanic incarcerated individuals were less likely than White incarcerated individuals
to have been issued a Misbehavior Report for “Drugs/Alcohol” incidents. The below charts
summarize the facilities with the 20 largest and 20 smallest racial/ethnic disparities in the
issuance of Misbehavior Reports for particular incident categories.
Largest Overall Racial/Ethnic Disparities in the Likelihood of Being
Issued a Misbehavior Report, By Facility

Largest Overall Reverse Racial/Ethnic Disparities in the Likelihood of
Being Issued a Misbehavior Report, By Facility

Facility

Incident Category

Comparison

% Disparity

Facility

Incident Category

Comparison

% Disparity

Downstate
Downstate
Gowanda
Ulster
Albion
Bedford Hills
Elmira
Gowanda
Wyoming
Wyoming
Livingston
Groveland
Livingston
Orleans
Five Points
Franklin
Gouverneur
Elmira
Elmira
Hudson

Assaultive
Assaultive
Assaultive
Assaultive
Assaultive
Assaultive
Assaultive
Assaultive
Assaultive
Assaultive
Assaultive
Assaultive
Violent
Assaultive
Assaultive
Assaultive
Assaultive
Life/Safety
Assaultive
Potentially Violent

Hispanic vs White
Black vs White
Black vs White
Black vs White
Black vs White
Black vs White
Hispanic vs White
Hispanic vs White
Hispanic vs White
Black vs White
Black vs White
Other vs White
Other vs White
Black vs White
Black vs White
Black vs White
Hispanic vs White
Hispanic vs White
Black vs White
Black vs White

448%
436%
389%
386%
357%
340%
334%
311%
289%
262%
246%
241%
235%
230%
230%
223%
220%
219%
216%
214%

Eastern
Sullivan
Willard
Watertown
Adirondack
Watertown
Willard
Ogdensburg
Franklin
Willard
Sullivan
Taconic
Livingston
Riverview
Wallkill
Orleans
Hale Creek
Taconic
Bare Hill
Cape Vincent

Drugs/Alcohol
Drugs/Alcohol
Drugs/Alcohol
Drugs/Alcohol
Drugs/Alcohol
Drugs/Alcohol
Life/Safety
Drugs/Alcohol
Drugs/Alcohol
Drugs/Alcohol
Violent
Drugs/Alcohol
Drugs/Alcohol
Drugs/Alcohol
Drugs/Alcohol
Drugs/Alcohol
Drugs/Alcohol
Drugs/Alcohol
Drugs/Alcohol
Drugs/Alcohol

Other vs White
Other vs White
Black vs White
Black vs White
Black vs White
Black vs Hispanic
Black vs White
Black vs White
Black vs White
Hispanic vs White
Other vs White
Black vs White
Black vs White
Black vs White
Black vs Hispanic
Black vs White
Black vs White
Hispanic vs White
Black vs White
Black vs White

(84.3%)
(74.9%)
(67.3%)
(66.4%)
(61.7%)
(59.7%)
(56.6%)
(54.5%)
(53.5%)
(53.4%)
(52.3%)
(52.0%)
(51.8%)
(51.7%)
(50.4%)
(49.3%)
(49.1%)
(48.4%)
(47.9%)
(47.6%)

Above limited to incident categories for which facilities issued at least 50 M isbehavior Reports to incarcerated individuals from one of the compared race/ethnic groups
% disparity represents the greater or (lesser) percentage likelihood that an individual in the first race/ethnic group was Issued a M isbehavior Report compared to an individual in the second race/ethnic

Overall, for nearly 90 percent of DOCCS facilities, Black and Hispanic incarcerated
individuals were at least 50 percent more likely than White incarcerated individuals to have been
issued a Misbehavior Report for an “Assaultive” incident, with these disparities being at least
100 percent for between half and three-quarters of DOCCS facilities. The largest disparities
generally existed for incidents involving violence (Incident Categories of Assaultive, Violent,
Potentially Violent).

31

Percentage of Facilities with Disparities > or = 25 percent

Percentage of Facilities with Disparities > or = 50 percent

Percentage of Facilities with Disparities > or = 100 percent

Incident Category Black vs White Hispanic vs White Other vs White

Incident Category Black vs White Hispanic vs White Other vs White

Incident Category Black vs White Hispanic vs White Other vs White

Drugs/Alcohol
Violent
Potentially Violent
Penal Law
Non-Violent
Escape
Assaultive
Life/Safety

Drugs/Alcohol
Violent
Potentially Violent
Penal Law
Non-Violent
Escape
Assaultive
Life/Safety

Drugs/Alcohol
Violent
Potentially Violent
Penal Law
Non-Violent
Escape
Assaultive
Life/Safety

7%
73%
95%
0%
79%
0%
94%
21%

5%
73%
70%
0%
40%
0%
88%
14%

0%
100%
83%
0%
40%
0%
0%
0%

0%
57%
66%
0%
36%
0%
88%
5%

5%
43%
37%
0%
17%
0%
88%
8%

0%
25%
17%
0%
7%
0%
0%
0%

0%
19%
14%
0%
6%
0%
53%
3%

0%
19%
7%
0%
4%
0%
75%
3%

0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
0%
0%
0%

The Inspector General also identified significant racial/ethnic disparities in the average
number of Misbehavior Reports each facility issued. Specifically, the Inspector General
aggregated the average number of Misbehavior Reports issued by each facility by race/ethnicity
and age group and found, yet again, that non-White incarcerated individuals typically were
issued a disproportionately higher share of Misbehavior Reports when compared to their share of
each facility’s incarcerated population. As with its above-described analysis of the likelihood
that incarcerated individuals were issued a Misbehavior Report, the Inspector General ranked
DOCCS facilities based on their overall racial/ethnic disparities in the average number of
Misbehavior Reports issued to each race/ethnicity between 2015 and 2020 and weighted those
rankings to avoid possible skewed results.77
These weighted rankings showed the facilities with the largest racial/ethnic disparities in
terms of the average number of Misbehavior Reports were Clinton, Downstate*, Coxsackie,
Gowanda*, and Lakeview. As with the above-described rankings, some facilities benefited from
a small disparity between Black and Hispanic incarcerated individuals. When excluding this
comparison from the ranking, the facilities with the largest disparities were Downstate*, Clinton,
Attica, Elmira, and Five Points. Downstate* had the largest disparity between Other and White
incarcerated individuals, and the second largest disparity between Black and White and Hispanic
and White incarcerated individuals. Clinton had the largest disparity between Black and White
incarcerated individuals, while Elmira had the largest disparity between Hispanic and White
incarcerated individuals. A complete summary of the Inspector General’s ranking of DOCCS
facilities based on the average number of Misbehavior Reports is attached as Appendix 13.

77
The Inspector General’s ranking was based on its calculation of racial disparities in the average number of
Misbehavior Reports issued by each facility between the following groups: Black vs. White, Black vs. Hispanic,
Hispanic vs. White, and Other vs. White. The Inspector General weighted the overall disparities to prevent skewing
of rankings for facilities with smaller populations.

32

The Inspector General combined its two racial/ethnic disparity rankings for facilities’
issuance of Misbehavior Reports, likelihood of issuing Misbehavior Reports, and average
number of Misbehavior Reports, and found the facilities that ranked the worst were Downstate*,
Clinton, Elmira, Attica, and Five Points. When compared to White incarcerated individuals,
Downstate* ranked the worst for Black and Other incarcerated individuals, while Elmira ranked
the worst for Hispanic incarcerated individuals. Shawangunk, Fishkill, Rochester*, Willard*,
and Watertown* had the best overall disparity rankings. The data suggests maximum-security
facilities housing more incarcerated individuals may be more prone to racial disparities, although
this does not apply to all facilities. Geography did not seem to implicate facility disparity
rankings.
The above findings reflected that the facility where an individual was incarcerated may
have factored into their likelihood in being issued a Misbehavior Report. The Inspector General
combined these results with other data in an attempt to identify other possible causal
relationships that may have contributed to these disparities. One such analysis examined the
severity78 of the primary crime committed by each facility’s incarcerated population. The
Inspector General analyzed each facility’s incarcerated population by race and primary crime
severity and compared this to the same breakdown of the population that were issued
Misbehavior Reports at each facility.
The findings from this comparison suggest the primary crime committed by recipients of
Misbehavior Reports may not be a consistent causal factor influencing racial/ethnic disparities in
Misbehavior Reports. In some instances, facilities with the largest racial disparities had a higher
population of individuals incarcerated for violent felony offenses (VFO). However, some
facilities with small racial/ethnic disparities also had a high population of individuals
incarcerated for VFOs. There were no trends whereby the population of facilities with the
largest racial disparities consistently had an inordinately higher population of individuals
incarcerated for any particular crime severity. For example, Elmira, which had the largest racial
disparities in the likelihood of issuing Misbehavior Reports, had a population comprised of 65
percent violent felony offenders, seven percent CVO offenders, and 27 percent PDO offenders.
Black and White individuals incarcerated for a VFO crime represented 38 percent and 12 percent

78

In this context, severity refers to the primary crime type reported by DOCCS being either VFO, CVO, or PDO, as
described earlier in this report.

33

of Elmira’s total population, respectively. Conversely, Adirondack, which had some of the
smallest racial disparities for Misbehavior Reports, had a population comprised of 44 percent
VFO, nine percent CVO, and 44 percent PDO79 with Black and White individuals incarcerated
for a VFO crime representing 21 percent and 10 percent of the total population, respectively.
This comparison suggests a possible cause for larger disparities at Elmira is that its incarcerated
population was comprised of a significantly larger share of violent felony offenders than
Adirondack.
However, this pattern did not apply to all facilities, reflecting that the crime for which
individuals were committed did not necessarily lead to increased disparities in the issuance of
Misbehavior Reports. For example, Sing Sing, which had some of the smallest racial disparities,
was comprised of 80 percent VFO, five percent CVO, and 14 percent PDO, with Black and
White individuals incarcerated for a VFO crime representing 48 percent and 10 percent of the
total population, respectively. Sing Sing’s population had a larger share of VFOs than Elmira
yet far smaller racial disparities. The following chart shows that facilities with larger racial
disparities often did have more violent felony offenders while many facilities with smaller racial
disparities had fewer violent felony offenders. However, as with Sing Sing, other facilities like
Lakeview, Downstate*, Shawangunk, and Fishkill, show this pattern was not consistent.
Percentage Of Total Incarcerated Population By Race/Ethnicity And Primary Crime Type
For Facilities with the Largest and Smallest Racial Disparities in Issuing Misbehavior Reports
Hispanic
White
Other
Total Incarcerated Population

Black
Facility
Downstate
Clinton
Elmira
Attica
Five Points
Great Meadow
Lakeview
Coxsackie
Auburn
Washington
Hale Creek
Woodbourne
Queensboro
Eastern
Adirondack
Watertown
Willard
Rochester
Fishkill
Shawangunk

79

Disparity
Ranking (*)
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10

VFO CVO PDO Unknown VFO CVO PDO Unknown VFO CVO PDO Unknown VFO CVO PDO Unknown

VFO

CVO

PDO Unknown

27%
42%
38%
46%
44%
46%
8%
40%
46%
30%

49%
77%
65%
79%
74%
79%
15%
77%
79%
57%

10%
6%
7%
5%
5%
6%
5%
4%
5%
9%

38%
16%
27%
15%
19%
14%
78%
16%
15%
31%

4%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
2%
1%
3%

45
19% 1% 25%
0%
9% 1% 15%
0%
11% 1% 15%
0%
1% 0% 1%
0%
39%
3%
57%
46
35% 2% 8%
1%
24% 1% 4%
0%
14% 2% 4%
0%
2% 0% 1%
0%
76%
6%
17%
47
22% 6% 25%
3%
12% 3% 17%
2%
2% 1% 5%
0%
1% 0% 1%
0%
38%
10%
47%
48
49% 1% 4%
0%
26% 0% 2%
0%
13% 1% 1%
0%
3% 0% 0%
0%
90%
2%
7%
48
21% 3% 19%
1%
11% 2% 10%
1%
10% 4% 13%
0%
2% 0% 2%
0%
44%
9%
44%
50
20% 4% 22%
1%
10% 2% 15%
0%
7% 2% 13%
0%
1% 0% 2%
0%
38%
8%
52%
50
32% 2% 12%
4%
11% 1% 4%
2%
11% 2% 12%
4%
1% 0% 1%
0%
56%
5%
29%
3% 0% 11%
0%
15% 1% 29%
0%
0% 0% 1%
0%
34%
3%
63%
50
15% 1% 23%
0%
53
33% 4% 10%
1%
17% 2% 6%
1%
12% 3% 8%
0%
2% 0% 1%
0%
64%
8%
25%
54
48% 2% 4%
0%
22% 1% 2%
0%
14% 2% 2%
0%
2% 0% 0%
0%
86%
5%
8%
(*) Disparity Ranking from 1 to 54 based on each facility's racial/ethnic disparity in issuing Misbehavior Reports, with a ranking of 1 representing the largest disparity

0%
1%
5%
0%
2%
1%
10%
0%
2%
0%

4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
3%
2%
2%
2%
3%

16%
8%
10%
8%
9%
7%
28%
9%
8%
13%

2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%

13%
19%
13%
16%
18%
19%
3%
20%
18%
15%

2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%

9%
4%
4%
3%
4%
3%
16%
4%
3%
7%

1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%

7%
13%
12%
15%
11%
11%
3%
14%
13%
11%

3%
2%
3%
2%
1%
1%
2%
2%
1%
3%

11%
3%
12%
3%
5%
3%
31%
3%
3%
10%

0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
0%
3%
2%
2%

0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

1%
0%
1%
0%
1%
0%
2%
0%
0%
1%

0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

The primary crime type for the remaining three percent of Adirondack’s population was unknown.

34

Demographics of DOCCS’s Workforce
The Inspector General compared its ranking of each facility’s racial disparity in issuing
Misbehavior Reports to racial disparities identified between DOCCS’s workforce and
incarcerated population at each facility. The Inspector General identified that some facilities
with the greatest racial disparity in their workforce also had some of the most significant racial
disparities in issuing Misbehavior Reports.
Clinton, which had the second largest racial disparities pertaining to Misbehavior
Reports, had the seventh greatest disparity between their Black populations (workforce vs.
incarcerated population) and tenth largest disparity between their Hispanic populations. Six
facilities among the top ten in terms of the largest racial disparities for Misbehavior Reports were
also among the top ten in disparities between their Black workforce and Black incarcerated
population. Similarly, four facilities among the ten facilities with the least racial disparities for
Misbehavior Reports (Queensboro, Rochester*, Fishkill, and Edgecombe) were also among the
facilities with the lowest disparities between their Black workforce and Black incarcerated
population. Additionally, of the 10 facilities with the most diverse workforce with respect to
Black and Hispanic employees, four were among those facilities with the largest Misbehavior
Report disparities while six were among those facilities with the lowest Misbehavior Report
disparities.

35

Comparison of Black/Hispanic Workforce Disparities to Disparities in Misbehavior
Reports
52

Bedford Hills
Taconic
Sing Sing

Edgecombe
Rochester

52

Downstate
Albion
Fishkill

53

Green Haven
Groveland

16

20

0
■ Disparity

30

Rank - Black/Hispanic Workforce

■ Disparity

40

50

60

Rank - Misbehavior Reports

Overall, there was a trend suggesting the more diverse a facility’s workforce was, the
lower their racial disparities in issuing Misbehavior Reports. However, there was no consistent
correlation between these two variables. For example, the facilities with the largest and secondlargest racial disparities in their Black and Hispanic workforce, Upstate and Southport*, had
lower racial disparities for Misbehavior Reports than 27 other facilities. Similarly, Downstate’s*
workforce was more diverse than most other facilities, yet Downstate* still had the largest level
of racial disparities for Misbehavior Reports. The following charts reflects each facility’s
workforce disparity and Misbehavior Report disparity. The first chart is sorted from worst to
best in terms of racial disparities in Misbehavior Reports while the second chart is sorted from
worst to best in terms of the racial disparities in a facility’s workforce. Additional details behind
these charts can be viewed in Appendix 17 and Appendix 18.

36

0

0

g

~

...

0

,,.
0

8

0

~

~

Greene
UISler

~

!!'

g_
='

0

=i

"~~

en·

:?·

'<

[ f
5:)
< =
;,;o·

co
;;~ ~
~

'O

~

g a.

0 :c
iii ' ~-

'E 11

~- g.
;o

37

:»
::,
:,;-

I
~;

<

ff

$
3
0

{

~;o

::

r,

Orleans
Miclslale
Wall.kiU
Gowanda
Lakeview
01isville
Moriah
Queens~·o

Collins
Hudson
Wende
Grovch11d

Green Haven
Albion
Fishkill
Dowus1a1e
RocheSler
Edgecombe
Sing Sing
Taconic
Bedfocd Hills

0

~

0

,,.
0

8

Climon

Clinlon

-; I
,. .,

.,

Downs1a1e

Upstale
Southpon
Ogdensburg
Riverview
Bm-e HiU
Cape Vinceut
Five Poi,us
Grea1 :vleadow
W111enown
Auburn
Gouvaneur
Franklin
Anica
Allena
Adirondllck
Ebuira
Wasbing1ou
Wyoming
\Voodboume
Coxsackie
Eastern
Shawangunk
l\-larcy
Willard
Sullivan
1''1obawk
Cayuga
Hale Creek

0

/")
0

-;
~

~

.,

~,. 'g~

"'0

en ~-

0

0

3

":I

:::!.

~

=
..,
.,;i:,

i

!:!.

'<

::.

c::,

-· S
;,;-

~
;,;;o .,

~
=
=
;,;- :c
Q..

., :::!.;:; ·
=

::

e =
..,
c::,

;;;;·

fl")

(I'

,. -·

e; 0
r,,

::.
n

:c

~

r,
.,,

<

Mohawk

;::;·

~

:i.
,,. -0

Sf

;i:,

.,r,

g

~
c::,

0

~":I
.,
:::!.

:::t.

"'"'

;·

;;;

~

;;;;·

-g
~~

r,

:::!.

"'0

=
0
..,
.,,:,

Greene
Midslale
Bare Hill
Bedfocd Hills
Groveland
Marcy
Gouverneur
Wyoming
Gowma
Franklin
Hudson

Collins

]

.,

Wende

r.'

:::
;-

,.::,:: .,o'

-=e

a.

¥

0

3

":I

Auburn
Wasbing1011

I
~-

er Vl

~-

~
~

- ·

/")

Coxsackie

Ulster
Albion
Up51a1e
Moriah
SouU1pon
Green HRVen
Altona
0 1isville

/")

go /")
~

a,

~-

c:;

,,. .,

I.<:

=i ;o

t;,;·
:;; ":I
C

Ebnira
Anica
Five Poi111s
0
., Grcal Meadow
=i
Lakeview

Cayuga
Taconic
Riverview
Wallkill
Orleans
Sing Sing
Cape Vincent
Ogdensburg
Edgecombe
Sullivan
Hale Creek

!:!.

::.

c::,
t;;'

[';
C

:::!.

~ C'.

~
0

:.=

; c::,

C: 0
"'
/")
g/")

er Vl
~ ~
o 't.,
-·

., r.'

,.::,:: o'
.,
-=.,0 "'r,

- -.,
"'

0

,:,

,.,
!'.

~

"'.,

":I

a-

;:;;·

Woodbonrne

"';·

Qneensbo.-o
Eastern
Adirondack

;;;

Wlllertown
Willard
RochcSler
Fishkill
Shawang1ulk

Disparities in Rule Violations
Each Misbehavior Report is based on an incident in which an incarcerated individual
allegedly violates one or more of approximately 123 DOCCS’s rules.80 Between 2015 and 2020,
the 385,057 Misbehavior Reports issued by DOCCS were comprised of over one million rule
violations.81 The most common reported violations were refusing to obey a direct order (18.5
percent of total), creating a disturbance (9.3 percent), and engaging in or threatening violent
conduct (6.4 percent).
Similar to Misbehavior Reports, when compared to their share of the total incarcerated
population, Black incarcerated

Racial/Ethnic Disparities Between Incarcerated Population and Violations Issued

individuals were issued a

Race/Ethnicity

disproportionately higher share of

Black
Hispanic
White
Other
Not Reported
TOTAL

violations while White incarcerated
individuals were issued a
disproportionately lower share of

Number of
Violations
610,489
248,605
193,695
30,885
2,224
1,085,898

% of Total
Violations
56.2%
22.9%
17.8%
2.8%
0.2%

% of Incarcerated
Population
46.6%
22.7%
27.4%
3.0%
0.3%

Disparity
9.6%
0.2%
(9.5%)
(0.2%)
(0.1%)

violations. These disparities overall were approximately 9.5 percent. A complete breakdown of
rule violations by race/ethnicity and rule is attached as Appendix 14.
For the vast majority of DOCCS rules, non-White incarcerated individuals were more
likely than White incarcerated
individuals to have been issued a
violation, and for many rules, these
disparities were significant. For
example, for nearly eight out of every
nine DOCCS’s rules, the Black
incarcerated population was more

Extent of Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Rule Violations
Disparity Threshold Black vs White Hispanic vs White Other vs White
0%
87.8%
81.4%
83.3%
25%
81.6%
74.4%
61.9%
50%
67.3%
50.0%
36.9%
100%
40.8%
19.8%
11.9%
Above figures represent the percentage of applicable rules with disparities between the compared
races/ethnicities that were greater than the listed disparity thresholds

# of Applicable Rules (*)

98

86

84

(*) The review excluded rules if both compared races/ethnicities had fewer that 50 incarcerated individuals that
reportedly violated the rule

likely than the White incarcerated population to be cited for a violation. Black incarcerated
individuals were at least 50 percent more likely than White incarcerated individuals to have been
issued a violation for 67 percent of rules, and at least twice as likely for over 40 percent of

80

The individual rules are specified in 7 NYCRR 270.2: Standards of [Incarcerated Individual] Behavior – Behavior
Prohibited in All Facilities and the Classification of Each Infraction.
81
For each Misbehavior Report, DOCCS reported up to 10 specific rules that an incarcerated individual violated. In
some instances, DOCCS reported an incarcerated individual violated 11 or more rules but did not report details as to
which rules were violated beyond the first 10 violations. Therefore, these additional violations could not be
quantified or analyzed by the Inspector General.

38

rules.82 Similar although smaller disparities existed between other non-White groups and White
incarcerated individuals.83
The largest disparities existed for assaults by incarcerated individuals on other
incarcerated individuals. Black incarcerated individuals were 447 percent, or more than five
times more likely than White incarcerated individuals to be cited for violating this rule, while
Hispanic and Other incarcerated individuals were 356 percent and 194 percent more likely,
respectively. The next largest disparities existed for engaging in gang activities, involvement in
a demonstration detrimental to facility order, failure to follow family reunion program rules, and
unauthorized assembly. For example, the Black incarcerated population was over five times
more likely to be cited for engaging in gang activities or for involvement in a demonstration
detrimental to facility order. The Hispanic population was over four times more likely to be
cited for engaging in gang activities and 282 percent more likely to be cited for an unauthorized
assembly. The following charts summarize the top racial/ethnic disparities that were found for
rule violations.
Top 10 Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Rule Violations
Overall
Rule No
100.1
105.13
104.12
180.13
100.1
105.13
100.12
105.1
104.1
104.12

Rule Desc

Comparison

Assault On Inmate Black vs White
Gangs
Black vs White
Demonstration
Black vs White
Family Reunion
Black vs White
Assault On Inmate Hispanic vs White
Gangs
Hispanic vs White
Assault On Other
Black vs White
Unauth Assembly Black vs White
Rioting
Black vs White
Demonstration
Hispanic vs White

% of Group 1
with Violation
6.8%
7.0%
3.4%
0.1%
5.7%
5.8%
0.1%
0.7%
0.2%
2.6%

82

% of Group 2
with Violation
1.2%
1.4%
0.7%
0.0%
1.2%
1.4%
0.0%
0.2%
0.1%
0.7%

% Disparity
447%
413%
403%
376%
356%
324%
317%
300%
285%
282%

See Appendix 2, step 13 for more details on what these findings represent and how they were calculated.
For some rules, the incarcerated populations that were cited for violations were small, making it easier statistically
for a disparity to exist. For example, Black incarcerated individuals were 340 percent more likely than White
incarcerated individuals to be cited for failing to provide DNA. However, a total of only 15 Black incarcerated
individuals were cited for this violation, compared to two White incarcerated individuals. To help avoid skewed
results, the Inspector General’s reported findings on disparities in rule violations, unless otherwise noted, were
limited to rules reportedly violated by at least 50 individuals from either race/ethnicity being compared.
83

39

Top 10 Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Rule Violations
Black vs White
Rule No
100.1
105.13
104.12
180.13
100.12
105.1
104.1
124.11
101.2
113.3

Top 10 Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Rule Violations
Hispanic vs White

% of Group 1 % of Group 2
% Disparity
with Violation with Violation
Assault On Inmate
6.81%
1.24%
447%
Gangs
6.96%
1.36%
413%
Demonstration
3.38%
0.67%
403%
Family Reunion
0.15%
0.03%
376%
Assault On Other
0.13%
0.03%
317%
Unauth Assembly
0.71%
0.18%
300%
Rioting
0.24%
0.06%
285%
Food Into Mess
0.09%
0.02%
274%
Lewd Conduct
3.14%
0.85%
270%
Poss Unauth UCC Mat
0.13%
0.04%
221%
Rule Desc

Rule No
100.1
105.13
104.12
105.1
113.1
119.1
101.2
101.22
110.3
100.11

% of Group 1 % of Group 2
% Disparity
with Violation with Violation
Assault On Inmate
5.67%
1.24%
356%
Gangs
5.76%
1.36%
324%
Demonstration
2.56%
0.67%
282%
Unauth Assembly
0.49%
0.18%
177%
Weapon
9.68%
3.90%
148%
False Alarm
0.39%
0.16%
141%
Lewd Conduct
1.99%
0.85%
134%
Stalking
1.37%
0.59%
132%
Unrpt Id Loss
0.24%
0.10%
131%
Assault On Staff
4.03%
1.81%
122%
Rule Desc

Top 10 Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Rule Violations
Other vs White
Rule No
104.12
105.13
100.1
110.21
113.17
101.2
100.11
110.1
119.1
121.13

% of Group 1 % of Group 2
% Disparity
with Violation with Violation
Demonstration
2.08%
0.67%
209%
Gangs
4.15%
1.36%
206%
Assault On Inmate
3.65%
1.24%
194%
Unauthorized Id
0.55%
0.20%
181%
Unauth Jewelry
0.39%
0.16%
138%
Lewd Conduct
1.99%
0.85%
135%
Assault On Staff
3.96%
1.81%
118%
No Id Card
4.10%
1.95%
110%
False Alarm
0.33%
0.16%
108%
Unauth Phone Use
1.38%
0.67%
105%
Rule Desc

In the above charts, % Disparity refers to the greater percentage likelihood that an individual in the first race/ethnic group
being compared was issued a violation compared to an individual in the second race/ethnic group.

There were some exceptions where the non-White population was less likely than the
White population to be cited for a particular rule violation (a reverse disparity), however, these
exceptions were uncommon and generally less significant. These reverse disparities were
greatest for tattooing, possession of unapproved literature, failing to timely return from a
temporary release (abscondence), and failure to follow urinalysis instructions given by DOCCS
staff. For example, Black incarcerated individuals were 69 percent less likely than White
incarcerated individuals to be cited for tattooing, while Hispanic and Other incarcerated
individuals were 39 percent and 34 percent less likely, respectively. Black and Hispanic
incarcerated individuals were both 44 percent less likely than White incarcerated individuals to
be cited for abscondence. The following charts summarize the top racial/ethnic reverse
disparities for rule violations.
40

Top 10 Racial/Ethnic Reverse Disparities in Rule Violations
Overall
Rule No

Rule Desc

Comparison

118.2
113.21
118.2
180.17
108.15
108.15
180.14
118.2
113.18
118.2

Tattooing
Unauth Lit
Tattooing
Unauth Legal
Abscondence
Abscondence
Urinalysis Test
Tattooing
Unauth Tools
Tattooing

Black vs White
Other vs White
Black vs Hispanic
Other vs White
Hispanic vs White
Black vs White
Black vs White
Hispanic vs White
Black vs Hispanic
Other vs White

% of Group 1
with Violation
1.02%
0.08%
1.02%
0.11%
0.09%
0.09%
3.52%
2.05%
0.15%
2.21%

Top 10 Racial/Ethnic Reverse Disparities in Rule Violations
Black vs White
Rule No Rule Desc
118.2
108.15
180.14
113.24
118.23
113.14
101.21
113.18
122.1
180.12

Tattooing
Abscondence
Urinalysis Test
Drug Use
Unreported Ill
Unauth Medic
Phys. Contact
Unauth Tools
Smoking
Facil Packages

% of Group 2
with Violation
3.34%
0.19%
2.05%
0.20%
0.15%
0.15%
5.87%
3.34%
0.24%
3.34%

% Disparity
(69%)
(57%)
(50%)
(46%)
(44%)
(44%)
(40%)
(39%)
(37%)
(34%)

Top 10 Racial/Ethnic Reverse Disparities in Rule Violations
Hispanic vs White

% of Group 1 % of Group 2
% Disparity
with Violation with Violation
1.02%
3.34%
(69%)
0.09%
0.15%
(44%)
3.52%
5.87%
(40%)
9.90%
14.15%
(30%)
3.05%
4.17%
(27%)
2.47%
3.24%
(24%)
0.43%
0.55%
(21%)
0.15%
0.19%
(19%)
10.93%
13.01%
(16%)
0.60%
0.66%
(9%)

Rule No Rule Desc
108.15
118.2
122.1
101.21
103.2
113.14
180.12
180.14
108.14
120.2

Abscondence
Tattooing
Smoking
Phys. Contact
Soliciting
Unauth Medic
Facil Packages
Urinalysis Test
Temp Release
Gambling

% of Group 1 % of Group 2
% Disparity
with Violation with Violation
0.09%
0.15%
(44%)
2.05%
3.34%
(39%)
10.35%
13.01%
(20%)
0.44%
0.55%
(20%)
0.88%
1.05%
(16%)
2.76%
3.24%
(15%)
0.57%
0.66%
(14%)
5.21%
5.87%
(11%)
0.54%
0.59%
(9%)
0.48%
0.51%
(7%)

Top 10 Racial/Ethnic Reverse Disparities in Rule Violations
Other vs White
Rule No
113.21
180.17
118.2
108.15
180.14
113.14
113.24
105.1
103.2
101.21

% of Group 1 % of Group 2
% Disparity
with Violation with Violation
Unauth Lit
0.08%
0.19%
(57%)
Unauth Legal
0.11%
0.20%
(46%)
Tattooing
2.21%
3.34%
(34%)
Abscondence
0.11%
0.15%
(28%)
Urinalysis Test
4.23%
5.87%
(28%)
Unauth Medic
2.71%
3.24%
(16%)
Drug Use
11.96%
14.15%
(16%)
Unauth Assmebly
0.17%
0.18%
(7%)
Soliciting
1.00%
1.05%
(5%)
Phys. Contact
0.53%
0.55%
(4%)
Rule Desc

In the above charts, % Disparity refers to the lesser percentage likelihood that an individual in the first race/ethnic group
being compared was issued a violation compared to an individual in the second race/ethnic group.

Notably, many of the rules that the White incarcerated population was more likely to
violate were less subjective, offering less opportunity for bias. For example, tattooing leaves
41

physical evidence on the incarcerated individual, drug use is based on a failed urinalysis test, and
possession of unapproved literature requires physical evidence. Conversely, many of the rules
that the non-White population was more likely to violate, such as engaging in gang activities,
unauthorized assembly, and assault by an incarcerated individual, were arguably more
subjective, offering more opportunity for bias.
Disparities in Rule Violations by Facility
The Inspector General further examined disparities in rule violations by the DOCCS
facility where the violation reportedly took place and found even larger disparities between nonWhite and White incarcerated populations. Two rules, engaging in gang activities and assaults
by incarcerated individuals on other incarcerated individuals, stood out in terms of racial/ethnic
disparities. Larger disparities also existed for engaging in lewd conduct and various violations
pertaining to telephone use by incarcerated individuals. The largest overall disparity existed at
Great Meadow for engaging in gang activities, where Black incarcerated individuals were over
14 times more likely to be cited than White incarcerated individuals (350 Black individuals, or
8.2 percent of the Black population at Great Meadow, were cited compared to only seven White
individuals, or less than 0.6 percent of the White population). The following are other examples
of some of the most significant disparities:
•

At Washington Correctional Facility, Black and Hispanic incarcerated
individuals were over 10 times more likely than White incarcerated
individuals to be cited for engaging in gang activities (over 12 percent of the
Black and Hispanic individuals incarcerated at Washington were cited
compared to just over one percent of White incarcerated individuals). Black
individuals incarcerated at Washington were more than 11 times more likely
than White incarcerated individuals to be cited for assaults by incarcerated
individuals on other incarcerated individuals.

•

At Wende Correctional Facility, Black incarcerated individuals were over 12
times more likely than White incarcerated individuals to be cited for assaults
by incarcerated individuals on other incarcerated individuals and over nine
times more likely than White incarcerated individuals to be cited for lewd
conduct and engaging in gang activities.

42

The following charts summarize the largest racial/ethnic disparities in rule violations at facilities:
Top 10 Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Rule Violations, by Facility
Overall
Facility

Rule No

Black vs White
Black vs White
Black vs White
Black vs White

% of Group 1 with
Violation
8.19%
2.28%
4.83%
6.77%

% of Group 2
with Violation
0.58%
0.17%
0.39%
0.58%

Gangs

Hispanic vs White

6.19%

0.58%

Rule Desc

Comparison

Great Meadow
Riverview
Wende
Washington

105.13
Gangs
115.1
Search/Frisk
100.1 Assault On Inmate
100.1 Assault On Inmate

Great Meadow

105.13

970%

Washington

105.13

Gangs

Hispanic vs White

12.41%

1.17%

963%

105.13
105.13

Gangs
Gangs

Black vs White
Black vs White

12.32%
1.95%

1.17%
0.19%

956%
949%

Five Points

105.13

Gangs

Black vs White

5.59%

0.55%

910%

Upstate

121.12

Phone Violation

Black vs White

2.05%

0.21%

880%

Top 10 Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Rule Violations, by Facility
Hispanic vs White

% of Group 1 with % of Group 2
% Disparity
Violation
with Violation
Gangs
8.19%
0.58%
1,315%
Search/Frisk
2.28%
0.17%
1,250%
Assault On Inmate
4.83%
0.39%
1,148%
Assault On Inmate
6.77%
0.58%
1,060%

Facility

Rule No

Great Meadow
Riverview
Wende
Washington

105.13
115.1
100.1
100.1

Washington

105.13

Gangs

Gowanda

105.13

Gangs

1.95%

Five Points
Upstate

105.13
Gangs
121.12 Phone Violation

5.59%
2.05%

101.2

3.70%
4.22%

Wyoming

1,315%
1,250%
1,148%
1,060%

Washington
Gowanda

Top 10 Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Rule Violations, by Facility
Black vs White

Wende

% Disparity

Rule Desc

Lewd Conduct

100.1 Assault On Inmate

12.32%

1.17%

Facility

Rule No

Great Meadow 105.13
Washington 105.13
Wyoming
100.1
Five Points 105.13

% of Group 1 with % of Group 2
% Disparity
Violation
with Violation
Gangs
6.19%
0.58%
970%
Gangs
12.41%
1.17%
963%
Assault On Inmate
3.55%
0.44%
705%
Gangs
4.45%
0.55%
703%
Rule Desc

956%

Washington

100.1 Assault On Inmate

4.39%

0.58%

0.19%

949%

Five Points

0.55%
0.21%

910%
880%

Franklin
Great Meadow

0.39%

857%

Elmira

0.44%

855%

Downstate

100.1 Assault On Inmate

5.80%

0.83%

598%

100.1 Assault On Inmate
100.1 Assault On Inmate

3.82%
6.02%

0.57%
0.91%

572%
563%

100.1 Assault On Inmate

7.95%

1.25%

538%

113.1

1.95%

0.33%

486%

Weapon

Top 10 Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Rule Violations, by Facility
Other vs White
% of Group 1 with % of Group 2
% Disparity
Violation
with Violation
4.58%
1.61%
184%
8.89%
3.25%
174%
6.91%
2.58%
168%
10.88%
4.08%
167%

Facility

Rule No

Rule Desc

Gowanda
Downstate
Downstate
Marcy

102.1
107.11
107.1
113.1

Threats
Harassment
Interference
Weapon

Downstate

109.1

Out Of Place

6.17%

2.33%

165%

Gowanda

118.3

Untidy

5.63%

2.14%

163%

Downstate
Livingston

109.12 Movement Vio
100.13
Fighting

7.65%
14.78%

2.92%
5.63%

162%
162%

Groveland

107.11

Livingston

104.13 Create Disturb

Harassment

16.06%

6.18%

160%

20.00%

7.75%

158%

43

652%

The following charts summarize the largest reverse disparities84 in rule violations at facilities:
Top 10 Racial/Ethnic Reverse Disparities in Rule Violations, by Facility
Overall
% of Group 1 with
Violation
Black vs White
1.15%
Other vs White
0.39%
Black vs White
2.85%
Black vs Hispanic
1.15%

Facility

Rule No

Rule Desc

Watertown
Fishkill
Cape Vincent
Watertown

113.24
180.14
113.24
113.24

Drug Use
Urinalysis Test
Drug Use
Drug Use

Riverview

113.24

Drug Use

Ogdensburg

113.24

Drug Use

Riverview
Bare Hill

180.14
118.2

Urinalysis Test
Tattooing

Wyoming

180.14

Urinalysis Test

Black vs White

Mohawk

113.24

Drug Use

Black vs White

Black vs White

Rule No

Rule Desc

Watertown
Cape Vincent
Riverview
Ogdensburg

113.24
113.24
113.24
113.24

Drug Use
Drug Use
Drug Use
Drug Use

Riverview

(90%)
(89%)
(85%)
(85%)

20.72%

Black vs White

2.77%

16.79%

(84%)

Black vs White
Black vs White

1.12%
0.50%

6.57%
2.82%

(83%)
(82%)

0.84%

4.71%

(82%)

2.27%

12.72%

(82%)

(84%)

Top 10 Racial/Ethnic Reverse Disparities in Rule Violations, by Facility
Hispanic vs White

% of Group 1 with % of Group 2
% Disparity
Violation
with Violation
1.15%
11.74%
(90%)
2.85%
19.18%
(85%)
3.32%
20.72%
(84%)
2.77%
16.79%
(84%)

180.14 Urinalysis Test

1.12%

6.57%

(83%)

Tattooing

% Disparity

3.32%

Top 10 Racial/Ethnic Reverse Disparities in Rule Violations, by Facility
Black vs White
Facility

% of Group 2
with Violation
11.74%
3.43%
19.18%
7.48%

Comparison

Facility

Rule No

Albion
Riverview
Bare Hill
Albion

113.25
180.14
118.2
113.24

Cape Vincent

% of Group 1 with % of Group 2
% Disparity
Violation
with Violation
Drug Possession
0.42%
2.03%
(79%)
Urinalysis Test
1.83%
6.57%
(72%)
Tattooing
0.92%
2.82%
(67%)
Drug Use
2.08%
5.37%
(61%)
Rule Desc

180.14 Urinalysis Test

1.93%

4.84%

(60%)

Bare Hill

118.2

0.50%

2.82%

(82%)

Midstate

118.2

Tattooing

1.68%

4.09%

(59%)

Wyoming
Mohawk

180.14 Urinalysis Test
113.24
Drug Use

0.84%
2.27%

4.71%
12.72%

(82%)
(82%)

Groveland
Ogdensburg

118.2
113.24

Tattooing
Drug Use

1.22%
7.13%

2.88%
16.79%

(58%)
(58%)

Franklin

180.14 Urinalysis Test

0.81%

4.37%

(82%)

Fishkill

113.14 Unauth Medic

1.46%

3.26%

(55%)

Greene

113.24

1.03%

5.54%

(81%)

Franklin

180.14 Urinalysis Test

1.98%

4.37%

(55%)

Drug Use

Top 10 Racial/Ethnic Reverse Disparities in Rule Violations, by Facility
Other vs White
Facility

Rule No

Rule Desc

Fishkill
Franklin
Midstate
Great Meadow

180.14
180.14
180.14
180.14

Urinalysis Test
Urinalysis Test
Urinalysis Test
Urinalysis Test

% of Group 1 with % of Group 2
% Disparity
Violation
with Violation
0.39%
3.43%
(89%)
1.37%
4.37%
(69%)
1.09%
3.48%
(69%)
1.44%
4.55%
(68%)

Orleans

113.11

Altered Item

1.44%

4.17%

(65%)

Wyoming

118.2

Tattooing

1.21%

3.38%

(64%)

Sing Sing
Collins

114.1
Smuggling
180.14 Urinalysis Test

4.48%
1.18%

11.77%
3.04%

(62%)
(61%)

Gowanda
Woodbourne

Altered Item

1.06%

2.64%

(60%)

109.12 Movement Vio

113.11

3.61%

8.85%

(59%)

84

Reverse disparities refer to disparities in which Black, Hispanic, and Other non-White incarcerated individuals are
less likely than White incarcerated individuals to be cited for a particular rule violation.

44

Disparities in Rule Violations by Reporting Employee
Between 2015 and 2020, over 28,000 different DOCCS’s employees reported a rule
violation by an incarcerated individual. While the vast majority were reported by uniformed
correctional officers, other DOCCS employees, including civilians, can and did report violations.
Number of Violations Reported
By Reporting Employee Title and Race of Incarcerated Individual
Reporting Employee Title
Correction Officer
Sergeant
Teacher
Unknown
Offender Rehabilitation Coordinator
Nurse
Other
Investigator
Cook
Lieutenant
Vocational Instructor
Office of Mental Health
Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment
Food Service Manager
Clerk
Industrial Training Supervisor
Supervising Offender Rehabilitation Coordinator
Librarian
All Other Titles
Totals

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

Not Reported

Total

488,634
64,750
10,870
6,462
5,675
4,748
5,353
4,610
3,791
3,644
2,989
1,461
1,454
1,135
685
713
622
624
2,165
610,385

197,802
28,772
4,325
2,552
2,284
1,886
2,028
1,563
1,452
1,432
1,134
703
504
320
298
176
266
218
784
248,499

151,791
24,083
1,630
1,201
2,045
2,958
1,832
1,634
1,332
1,087
885
378
581
339
306
267
260
290
776
193,675

24,668
3,581
503
378
312
296
324
149
160
156
166
83
64 I
52
39 I
39
32 I
29
84
31,115

1,795
219
43
15
20
20
26
7
23
6
4
6
17
9
5
2

864,690
121,405
17,371
10,608
10,336
9,908
9,563
7,963
6,758
6,325
5,178
2,631
2,620
1,855
1,333
1,197
1,180
1,163
3,814
1,085,898

2
5
2,224

% of Total
Violations
79.6%
11.2%
1.6%
1.0%
1.0%
0.9%
0.9%
0.7%
0.6%
0.6%
0.5%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.4%

Most employees reported a relatively small number of violations. During the six-year
period reviewed, 78 percent of reporting employees individually reported less than 50 violations,
totaling 31 percent of all violations, while 91 percent reported less than 100 violations, totaling
55 percent of all violations. Sixty-one employees reported 500 or more violations, including four
employees that reported over 1,000 violations. These four employees were correction officers
that worked at Collins, Mohawk, Sing Sing, and Clinton.
Number of Violations
Reported
Less than 50
50 - 99
100 - 249
250 - 499
500 - 999
1,000 or More
Unknown (*)
TOTALS

Number of Reporting
Employees
22,446
3,692
2,194
366
57
4
Unknown (*)
28,759

% of Reporting
Employees
78.0%
12.8%
7.6%
1.3%
0.2%
0.0%
Unknown (*)

Total Violations
Reported
331,873
257,845
324,763
120,407
35,973
4,429
10,608
1,085,898

(*) The reporting employee for 10,608 violations was not reported by DOCCS

45

% of Total Violations
Reported
30.6%
23.7%
29.9%
11.1%
3.3%
0.4%
1.0%

The Inspector General aggregated each employee’s reported violations by the
race/ethnicity of the offending incarcerated individual to identify employees who had the largest
racial disparities in reporting violations.85 The majority of the largest racial disparities involved
Black incarcerated individuals (of the top 20 racial disparities by reporting employee, 12
involved Black incarcerated individuals, six involved White incarcerated individuals, and two
involved Hispanic incarcerated individuals).
The Inspector General’s review found the largest disparity involved an employee at
DOCCS (referred to as employee 2181 below) who lodged 112 violations against incarcerated
individuals during the period reviewed. Of the violations reported by this employee, 89 percent
were against Hispanic incarcerated individuals despite Hispanics only representing 23 percent of
the incarcerated population. Further investigation into the circumstances surrounding this
finding revealed that the staffer was an English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher whose
classes were likely attended by non-White incarcerated individuals. Such additional information
may explain the racial/ethnic disparities observed in this instance.
The following chart reflects the 20 DOCCS employees with the largest overall racial
disparities in reporting violations:

85

Unless otherwise specified, the Inspector General limited its analysis to employees who reported 50 or more total
violations, which totaled 6,314 employees.

46

Top Overall Racial/Ethnic Disparities In Reporting Violations, By Reporting Employee
Total # Of Violations
Race/Ethnicity of
Race/Ethnicity's % of Total Race/Ethnicity's %
Reporting Employee
Disparity
Reported By Employee Incarcerated Individual
Violations for Employee of Overall Population
Employee 2181
Employee 4171
Employee 2716
Employee 5734
Employee 6097
Employee 3350
Employee 3842
Employee 3296
Employee 6186
Employee 5392
Employee 4676
Employee 6010
Employee 5991
Employee 6102
Employee 6159
Employee 6079
Employee 5106
Employee 3280
Employee 4311
Employee 4655

112
72
97
54
51
85
76
86
50
57
65
52
52
51
51
51
60
86
70
65

Hispanic
White
White
Black
Black
White
Black
Black
White
Black
Hispanic
White
Black
Black
Black
White
Black
Black
Black
Black

89%
85%
85%
100%
100%
79%
96%
95%
76%
95%
71%
75%
94%
94%
94%
75%
93%
93%
93%
92%

+-

+-

+-

23%
27%
27%
47%
47%
27%
47%
47%
27%
47%
23%
27%
47%
47%
47%
27%
47%
47%
47%
47%

67%
57%
57%
53%
53%
51%
49%
49%
49%
48%
48%
48%
48%
48%
48%
47%
47%
46%
46%
46%

The above statistics compared the racial breakdown of employees’ reported violations to
the overall incarcerated population. For a more direct comparison, the Inspector General
compared employees’ reporting of violations to the population of the facility where they reported
such violations and found four of the top 20 disparities were reported at Albion, three involved
Bedford Hills, and two were at both Lakeview and Gowanda*. As summarized below, 17 of the
20 DOCCS employees with the largest racial disparities in reporting violations at a particular
DOCCS facility pertained to Black incarcerated individuals, two concerned Hispanic
incarcerated individuals at Five Points and Woodbourne, while one applied to White incarcerated
individuals at Willard*.

47

Top Overall Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Reporting Violations, by Reporting Employee and Facility
Total # of Violations
Race/Ethnicity of
# of Offending Incarcerated
Reporting Employee Incident Location
Reported By Employee Incarcerated Individual Individuals for Race/Ethnicity
Employee 2181
Employee 4478
Employee 4655
Employee 4246
Employee 4852
Employee 6097
Employee 5734
Employee 5392
Employee 4345
Employee 3149
Employee 4041
Employee 4005
Employee 3296
Employee 4054
Employee 1873
Employee 2017
Employee 6272
Employee 4676
Employee 6035
Employee 6183

Five Points
Albion
Bedford Hills
Gowanda
Bedford Hills
Wyoming
Clinton
Downstate
Bedford Hills
Albion
Hudson
Albion
Sullivan
Lakeview
Lakeview
Gowanda
Willard
Woodbourne
Marcy
Albion

88
67
64
56
56
51
52
53
62
88
73
74
73
73
119
118
50
65
52
50

Hispanic
Black
Black
Black
Black
Black
Black
Black
Black
Black
Black
Black
Black
Black
Black
Black
White
Hispanic
Black
Black

22
10
12
12
12
12
14
13
15
26
9
20
12
11
28
29
8
9
12
11

Race/Ethnicity's % of Total Race/Ethnicity's % of
Disparity
Violations for Employee
Overall Population
100%
87%
92%
89%
88%
100%
100%
94%
82%
74%
89%
73%
95%
81%
81%
80%
70%
71%
83%
70%

23%
30%
38%
39%
38%
52%
54%
49%
38%
30%
46%
30%
53%
39%
39%
39%
29%
30%
42%
30%

77%
57%
54%
51%
50%
48%
46%
45%
45%
44%
43%
43%
42%
42%
41%
41%
41%
41%
40%
40%

The same DOCCS employee referenced above with the largest racial disparity compared
to the overall incarcerated population (employee 2181) was again found to have the largest racial
disparity at the facility-level and this disparity was actually more significant. In fact, all of the
88 violations reported by this civilian employee at Five Points were against Hispanic prisoners,
even though Hispanics only represented 23 percent of the population at Five Points. The 88
violations were reported between 2015 and 2017 for 22 different incarcerated individuals and
included 27 for obstructing or interfering with a DOCCS employee86, 25 for failing to obey a
direct order87, and 24 for creating a disturbance88. Notably, each of these rules are subject to the
reporting employee’s discretion, necessitating no physical evidence. Furthermore, of the 22
offending incarcerated individuals, 19 had not been found guilty of the same rule infraction
within the prior 10 years. Ten of the 88 violations were either dismissed following a hearing
held at Five Points or not considered at a hearing due to procedural violations. Fifty-four of the
88 violations occurred during or after June 2016, which is when DOCCS began tracking in a
database all grievances alleging unlawful discrimination by DOCCS employees. During this

86

7 CRR-NY 270.2, Rule 107.1: An inmate shall not physically or verbally obstruct or interfere with an employee at
any time.
87
7 CRR-NY 270.2, Rule 106.1: An inmate shall obey all orders of department personnel promptly and without
argument.
88
7 CRR-NY 270.2, Rule 104.13: An inmate shall not engage in conduct which disturbs the order of any part of the
facility. This includes, but is not limited to, loud talking in a mess hall, program area or corridor, talking after the
designated facility quiet time, playing a radio, television or tape player without a headphone or through a headphone
in a loud or improper manner, or playing a musical instrument in a loud or improper manner.

48

period, one grievance was filed accusing this DOCCS employee of unlawful discrimination.
This employee subsequently transferred to Adirondack where they reported 24 violations in 2019
committed by four incarcerated individuals, half against Black and half against Hispanic
incarcerated individuals. Adirondack’s incarcerated population during the period reviewed was
categorized as 45 percent Black, 23 percent Hispanic, 28 percent White, and four percent Other.
Further analysis of the 6,314 DOCCS employees that reported 50 or more violations
revealed the following noteworthy findings:
•

Twenty-three employees had over 90 percent of their total reported violations
against Black incarcerated individuals despite Black prisoners representing
only 47 percent of the overall incarcerated population.

•

Two employees only reported violations against Black incarcerated
individuals:
o Employee 6097 was a sergeant who reported 51 violations against 12
Black incarcerated individuals at Wyoming. Notably, all of these
violations were reported in 2015 and 2016 despite this employee
remaining in the same position at Wyoming through at least 2018.
o Employee 5734 was an offender rehabilitation coordinator who reported
54 violations against Black incarcerated individuals, including 52 against
14 prisoners at Clinton and two against one prisoner at Moriah*.

•

114 employees only reported violations against Black or Hispanic
incarcerated individuals, including:
o Employee 1094, a correction officer at Attica, who reported 125 violations
against 30 Black incarcerated individuals and 39 violations against nine
Hispanic incarcerated individuals between 2015 and 2020, and;
o Employee 1908, a correction officer at Attica and Wende, who reported
83 violations against 24 Black incarcerated individuals and 38 violations
against 10 Hispanic incarcerated individuals. The majority of this
employee’s reported violations were subjective in nature, including failing
to obey a direct order, interfering with a DOCCS employee, creating a
disturbance, and failing to follow directions when moving within the
facility.

•

226 employees never reported a violation against a White incarcerated
individual.
o 27 employees reported a total of 100 or more violations, including three
employees that reported a total of 200 or more violations, all of which
involving non-White incarcerated individuals.

The Inspector General analyzed the percentage of the workforce at each DOCCS facility
that had large racial disparities in reporting violations and identified some facilities that stood
49

out.89 Hudson and Bedford Hills had the largest representation of staff with large disparities
involving Black incarcerated individuals and Black or Hispanic incarcerated individuals. Indeed,
nearly 43 percent of Hudson employees and 34 percent of Bedford Hills employees had a large
disparity in reporting violations against Black incarcerated individuals, while approximately 51
percent of Bedford Hills employees and 43 percent of Hudson employees had a large disparity
for Black or Hispanic incarcerated individuals. The percentage of facility staff with large
disparities involving other races/ethnicities was much less significant. Hale Creek had the
highest representation of staff with large disparities involving White incarcerated individuals,
with just under eight percent of their staff meeting that threshold, while Clinton was the only
facility with any staff having such disparities for Other incarcerated individuals, although it was
only 0.2 percent of staff.90
The Inspector General found that the facilities with the largest racial disparities in issuing
Misbehavior Reports did not always have the largest representation of staff that individually had
large disparities. For example, Clinton had some of the largest disparities in issuing Misbehavior
Reports to Black incarcerated individuals, yet only six percent of staff had large disparities for
Black incarcerated individuals. Similarly, Attica, Five Points, and Great Meadow were among
the facilities with the worst racial disparities in issuing Misbehavior Reports to Black
incarcerated individuals, yet each facility had less than five percent of its workforce with large
disparities involving Black incarcerated individuals. This data suggests the disparities found at
these facilities may more likely be systemic as opposed to an acute problem involving only a few
staff.
Conversely, a number of facilities had a greater representation of individual staff with
large disparities yet a relatively low rate of overall racial disparity. For example, Woodbourne
was among the facilities with the lowest racial disparities in issuing Misbehavior Reports to
Black incarcerated individuals yet had the fifth highest staff level with large disparities involving
Black incarcerated individuals (over 13 percent of Woodbourne employees that reported a

89

In this context, a large disparity refers to an employee whose share of total reported violations issued to a
particular race/ethnicity was more than 25 percent greater than that race/ethnicity’s share of the relevant facility’s
population. For example, 100 percent of the above-referenced employee 2181’s reported violations involved
Hispanic incarcerated individuals at Five Points. Approximately 23 percent of the population at Five Points was
Hispanic. The disparity is simply the difference between these values (100 – 23 percent) or 77 percent.
90
Facilities with staff having disparities involving solely Hispanic incarcerated individuals were few. Elmira had
the highest representation of staff with such disparities for Hispanic incarcerated individuals at three percent.

50

violation met this threshold). This suggests racial disparities at facilities like Woodbourne may
more likely be due to a subset of employees as opposed to a systemic problem.
Dismissal of Violations
The Inspector General also analyzed the dismissal of violations and again found
racial/ethnic disparities. However, in many instances, these disparities contrasted those found
for the issuance of Misbehavior Reports and actually favored non-White incarcerated
populations over White incarcerated populations. Specifically, Black incarcerated individuals
were slightly more likely than others to have all charges associated with a Misbehavior Report
dismissed; 5.1 percent of Misbehavior Reports issued to Black incarcerated individuals were
completely dismissed, followed by Hispanic (4.5 percent), Other (4.4 percent), and White (4.2
percent).
When narrowing the analysis to specific violations, 175,960 (16 percent) of all violations
were dismissed at a hearing.91 All races/ethnicities saw similar violation dismissal rates during
the period reviewed. Black incarcerated individuals had the highest rate of violations being
dismissed at hearings (17 percent), whereas White incarcerated individuals had the lowest rate
(14.5 percent). The rate at which all races/ethnicities had violations dismissed generally
increased from 2015 to 2020.
Number of Violations
Race/Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
White
Other
Not Reported
Totals

% Dismissed at Hearing

2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Overall
99,717 98,817 104,672 107,654 107,251 92,378 610,489
39,947 40,067 43,637 43,555 43,300 38,099 248,605
32,570 33,391 34,818 34,619 33,179 25,118 193,695
4,417
5,149
5,199
5,871
5,717
4,532
30,885
494
284
423
355
345
323
2,224
177,145 177,708 188,749 192,054 189,792 160,450 1,085,898

2015
14.8%
13.5%
13.8%
13.7%
15.6%
14.3%

2016
16.3%
14.8%
13.9%
15.4%
16.9%
15.4%

2017
16.9%
15.3%
14.3%
14.8%
17.3%
16.0%

2018
18.4%
16.5%
14.4%
17.1%
22.8%
17.2%

2019
17.9%
16.7%
15.3%
16.6%
20.0%
17.2%

2020
17.7%
16.5%
15.7%
17.6%
17.6%
17.1%

Overall
17.0%
15.6%
14.5%
15.9%
18.2%
16.2%

The rule violations most commonly dismissed were for rioting, penal law offenses,
failing to follow program assignment procedures, failing to report the loss of identification, and
causing a miscount. More than 50 percent of each of these rule violations were ultimately
dismissed. The rule violations least commonly dismissed were for smoking, failing a urinalysis
test, exceeding the time limit for a work release or furlough-type program, telephone violations,

91

14,979 (1.4 percent) of violations were dismissed on appeal. Due to this being a relatively small number, unless
otherwise noted, the Inspector General focused its analysis of dismissals on violations dismissed at a hearing.

51

and alcohol use, with each being dismissed less than 10 percent of the time. A complete
summary of dismissal rates for each DOCCS’s rule is attached as Appendix 19.
Violation Dismissal by Hearing Officer
The Inspector General compared dismissal rates for Misbehavior Reports and underlying
violations based on the type of hearing officer. For Tier II offenses, nearly all hearings officers
were lieutenants working at a facility.92 Overall, those hearing officers dismissed 5.4 percent of
Tier II Misbehavior Reports and 19 percent of violations. For Tier III offenses, commissioner’s
hearing officers were used the most: for 21 percent of Misbehavior Reports and 24 percent of
violations. The utilization of commissioner’s hearing officers for Tier III hearings steadily
increased each year. Other titles utilized for Tier III hearings were supervising offender
rehabilitation coordinators, captains, and lieutenants. The following chart provides a breakdown
of Tier III hearings by year and the title of the hearing officer.

92

Lieutenants were hearing officers for 658,819 (96.7 percent) of the 681,479 Tier II violations. Approximately
three percent of violations had no hearing, or the hearing officer was not reported. The remaining 0.2 percent of
violations were heard by various titles including captains, correction officers, and education directors, among others.

52

Share of Tier III Hearings by Hearing Officer Title
Title

Total Hearings

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Commissioner's Hearing Officer
Supervising Offender Rehabilitation Coordinator
Captain
Lieutenant
Deputy Superintendent for Security
Deputy Superintendent for Programs
Food Service Manager
Deputy Superintendent for Administration
Education Director
No Hearing Held or Hearing Officer Not Reported
Steward
Plant Superintendent
Vocational Supervisor
Assistant Deputy Superintendent
Other
Industrial Superintendent
Deputy Superintendent for Health Services
Assistant Industrial Superintendent
First Deputy Superintendent
Deputy Superintendent for Reception & Classification
Recreational Leader
Superintendent
Senior Correction Counselor (now known as a SORC)
Correction Officer
Vocational Instructor
Offender Rehabilitation Coordinator
Industrial Training Supervisor
Cook
Teacher
Assistant Director
Director of Special Housing
Office of Mental Health
Dentist
Clerk
Sergeant
Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment
Totals

27,820
20,014
15,575
10,655
7,084
6,230
6,145
6,144
5,779
5,561
4,999
4,840
4,440
2,891
2,014
1,542
1,019
510
133
119
83
61
34
32
25
16
12
11
7
5
3
3
2
2
1
1
133,812

14.6%
15.4%
15.1%
8.0%
6.3%
5.4%
4.8%
5.4%
4.2%
2.8%
4.2%
4.2%
3.9%
2.0%
0.8%
1.4%
0.5%
0.5%
0.1%
0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100%

19.9%
15.6%
11.3%
7.1%
6.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.1%
4.4%
3.4%
3.8%
3.6%
3.9%
2.4%
0.7%
1.1%
0.8%
0.5%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100%

20.4%
15.1%
8.7%
8.5%
5.7%
4.5%
4.6%
4.4%
4.6%
6.8%
3.8%
3.5%
3.2%
2.3%
1.0%
1.2%
0.7%
0.4%
0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100%

21.3%
15.2%
11.5%
7.8%
5.0%
4.8%
4.2%
4.7%
4.5%
3.9%
3.6%
3.7%
3.3%
2.2%
1.6%
0.9%
0.9%
0.4%
0.2%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100%

25.0%
14.0%
12.2%
6.7%
4.3%
4.1%
4.4%
4.3%
4.2%
3.9%
3.5%
3.7%
2.8%
1.9%
2.5%
1.0%
0.9%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100%

2020

Overall

25.5% 20.8%
14.1% 15.0%
10.8% 11.6%
10.1%
8.0%
3.7%
5.3%
3.8%
4.7%
4.6%
4.6%
3.3%
4.6%
3.9%
4.3%
4.1%
4.2%
3.2%
3.7%
3.0%
3.6%
2.3%
3.3%
2.0%
2.2%
2.9%
1.5%
1.3%
1.2%
0.9%
0.8%
0.2%
0.4%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100% 100.0%

Approximately 12 percent of all Tier III violations were dismissed. With regard to
hearing officers who participated in a significant number of Tier III hearings, commissioner’s
hearing officers had the highest rate of dismissals.93 Specifically, commissioner’s hearing
officers dismissed 5.7 percent of Misbehavior Reports and 17.3 percent of violations. The
dismissal rates for commissioner’s hearing officers increased significantly from 2015 to 2017,
before leveling off in 2018 to 2020. As reflected below, the next highest dismissal rates of
significance applied to captains, who dismissed five percent of Tier III Misbehavior Reports and
14.1 percent of violations.

93

Dismissal rates were higher for some hearing officer titles; however, such results were greatly skewed by the very
small number of hearings applicable to those titles.

53

Percentage of Tier III Violations Dismissed by Hearing Officer Title
Title

Total Violations

2015

2016

2017

2018

Clerk
Cook
Senior Correction Counselor (now known as a SORC)
Commissioner's Hearing Officer
First Deputy Superintendent
Offender Rehabilitation Coordinator
Captain
Other
Deputy Superintendent for Reception & Classification
Lieutenant
Recreational Leader
Deputy Superintendent for Security
Deputy Superintendent for Administration
Correction Officer
Assistant Director
Deputy Superintendent for Programs
Assistant Deputy Superintendent
Plant Superintendent
Industrial Superintendent
Food Service Manager
Supervising Offender Rehabilitation Coordinator
Steward
Superintendent
Education Director
Vocational Supervisor
Assistant Industrial Superintendent
Deputy Superintendent for Health Services
Teacher
Industrial Training Supervisor
No Hearing Held or Hearing Officer Not Reported
Sergeant
Vocational Instructor
Director of Special Housing
Office of Mental Health
Dentist
Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment
Totals

6
43
95
96,283
443
39
50,530
6,168
354
34,121
179
21,811
17,771
104
9
18,034
8,564
12,850
4,402
16,420
54,464
12,261
191
15,133
11,960
1,403
2,900
22
25
17,752
4
55
5
5
8
5
404,419

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
11.6%
12.5%
0.0%
11.7%
11.5%
12.0%
13.0%
6.8%
11.2%
10.7%
0.0%
0.0%
11.3%
11.4%
9.7%
8.7%
9.1%
9.4%
7.8%
0.0%
7.2%
7.8%
4.3%
8.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
10.3%

33.3%
0.0%
42.9%
16.0%
23.7%
21.7%
13.8%
10.0%
17.2%
12.5%
7.1%
13.1%
13.1%
16.7%
0.0%
10.6%
12.8%
10.9%
9.2%
9.3%
9.0%
9.3%
0.0%
7.6%
8.9%
8.6%
7.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
11.8%

0.0%
100.0%
16.9%
19.2%
15.3%
0.0%
14.3%
16.5%
11.7%
13.8%
33.3%
12.5%
12.6%
20.0%
0.0%
11.0%
11.0%
10.3%
9.6%
10.0%
9.7%
7.5%
11.9%
8.1%
9.2%
9.9%
8.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
12.4%

0.0%
31.6%
0.0%
17.7%
16.2%
0.0%
13.4%
14.7%
0.0%
14.2%
11.1%
14.1%
11.9%
0.0%
33.3%
12.2%
9.0%
10.7%
10.0%
10.8%
11.5%
9.1%
3.3%
10.2%
8.7%
12.0%
5.2%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
12.9%

2019

2020 Overall

0.0% 0.0%
50.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
19.1% 18.2%
16.7% 20.0%
20.0% 0.0%
14.9% 17.8%
+
13.8% 14.7%
0.0% 14.7%
15.0% 12.6%
0.0% 33.3%
13.8% 14.2%
11.8% 10.9%
0.0% 14.6%
0.0% 0.0%
9.5% 11.2%
+
11.5% 9.4%
10.5% 11.8%
+
12.0% 11.8%
11.7% 9.8%
10.7% 9.5%
10.0% 11.5%
9.0% 12.5%
8.8% 9.6%
7.9% 8.7%
5.4% 7.2%
6.4% 10.3%
6.3% 0.0%
+
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
+
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
13.4% 13.4%

33.3%
27.9%
20.0%
17.3%
16.3%
15.4%
14.1%
14.0%
13.6%
13.5%
13.4%
13.0%
11.9%
11.5%
11.1%
11.0%
10.9%
10.6%
10.2%
10.1%
10.0%
9.1%
8.9%
8.6%
8.5%
7.9%
7.7%
4.5%
4.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
12.4%

To the extent possible, the Inspector General further analyzed violation dismissals by the
specific hearing officer.94 The Inspector General found some hearing officers had disparities in
their dismissal of violations across race/ethnic groups, although, notably, in many instances these
disparities favored Black and Hispanic incarcerated individuals.95 The following are examples
of some of the most significant disparities:
•

Of 334 applicable hearing officers, 12 had dismissal rates for Black
incarcerated individuals that were at least 10 percent higher than for White

94

DOCCS reported over 2,400 different hearing officer names. DOCCS did not appear to enforce standard naming
conventions to prevent the same hearing officer from being reported multiple ways. Therefore, the ability of the
Inspector General to conduct this analysis was limited.
95
To help reduce results being skewed due to hearing officers with a small number of hearings, the Inspector
General focused its analysis on hearing officers who had hearings for at least 100 violations for both
races/ethnicities being compared.

54

incarcerated individuals. The largest disparity involved a hearing officer at
Sing Sing who dismissed over 41 percent of violations for Black incarcerated
individuals, yet only dismissed about 16 percent of violations for White
incarcerated individuals. Conversely, five hearing officers had disparities in
dismissal rates of at least 10 percent favoring White over Black incarcerated
individuals. The largest such disparity was a hearing officer at Bedford Hills
who dismissed over 33 percent of violations for White incarcerated
individuals while dismissing only 21 percent of violations for Black
incarcerated individuals.
•

Of the 292 applicable hearing officers, seven hearing officers had dismissal
rates for Hispanic incarcerated individuals that were at least 10 percent higher
than for White incarcerated individuals. The largest disparity involved a
hearing officer primarily out of Auburn who dismissed over 37 percent of
violations for Hispanic incarcerated individuals, yet only dismissed about 19
percent of violations for White incarcerated individuals. Conversely, two
hearing officers had disparities in dismissal rates of at least 10 percent
favoring White incarcerated individuals over Hispanic, with the largest
involving a hearing officer at Marcy who dismissed approximately 20 percent
of violations for White incarcerated individuals compared to under nine
percent for Hispanic incarcerated individuals.

Violation Dismissal by Hearing Location
The Inspector General also analyzed violation dismissal rates based on the location of the
associated disciplinary hearing. While disparities were found, many were statistically
insignificant. The largest disparity based on the hearing location was a 7.7 percent higher
likelihood at Hale Creek that a Hispanic incarcerated individual’s violation would be dismissed
compared to a White incarcerated individual. The largest disparity based on the facility where a
violation occurred was a 10.3 percent greater likelihood at Rochester* that a Black incarcerated
individual’s violation would be dismissed compared to a White incarcerated individual.
Violation Dismissal by Facility
When dismissals were analyzed by the facility where a violation occurred, the Inspector
General found the largest disparities involved minimum-security facilities. For example, at
minimum-security facilities, Black and Hispanic incarcerated individuals were 30 percent and 21
percent more likely to have a violation dismissed, respectively, than White incarcerated
individuals. At medium-security facilities, Black and Hispanic incarcerated individuals were 15
percent and seven percent more likely to have a violation dismissed, respectively, than White
incarcerated individuals, while at maximum-security facilities, Black incarcerated individuals
were nine percent more likely to have a violation dismissed than White incarcerated individuals.
55

At each class of facility, Black incarcerated individuals were between four and nine percent more
likely to have a violation dismissed than Hispanic incarcerated individuals.
Narrowing the analysis to specific facilities where violations occurred revealed that most
facilities followed the overall pattern and were more likely to dismiss violations for non-White
incarcerated populations than for White incarcerated individuals. Rochester*, Lincoln*,
Adirondack, and Hale Creek had the largest overall racial/ethnic disparities in the dismissal of
violations.96 For example, at Rochester*, non-White incarcerated individuals were 158 percent
more likely than White incarcerated individuals to have their violation dismissed, while this
disparity at Lincoln* and Adirondack was 72 percent and 32 percent, respectively. When
compared to White incarcerated individuals, 78 percent of all facilities were more likely to
dismiss a violation reported against a non-White incarcerated individual.97
While rare and less significant, some facilities were more likely to dismiss violations
reported against White incarcerated individuals. For example, at Moriah*, non-White
incarcerated individuals were 27 percent less likely than White incarcerated individuals to have
their violations dismissed. The next largest disparities occurred at Queensboro and
Ogdensburg*, where the non-White incarcerated population was nine percent less likely than the
White incarcerated population to have their violations dismissed.

96

Each of these facilities reported a relatively small number of violations during the period reviewed. As such, their
disparities were more easily skewed compared to facilities that reported more violations.
97
85 percent of all facilities were more likely to dismiss a violation reported against a Black incarcerated individual,
two-thirds were more likely to dismiss violations against Other incarcerated individuals, and 56 percent were more
likely to dismiss violations against Hispanic incarcerated individuals.

56

Facilities with the Largest Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Violation Dismissals (non-White vs White)
Total # of Violations
Black vs White
Hispanic vs White
Other vs White
Non-White vs White
Facility
Reported at Facility
% Disparity
% Disparity
% Disparity
% Disparity
Moriah
820
(27%)
(35%)
82%
(27%)
Queensboro
6,357
(3%)
(22%)
14%
(9%)
Ogdensburg
6,202
(8%)
(16%)
14%
(9%)
Altona
8,141
(4%)
(16%)
2%
(8%)
Lakeview
11,069
(7%)
(3%)
(5%)
(6%)
Sullivan
15,523
(1%)
(14%)
(23%)
(5%)
Riverview
15,612
(2%)
(9%)
6%
(3%)
Shawangunk
9,482
(3%)
(4%)
12%
(3%)
Wallkill
7,174
2%
(8%)
(20%)
(2%)
Five Points
41,533
1%
(8%)
3%
(2%)
Facilities with the Largest Reverse Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Violation Dismissals (non-White vs White)
Total # of Violations
Black vs White
Hispanic vs White
Other vs White
Non-White vs White
Facility
Reported at Facility
% Disparity
% Disparity
% Disparity
% Disparity
Rochester
335
199%
48%
(100%)
158%
Lincoln
1,013
80%
72%
5%
72%
Adirondack
4,835
36%
27%
14%
32%
Hale Creek
3,481
29%
32%
(4%)
29%
Wende
18,555
30%
27%
(6%)
28%
Gowanda
39,592
30%
25%
18%
28%
Coxsackie
18,412
31%
20%
26%
27%
Collins
25,490
25%
28%
10%
25%
Livingston
14,884
28%
18%
1%
25%
Woodbourne
9,437
21%
12%
29%
18%
% Disparity refers to the greater or (lesser) percentage likelihood that an individual in the first race/ethnic group would have a violation dismissed than an individual
in the second race/ethnic group. Disparity in this context means non-White incarcerated individuals were less likely than White incarcerated individuals to have their
violations dismissed, whereas a reverse disparity means the non-White incarcerated population was more likely to have their violations dismissed.

The largest individual disparity in violation dismissals between two races/ethnicities was
identified at Rochester* where Black incarcerated individuals were nearly three times more
likely than White incarcerated individuals to have their violations dismissed. Among larger
facilities, Eastern had the most significant disparity, with Other incarcerated individuals being 45
percent more likely than White incarcerated individuals to have their violation dismissed. The
most significant disparity favoring White incarcerated individuals occurred at Sullivan, where
Other incarcerated individuals were 23 percent less likely than White incarcerated individuals to
have their violations dismissed. The following chart summarizes the largest disparities and
reverse disparities in violation dismissals between different races/ethnicities.

57

Facility

Comparison

Rochester
Edgecombe
Moriah
Moriah
Sullivan
Queensboro
Wallkill
Ogdensburg
Altona
Sullivan

Other vs White
Other vs White
Hispanic vs White
Black vs White
Other vs White
Hispanic vs White
Other vs White
Hispanic vs White
Hispanic vs White
Hispanic vs White

Facility

Comparison

Rochester
Moriah
Lincoln
Lincoln
Rochester
Eastern
Cayuga
Hudson
Adirondack
Hale Creek

Black vs White
Other vs White
Black vs White
Hispanic vs White
Hispanic vs White
Other vs White
Other vs White
Hispanic vs White
Black vs White
Hispanic vs White

Top Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Violation Dismissals by Facility
Total # of Violations
# of Violations - # of Violations - % of Violations Dismissed - % of Violations Dismissed % Disparity
Reported at Facility
1st Group
2nd Group
1st Group
2nd Group
335
4
110
0.0%
6.4%
(100.0%)
1,174
21
172
9.5%
22.1%
(56.9%)
820
146
229
8.2%
12.7%
(35.1%)
820
432
229
9.3%
12.7%
(26.9%)
15,523
185
2,369
9.7%
12.7%
(23.2%)
6,357
1,986
482
14.4%
18.5%
(22.0%)
7,174
221
983
21.3%
26.6%
(19.9%)
6,202
1,513
1,055
5.9%
7.1%
(16.3%)
8,141
2,034
1,596
10.8%
12.8%
(16.2%)
15,523
4,142
2,369
10.9%
12.7%
(13.8%)
Top Racial/Ethnic Reverse Disparities in Violation Dismissals by Facility
Total # of Violations
# of Violations - # of Violations - % of Violations Dismissed - % of Violations Dismissed % Disparity
Reported at Facility
1st Group
2nd Group
1st Group
2nd Group
335
168
110
19.0%
6.4%
199.3%
820
13
229
23.1%
12.7%
82.2%
1,013
536
107
21.8%
12.1%
79.7%
1,013
311
107
20.9%
12.1%
72.0%
335
53
110
9.4%
6.4%
48.2%
11,164
268
1,383
33.2%
22.8%
45.3%
9,787
270
2,179
23.7%
16.6%
42.7%
3,565
601
602
27.3%
19.9%
36.9%
4,835
2,329
1,140
13.1%
9.6%
36.2%
3,481
732
734
24.9%
18.8%
32.2%

% Disparity refers to the greater or (lesser) percentage likelihood that an individual in the first race/ethnic group would have a violation dismissed than an individual in the second race/ethnic group. Disparity in this context
means non-White incarcerated individuals were less likely than White incarcerated individuals to have their violations dismissed, whereas a reverse disparity means the non-White incarcerated population was more likely to
have their violations dismissed.

Notably, many of the facilities with the largest disparities favoring non-White
incarcerated individuals in dismissing violations were also among the facilities with the smallest
disparities in issuing Misbehavior Reports to non-White incarcerated populations. For example,
in terms of having the smallest disparities against non-White incarcerated populations, Eastern
had the 10th smallest disparity in issuing Misbehavior Reports and 11th smallest disparity in
dismissing violations. Conversely, although to a lesser extent, there were some facilities that had
among the largest racial/ethnic disparities favoring the White incarcerated population for both
issuing Misbehavior Reports and dismissing violations. For example, Lakeview had the fifth
largest disparity favoring White incarcerated populations for both issuing Misbehavior Reports
and dismissing violations.
Violation Dismissals by Reporting Employee
The Inspector General further analyzed dismissals by the employee that reported the
violations and found some employees stood out. Overall, 80 percent of employees had less than
25 percent of their reported violations dismissed, and almost all employees had less than 50
percent dismissed.98 The exception was 39 employees who had 50 percent or more of their
reported violations dismissed. The employee with the greatest dismissal rate was a correction
98

This analysis excluded any employees who reported less than 50 violations in total during the period reviewed.

58

officer at Riverview who had 83 percent of their 89 reported violations dismissed, followed by a
Sing Sing employee who had 69 percent of their reported violations dismissed. The third highest
dismissal rate applied to a Clinton employee who reported 954 violations and had two-thirds of
such violations dismissed. DOCCS reported several titles for this employee name including
correction officer, vocational instructor, vocational supervisor, clerk, industrial training
supervisor, and other. The following chart reflects the 20 DOCCS employees with the highest
dismissal rates.
Top Dismissal Rates By Reporting Employee (Overall)
Total # of Violations
# of Violations
Reporting Employee
Reported By Employee
Dismissed
Employee 3129
89
74
Employee 4704
65
45
Employee 7
954
635
Employee 5919
52
34
Employee 5017
61
39
Employee 5172
59
37
Employee 3407
84
52
Employee 4436
68
42
Employee 2100
115
70
Employee 6116
51
31
Employee 3366
84
50
Employee 2718
97
57
Employee 4666
65
38
Employee 4708
65
38
Employee 5202
59
34
Employee 548
225
128
Employee 4011
74
42
Employee 4728
64
36
Employee 4548
67
37
Employee 2730
97
52

% of Violations
Dismissed
83.1%
69.2%
66.6%
65.4%
63.9%
62.7%
61.9%
61.8%
60.9%
60.8%
59.5%
58.8%
58.5%
58.5%
57.6%
56.9%
56.8%
56.3%
55.2%
53.6%

When employee dismissal rates are analyzed further by race/ethnicity, there were
dismissal rates for DOCCS employees as high as 92 percent. The same employee with the
highest overall dismissal rates (employee 3129) also had the highest dismissal rates for a
particular race/ethnicity. In fact, this employee had the two highest race/ethnicity-based
dismissal rates, with 92 percent of their reported Hispanic violations and 86 percent of their
reported White violations dismissed. Employee 7, who had the third highest overall dismissal
rates, had race/ethnicity-based dismissal rates of 69 percent for Hispanic violations, 66 percent
for Black violations, and 65 percent for White violations, as reflected below.

59

Top Overall Racial/Ethnic Disparities in the Dismissal of Reported Violations, by Reporting Employee
Race/Ethnicity of
Total # of Violations
# of Violations Reported for % of Violations Dismissed for
Reporting Employee
Incarcerated Individual Reported By Employee
Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity
Employee 3129
Hispanic
89
25
92.0%
Employee 3129
White
89
49
85.7%
Employee 5017
White
61
38
81.6%
Employee 2750
White
97
28
71.4%
Employee 3687
White
79
41
70.7%
Employee 4704
Black
65
49
69.4%
Employee 7
Hispanic
954
225
69.3%
Employee 3344
Black
85
39
69.2%
Employee 6377
Black
49
26
69.2%
Employee 4436
Black
68
32
68.8%
Employee 5225
Black
59
28
67.9%
Employee 610
White
213
27
66.7%
Employee 7
Black
954
512
66.0%
Employee 6116
Black
51
32
65.6%
Employee 7
White
954
173
65.3%
Employee 5202
Black
59
49
65.3%
Employee 5919
Black
52
37
64.9%
Employee 9770
Black
30
28
64.3%
Employee 4728
White
64
28
64.3%
Employee 9935
Black
30
25
64.0%

The Inspector General further analyzed race/ethnicity-based dismissal rates to identify
employees with the greatest disparities in dismissal rates between different races/ethnicities. The
largest such disparity was a 42 percent disparity between dismissal rates for Black and Hispanic
incarcerated individuals. This employee had 46 percent of their reported violations against Black
incarcerated individuals dismissed but only four percent of their violations against Hispanic
incarcerated individuals dismissed. A relatively small subset of DOCCS employees stood out
when comparing dismissal rates between White and non-White incarcerated individuals.
Eighteen employees had a disparity of over 25 percent between Black and White incarcerated
individuals while 13 employees had such a disparity between Hispanic and White incarcerated
individuals.

60

Largest Racial/Ethnic Disparities In Violation Dismissal Rates
By Reporting Employee and Race/Ethnicity of Incarcerated Individuals
Reporting Employee

Comparison

Employee 2879
Employee 1518
Employee 5608
Employee 888
Employee 351
Employee 3834
Employee 2600
Employee 1114
Employee 3239
Employee 1165
Employee 769
Employee 1277
Employee 773
Employee 314
Employee 1443
Employee 1112
Employee 1112
Employee 1285
Employee 1171
Employee 888

Black vs Hispanic
Hispanic vs White
Black vs Hispanic
Hispanic vs White
Black vs White
Black vs Hispanic
Hispanic vs White
Black vs Hispanic
Black vs White
Black vs Hispanic
Black vs Hispanic
Black vs White
Hispanic vs White
Black vs White
Black vs Hispanic
Black vs Hispanic
Black vs White
Black vs Hispanic
Hispanic vs White
Black vs White

Total # of Violations
# of Violations
# of Violations
Reported By Employee Reported - 1st Group Reported - 2nd Group
94
37
27
139
28
51
55
28
27
182
26
36
267
193
28
77
44
25
100
26
32
162
51
43
+
87
40
27
158
112
25
195
122
59
152
82
25
194
49
37
281
197
32
143
103
29
162
90
36
162
90
35
151
93
30
158
38
29
+
182
111
36
~

~

% of Violations
Dismissed - 1st Group
45.9%
57.1%
42.9%
46.2%
37.3%
52.3%
42.3%
58.8%
52.5%
37.5%
48.4%
32.9%
40.8%
32.5%
35.9%
37.8%
37.8%
45.2%
31.6%
39.6%

% of Violations
Dismissed - 2nd Group
3.7%
17.6%
3.7%
8.3%
0.0%
16.0%
6.3%
23.3%
18.5%
4.0%
15.3%
0.0%
8.1%
0.0%
3.4%
5.6%
5.7%
13.3%
0.0%
8.3%

Disparity
42.2%
39.5%
39.2%
37.8%
37.3%
36.3%
36.1%
35.6%
34.0%
33.5%
33.1%
32.9%
32.7%
32.5%
32.5%
32.2%
32.1%
31.8%
31.6%
31.3%

Grievances Filed by Incarcerated Individuals
The Inspector General also conducted an analysis of grievances filed by incarcerated
individuals. This analysis was generally limited to grievances reported in DOCCS’s
Superintendent Grievance Tracking System (SGT) as code 49 “Staff Conduct” and
subcategorized as “Unlawful Discrimination” during the period June 15, 2016 through April 30,
2022.99 For context, the Inspector General also reviewed DOCCS’s incarcerated grievance
program annual reports for 2016 through 2021, which provide annual totals for all grievances as
well as totals for code 49 “Staff Conduct” grievances.100
Between 2016 and 2021, over 176,000 grievances were filed by incarcerated individuals.
The number of grievances decreased every year by a total of 42 percent. Of the total grievances,
23,915 (14 percent) alleged staff misconduct, including 1,088 (0.6 percent), which alleged

99

Prior to June 15, 2016, these types of grievances were not explicitly tracked by DOCCS and thus could not be
analyzed.
100
The Inspector General downloaded the annual reports for 2016 to 2020 off DOCCS’s website. The Inspector
General did not include 2015 in its analysis as complete grievance data was not available for that year. For 2021,
the Inspector General relied on a December 2021 monthly grievance report provided by DOCCS that included 2021
year-to-date totals.

61

“Unlawful Discrimination.” A minimum of 109 of those grievances specifically alleged racial
discrimination.101
Total code 49 grievances decreased by nearly 56 percent between 2016 and 2021, with
the largest decreases occurring in 2019 to 2021. Code 49 grievances progressively represented a
slightly smaller share of total grievances during this period. The number of grievances alleging
unlawful discrimination increased over 62 percent between 2016 and 2021, while grievances
specifically alleging racial discrimination decreased nearly 37 percent during that period. In
2021, total grievances, code 49 grievances, and racial discrimination grievances all decreased,
while unlawful discrimination grievances remained flat compared to 2020.
Overall, approximately 148 grievances were filed for every 100 unique incarcerated
individuals, or 1.5 per incarcerated individual.102 Among those, there was one unlawful
discrimination grievance filed for every 100 unique incarcerated individuals and one grievance
specifically alleging racial discrimination for every 1,000 incarcerated individuals.
Using incarcerated population data obtained for its analysis of disparities in Misbehavior
Reports, the Inspector General analyzed trends in grievances between 2016 and 2020 and
identified a downward trend in the average number of grievances filed by incarcerated
individuals. This downward trend was modest between 2016 and 2018, before becoming more
significant in 2019 and 2020. Specifically, between 2016 and 2018, there was a total of
approximately 34,000 to 36,000 grievances each year, with roughly 58 for every 100
incarcerated individuals filing a grievance. In 2019, total grievances decreased over 20 percent
to 27,327, or to roughly 50 for every 100 incarcerated individuals. In 2020, total grievances
again decreased, by 21 percent, which appeared to directly correlate to a 21 percent decrease in
the incarcerated population.
A similar trend occurred when narrowing the focus to grievances pertaining to staff
conduct, which saw a decrease in the average grievances per incarcerated individual of about 28

101

DOCCS does not explicitly categorize grievances alleging racial discrimination in the SGT system. The data the
Inspector General obtained included all grievances alleging any form of discrimination, including racial
discrimination, by DOCCS’s staff. To identify which of those grievances alleged racial discrimination, the
Inspector General reviewed the “Title” for each grievance (which is essentially a brief description of the allegations)
and flagged grievances that mentioned race.
102
All annual analyses of average grievances were based on the population of unique DINs separately incarcerated
each year. All overall analyses were based on the population of unique DINs incarcerated at any time between 2016
and 2020.

62

percent, or a reduction from 8.6 in 2016 to 6.2 in 2020 for every 100 incarcerated individuals.
Conversely, there was a steady increase totaling over 132 percent in the average number of
grievances alleging unlawful discrimination. Total grievances specifically alleging racial
discrimination had no consistent pattern, fluctuating up and down between a total of 12 and 24
per year.103 They were quite rare, with less than one filed each year for every 2,500 incarcerated
individuals.
The following chart summarizes the Inspector General’s analysis of trends pertaining to
grievances.104
Annual Trends in Grievances
Total Grievances
% Change from Prior Year

2016 (*)
36,173
3.2%

2017
35,868
(0.8%)

2018
34,198
(4.7%)

2019
27,327
(20.1%)

2020
21,559
(21.1%)

2021
20,929
(2.9%)

Totals (2016-2021)
176,054
(42.1%)

Total Code 49 Grievances
% Change from Prior Year
Code 49 % of Total Grievances

5,371
(1.0%)
15%

4,979
(7.3%)
14%

4,679
(6.0%)
14%

3,832
(18.1%)
14%

2,688
(29.9%)
12%

2,366
(12.0%)
11%

23,915
(55.9%)
14%

130

167
28.5%
0.5%

182
9.0%
0.5%

188
3.3%
0.7%

210
11.7%
1.0%

211
0.5%
1.0%

1,088
62.3%
0.6%

0.1%

24
26.3%
0.1%

20
(16.7%)
0.1%

15
(25.0%)
0.1%

19
26.7%
0.1%

12
(36.8%)
0.1%

109
(36.8%)
0.1%

2016
62,261
(1.7%)

2017
61,103
(1.9%)

2018
58,181
(4.8%)

2019
54,703
(6.0%)

2020
43,220
(21.0%)

2021

Overall (2016-2020) (**)
104,502
(30.6%)

58.10
8.63
0.7%
0.21

58.70
8.15
(5.5%)
0.27
30.9%
0.04
28.7%

58.78
8.04
(1.3%)
0.31
14.5%
0.03
(12.5%)

49.96
7.01
(12.9%)
0.34
9.9%
0.03
(20.2%)

49.88
6.22
(11.2%)
0.49
41.4%
0.04
60.3%

Total Code 49-Unlawful Discrimination Grievances (*)
% Change from Prior Year
Unlawful Discriminiation % of Total Grievances
Grievances Involving Racial Discriminiation (#)
% Change from Prior Year
Racial Discrimination - Minimum % of Total Grievances

Approximate Incarcerated Population
% Change from Prior Year
Average Grievances per 100 I/I
Average Code 49 Grievance per 100 I/I
% Change from Prior Year
Average Unlawful Discriminiation Grievances per 100 I/I
% Change from Prior Year
Average Racial Discrimination Grievances per 100 I/I
% Change from Prior Year

0.4%
19

0.03

148.40
22.88
(27.9%)
1.04
132.7%
0.10
44.1%

(*) Data on Unlawful Discrimination grievances was not fully tracked until 6/15/16.
(#) These numbers represent the minimum number of grievances alleging racial discrimination. Additional grievances alleging such may exist but could not be identified due to limitations in DOCCS data.
(**) Overall incarcerated population figures correspond to the number of unique DINs between 2016 and 2020.
I/I = Incarcerated Individual

When adding in grievances filed between January 1, 2022 and April 30, 2022, there were
a total of 1,146 unlawful discrimination grievances and at least 110 grievances alleging racial
discrimination. The Inspector General further analyzed these grievances by facility, DOCCS
employee (subject), and incarcerated individual (grievant). Over two-thirds of the unlawful

103

As noted above, this is the minimum number of grievances alleging racial discrimination. Others likely were
filed but could not be readily identified due to limitations in DOCCS data.
104
Due to the relatively small numbers being analyzed in some instances, such as the number of racial
discrimination grievances, the year-to-year percentage changes are more easily affected and somewhat less
significant.

63

discrimination grievances were filed by Black incarcerated individuals, with 19 percent filed by
Hispanic incarcerated individuals, and nine percent filed by White incarcerated individuals.
Race/Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
White
Other
Not Reported
Total

2016
85
29
14
2
0
130

Summary by Race (Unlawful Discrimination Grievances Only)
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
107
128
137
152
128
40
35
29
34
36
52
7
20
19
11
14
22
8
4
5
6
8
9
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
167
182
188
210
211
58

TOTAL % of Total
777
68%
222
19%
108
9%
37
3%
2
0%
1,146
100%

Black incarcerated individuals filed nearly three-quarters of the known racial
discrimination grievances, with Hispanic incarcerated individuals filing 18 percent. White
incarcerated individuals filed six percent of such grievances.
Race/Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
White
Other
Not Reported
Total

2016
9
7
1
2
0
19

Summary by Race (Racial Discrimination Grievances Only)
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
18
17
14
15
7
1
4
2
1
4
2
0
2
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
20
15
19
12
1

TOTAL % of Total
81
74%
20
18%
7
6%
2
2%
0
0%
110
100%

Nearly a third of the unlawful discrimination grievances involved individuals
incarcerated at Green Haven. Combined, 60 percent of the unlawful discrimination grievances
involved individuals incarcerated at Green Haven, Attica, or Upstate.

64

All Unlawful Discrimination Grievances by Facility
Facility
Total
% of Total
Green Haven
359
31.3%
Attica
213
18.6%
Upstate
116
10.1%
Clinton
48
4.2%
Sing Sing
47
4.1%
Five Points
38
3.3%
Shawangunk
36
3.1%
Franklin
31
2.7%
Eastern
29
2.5%
Wende
21
1.8%
Woodbourne
13
1.1%
Mid-State
12
1.0%
Auburn
11
1.0%
Albion
11
1.0%
Great Meadow
11
1.0%
Coxsackie
11
1.0%
Elmira
11
1.0%
Livingston
10
0.9%
Groveland
10
0.9%
Bare Hill
9
0.8%
Adirondack
7
0.6%
Bedford Hills
7
0.6%
Greene
7
0.6%
Collins
7
0.6%
Fishkill
6
0.5%
Mohawk
6
0.5%
Cayuga
6
0.5%
Otisville
5
0.4%
Sullivan
5
0.4%
Watertown
5
0.4%
Downstate
4
0.3%
Altona
4
0.3%
Riverview
4
0.3%
Gouverneur
3
0.3%
Wyoming
3
0.3%
Lakeview
3
0.3%
Ulster
2
0.2%
Willard
2
0.2%
Southport
2
0.2%
Gowanda
2
0.2%
Cape Vincent
2
0.2%
Hudson
2
0.2%
Hale Creek
1
0.1%
Queensboro
1
0.1%
Not Reported
1
0.1%
Washington
1
0.1%
Orleans
1
0.1%

Approximately 61 percent of the racial-discrimination grievances involved Upstate (47
grievances/43 percent) or Attica (20 grievances/18 percent).

65

Racial-Discrimination Grievances by Facility
Facility
Total
% of Total
Upstate
47
42.7%
Attica
20
18.2%
Five Points
6
5.5%
Mid-State
3
2.7%
Wende
3
2.7%
Franklin
2
1.8%
Eastern
2
1.8%
Greene
2
1.8%
Elmira
2
1.8%
Green Haven
2
1.8%
Woodbourne
2
1.8%
Bare Hill
2
1.8%
Otisville
2
1.8%
Clinton
2
1.8%
Great Meadow
2
1.8%
Orleans
1
0.9%
Riverview
1
0.9%
Sullivan
1
0.9%
Bedford Hills
1
0.9%
Lakeview
1
0.9%
Auburn
1
0.9%
Downstate
1
0.9%
Cayuga
1
0.9%
Collins
1
0.9%
Adirondack
1
0.9%
Groveland
1
0.9%

There were 31 DOCCS employees who were the subject in five or more unlawful
discrimination grievances, with Employee 1326 from Green Haven having the most with 16.
Employees with 5 or More Unlawful Discrimination Grievances
Employee Ref. #
Facility
Total Grievances
Unique Grievants
Employee 1326
Green Haven
16
14
Employee 439
Upstate
10
2
Employee 1734
Attica
10
8
Employee 3523
Green Haven
9
7
Employee 41
Upstate
9
5
Employee 1591
Green Haven
8
8
Employee 1181
Attica
8
7
Employee 2050
Green Haven
7
7
Employee 874
Upstate
7
5
Employee 171
Green Haven
7
6
Employee 5644
Attica
6
4
Employee 2266
Attica
6
5
Employee 4944
Upstate
6
1
Employee 3874
Green Haven
6
5
Employee 1339
Attica
6
5
Employee 14806
Green Haven
6
6
Employee 6163
Green Haven
5
5
Employee 12667
Upstate
5
4
Employee 9694
Attica
5
4
Employee 3343
Green Haven
5
4
Employee 1990
Green Haven
5
4
Employee 3400
Green Haven
5
5
Employee 2085
Green Haven
5
5
Employee 2307
Attica
5
5
Employee 25489
Green Haven
5
3
Employee 942
Upstate
5
2
Employee 2651
Green Haven
5
5
Employee 80
Upstate
5
4
Employee 1208
Green Haven
5
5
Employee 16420
Green Haven
5
2
Employee 14486
Green Haven
5
3

66

When narrowed to racial discrimination grievances, 22 DOCCS employees were subjects
in more than one grievance. Of this total, 21 involved employees at Upstate, including
Employee 439, who was targeted in five different racial discrimination grievances, the most of
any DOCCS employee, all of which were filed by the same incarcerated individual. Like
Employee 439, 13 other Upstate employees were subjects in multiple racial discrimination
grievances filed by this same incarcerated individual. Notably, none of these 14 employees were
subjects of racial discrimination grievances filed by any other incarcerated individual.
The Inspector General incorporated data from its separate analysis of violations and
found six of the 22 employees were among the top five percent of employees in terms of the
largest disparities in violations reported against Black incarcerated individuals. Five of the 22
were among the five percent of employees with the largest disparities against Hispanic
incarcerated individuals, while four employees met this criterion for White incarcerated
individuals and three employees met this criterion for Other incarcerated individuals.
The following chart summarize the results of this analysis.

Employee Ref. #
Employee 439
Employee 4944
Employee 630
Employee 6807
Employee 5156
Employee 874
Employee 2007
Employee 4456
Employee 41
Employee 950
Employee 8556
Employee 3549
Employee 692
Employee 800
Employee 80
Employee 1915
Employee 806
Employee 3599
Employee 4580
Employee 28761
Employee 28762
Employee 18044

Facility
Upstate
Upstate
Upstate
Upstate
Upstate
Upstate
Upstate
Upstate
Upstate
Attica
Upstate
Upstate
Upstate
Upstate
Upstate
Upstate
Upstate
Upstate
Upstate
Upstate
Upstate
Upstate

Employees with Multiple Racial Discrimination Grievances
Total Violation Violation Violation Violation Disparity Disparity Disparity Disparity
Total
Unique Reported Disparity- Disparity- Disparity- Disparity- Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile
Grievances Grievants Violations Black Hispanic White
Other
Black Hispanic White
Other
5
1
247
13.9%
(11.3%) (0.7%)
(1.7%)
96%
2%
12%
7%
4
1
62
(9.7%)
(0.0%)
12.6%
(2.5%)
1%
8%
99%
6%
4
1
210
(1.9%)
0.8%
(1.3%)
0.8%
4%
93%
12%
95%
3
1
46
18.0%
(1.9%) (13.2%) (2.5%)
87%
91%
95%
92%
3
2
51
(3.2%)
5.5%
0.5%
(2.5%)
3%
96%
97%
6%
3
3
184
(5.4%)
3.5%
4.7%
(2.5%)
2%
95%
98%
6%
2
1
76
5.5%
1.2%
(3.6%)
(2.8%)
91%
93%
10%
4%
2
2
65
(1.2%)
4.9%
(4.0%)
0.6%
4%
96%
10%
95%
2
2
515
9.2%
(3.3%)
(5.9%)
0.2%
93%
6%
9%
94%
2
2
116
11.4%
(3.5%)
(5.2%)
(2.6%)
94%
6%
9%
5%
2
2
32
1.2%
8.5%
(7.0%)
(2.5%)
80%
84%
88%
85%
2
1
77
(2.3%)
(1.2%)
(4.2%)
7.9%
3%
7%
10%
99%
2
1
135
26.3%
(14.7%) (8.8%)
(2.5%)
99%
1%
7%
6%
2
2
190
20.8%
(7.4%) (10.6%) (2.5%)
98%
3%
6%
6%
2
1
342
15.8%
(7.7%)
(7.1%)
(0.8%)
96%
3%
8%
8%
2
1
110
25.5%
(14.9%) (7.8%)
(2.5%)
99%
1%
8%
6%
2
1
180
13.0%
(4.7%)
(5.5%)
(2.5%)
95%
5%
9%
6%
2
1
80
(5.6%)
12.9%
(4.5%)
(2.5%)
2%
99%
10%
6%
2
2
58
0.5%
8.6%
(6.4%)
(2.5%)
89%
97%
9%
6%
2
1
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2
1
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2
1
10
1.9%
14.2%
(13.2%) (2.5%)
52%
56%
60%
57%

Violation disparities presented above represent the disparity between the reporting employee's violations reported against a particular race/ethnicity and that race/ethnicity's share of the population in the relevant facility. Positive
percentages mean the employee reported a disproportionately high share of violations against the particular/race ethnicity. (Negative percentages) mean the employee reported a disproportionately low share of violations against
that particular race/ethnicity.

There were 16 incarcerated individuals who filed five or more unlawful discrimination
grievances. One incarcerated individual greatly stood out from others. This individual filed 34
67

grievances alleging unlawful discrimination against 56 different DOCCS employees, with all but
one taking place at Upstate. Two incarcerated individuals filed nine unlawful discrimination
grievances, while two others filed eight.
At least six incarcerated individuals filed more than one racial discrimination grievance.
The above referenced incarcerated individual once again stood out, filing 24 racial
discrimination grievances against 43 different DOCCS employees at Upstate. Another
individual incarcerated at Upstate filed eight racial discrimination grievances, while another
incarcerated at Attica filed six.
The Inspector General requested DOCCS provide the outcomes for the 110 abovereferenced grievances that specifically alleged racial discrimination. DOCCS reported that five
of the 110 grievances resulted in a favorable superintendent decision, meaning the incarcerated
individual “received the dominant action requested,” while 103 resulted in an unfavorable
superintendent decision, meaning the incarcerated individual “did not receive the dominant
action requested.” Results for one grievance was still pending a superintendent decision, while
results from another grievance were not provided by DOCCS.105
At least 59 of the 110 racial-discrimination grievances were appealed to the Central
Office Review Committee (CORC). Of those, 22 were “Accepted in Part” by CORC, meaning
part of the actions requested by the grievant were considered favorable to the incarcerated
individual, while 34 appeals were denied by CORC. Results for two grievance appeals were still
pending a CORC decision, while results from another grievance were not provided by DOCCS.
Ultimately, 23 percent of the racial-discrimination grievances resulted in a decision
favorable to the incarcerated individual, while 74 percent resulted in an unfavorable decision for
the grievant. Results for four percent were still pending. The following charts summarize the
results for the 110 grievances specifically alleging racial discrimination.

105

DOCCS claimed the records for this grievance, which was not appealed to the Central Office Review Committee,
had been destroyed per their records destruction policy. Therefore, the ultimate outcome of this grievance could not
be determined.

68

Total Unlawful Discrimination Grievances (6/15/16 to 4/30/22)
# of Grievances Referencing Racial Discrimination

Black Hispanic White
777
222
108

Other
37

Not Reported
2

Total
1,146

% of Total

81

20

7

2

0

110

10%

Superintendent Decisions:
# with Favorable Superintendent Decision
# with Unfavorable Superintendent Decision
# with Pending Superintendent Decision
# with Unknown Superintendent Decision

5
75
1
0

0
20
0
0

0
7
0
0

0
1
0
1

0
0
0
0

5
103
1
1

4.5%
93.6%
0.9%
0.9%

CORC Decisions:
# Appealed to CORC
# Accepted in Part by CORC
# Denied by CORC
# Pending CORC Decision

52
21
30
1

5
1
3
1

1
0
1
0

1
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

59
22
34
2

54%
20%
31%
2%

Results for Grievances Referencing Racial Discrimination:

Superintendent Decisions
Favorable = The grievant received the dominant action requested, regardless if the grievance was appealed to CORC.
Unfavorable = The grievant did not receive the dominant action requested, regardless if the grievance was appealed to CORC.
CORC (Central Office Review Committee) Decisions
N/A = Not Appealed to CORC.
Accepted in Part = Part of the Actions Requested by the grievant were considered favorable.
*Facilities do not have the option to Accept In Part. This is only available at the CORC level.
Denied = All of the Action(s) Requested by the grievant were considered unfavorable.

Superintendent Decision

CORC Decision

Black

Favorable

Accepted In Part
N/A
Accepted In Part
Denied
N/A
Pending
N/A
Unknown

2
3
19
30
25
1
1

Unfavorable

Pending
Unknown (Invalid Grievance #)
Totals

Ultimate Result
Decision Favorable to I/I
Decision Unfavorable to I/I
Decision Pending Decision
Result Unknown
Total

Hispanic

Other

Total
2
3
20
34
47
2
1
1
110

1
3
15
1

1
6

1

81

20

7

1
2

Count
25
81
3
1
110

% of Total
23%
74%
3%
1%
100%

I I

69

White

Appendix 2: Analysis Methodology
The specific data files used by the Inspector General and the methodology employed by the
Inspector General to review such data is detailed below.
Incarcerated Population Data:
1. The Inspector General (OIG) obtained Under Custody Data files from DOCCS for 2015,
2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. For each year, DOCCS provided data as of June 1 of
that year and January 1 of the following year (e.g., for 2015, DOCCS provided data as of
6/1/15 and 1/1/16). The files were in text format. DOCCS provided a file layout that
enabled OIG to interpret what the data represented.
2. OIG imported the two text files for each year into Microsoft Excel and Access. The
combined data files totaled 558,218 rows of data.
3. For each row of data, OIG calculated the incarcerated individual’s age as of the date of
the data and categorized the individuals into four different age groups (Under 25, 25 to
29, 30 to 39, 40 and above). OIG also narrowed the reported race and ethnicities into
four groups (White, Black, Hispanic, Other). If the data listed an incarcerated
individual’s ethnicity as Hispanic, OIG considered them Hispanic. If their ethnicity was
something other than Hispanic, OIG defaulted to the incarcerated individual’s reported
race. Note - In some instances, the data did not include the race and/or ethnicity of an
incarcerated individual or listed different races/ethnicities for the same incarcerated
individual. See “Notes on Data Quality/OIG Cleansing of Data” below for details on
how OIG handled this data.
4. OIG identified every unique incarcerated individual (based on reported DINs) both for
each calendar year (Annual Incarcerated Population) and for the entire period reviewed
(Overall Incarcerated Population). If an incarcerated individual was reported in both
DOCCS datasets for a given year, OIG only counted this individual once using the
demographic information from the more recent dataset. For example, for 2015, if an
individual was incarcerated in only one facility during that year and was listed as under
25 according to 6/1/15 data and 25 to 29 according to 1/1/16 data, OIG defaulted to the
1/1/16 data and considered the incarcerated individual to be 25 to 29, ignoring the 6/1/15
data. Ultimately, OIG identified a population of 118,727 unique individuals who were
incarcerated at any time between 2015 and 2020. Separately calculating each year’s
1

incarcerated population by identifying all unique DINs for each individual year, and then
totaling the populations for each year, resulted in a total of 342,796 rows of data. See,
“Notes on Data Quality/OIG Cleansing of Data” for more details.
5. OIG separately identified every unique incarcerated individual (based on reported DINs)
that was reported for each DOCCS facility each year (Facility-Level Incarcerated
Population). For example, if an individual was incarcerated at two facilities in the same
year, OIG separately accounted for that individual in the populations for both facilities.
OIG did this for each year as well as for the overall 2015-2020 period. OIG identified
275,473 unique combinations of facility and DIN. When totaling each year’s population,
OIG produced a file containing 459,489 rows of data. See, “Notes on Data Quality/OIG
Cleansing of Data” for more details.
6. OIG created multiple queries in Access and Excel to analyze the incarcerated population
by age group, race/ethnicity, and various other factors.
Disciplinary Incident Data (Misbehavior Reports and Violations):
7. For each year from 2015 to 2020, OIG obtained Disciplinary Incident files from
DOCCS from their FIDS system.106 DOCCS provided the data in a separate Excel
spreadsheet for each year (in 2017, OIG received two spreadsheets; one covering 1/1/17
to 9/30/17 and the second covering 10/1/17 to 12/31/17; OIG combined these files into
one spreadsheet). DOCCS provided a file layout that enabled OIG to interpret what the
data represented. The combined data files totaled 385,057 rows of data, with each row
representing a Misbehavior Report.
For the same time period, OIG subsequently received a second set of Disciplinary
Incident files from DOCCS that included identifying information for the DOCCS
employees that issued the Misbehavior Reports. DOCCS again provided each year of
data in separate Excel spreadsheets, which OIG combined into one Excel file. The
combined file included 381,572 Misbehavior Reports, or 3,485 records fewer than the
original data file described above. OIG’s reconciliation of the two files found 3,696
Misbehavior Reports were included in the original data but not in the updated data, while
211 Misbehavior Reports were included in the updated data but not in the original data.
It appeared at least some of the discrepancy was due to modifications made to the
106

FIDS is the name of DOCCS’s disciplinary system for incarcerated individuals.

2

Misbehavior Reports subsequent to the date the original data was provided to OIG. OIG
merged its original data with the updated data based on matching DIN, incident year,
incident date, and incident time. The resultant file of 385,057 records included
information on the reporting employee(s) for 381,361 Misbehavior Reports.
8. For each row of data (i.e., Misbehavior Report), OIG calculated the recipient incarcerated
individual’s age as of the date of the Misbehavior Report and categorized the individuals
into four different age groups (Under 25, 25 to 29, 30 to 39, 40 and above). OIG also
narrowed the race and ethnicities of the incarcerated individuals that were issued
Misbehavior Reports into four groups (White, Black, Hispanic, Other). If an incarcerated
individual’s ethnicity was reported as Hispanic, OIG considered them Hispanic. If their
ethnicity was reported as something other than Hispanic, OIG defaulted to the
incarcerated individual’s reported race. Note - In some instances, the data did not include
the race and/or ethnicity of an incarcerated individual or reported different
races/ethnicities for the same incarcerated individual. See “Notes on Data Quality/OIG
Cleansing of Data” below for details on how OIG handled this data.
9. DOCCS disciplinary incident data grouped all rule violations associated with each
Misbehavior Report into one row of data. To better analyze possible disparities in the
issuance and dismissal of individual rule violations, OIG restructured the disciplinary
incident data and created a separate violations file, which broke out each rule violation
into a unique row of data. This file comprised 1,085,898 rows of data, with each row
representing an individual violation.
As described above, the Inspector General subsequently received a second set of
disciplinary incident files from DOCCS. OIG merged its violations file with the updated
Misbehavior Report data that included the name of the reporting employee file based on
matching DIN, incident year, incident date, incident time, and Rule Number. The
resultant file of 1,085,898 records included information on the reporting employee, if
reported, for each rule violation. DOCCS did not record the reporting employee for
10,608 of the 1,085,898 violations.
10. OIG created multiple queries in Access and Excel to analyze the Misbehavior Reports
and violations by age group, race/ethnicity, and various other factors.

3

Likelihood of Issuing Misbehavior Reports/Violations (Overall):
11. OIG analyzed the Disciplinary Incident Data referenced in step 8 (for Misbehavior
Reports) and step 9 (for violations) to identify all unique incarcerated individuals, based
on DIN, who were issued a Misbehavior Report/violation. OIG did this individually for
each year as well as for the entire period of 2015 to 2020. OIG then divided these results
by the Overall Incarcerated Population data referenced in step 4 to determine the
likelihood of Misbehavior Reports/violations being issued. OIG narrowed its analysis
based on multiple factors such as race/ethnicity, age, incident category, and rule violated.
Likelihood of Issuing Misbehavior Reports/Violations (Facility-Level):
12. OIG analyzed the Disciplinary Incident Data referenced in step 8 (for Misbehavior
Reports) and step 9 (for violations) to identify all unique incarcerated individuals, based
on DIN, who were issued a Misbehavior Report/violation at each DOCCS facility. OIG
did this individually for each year as well as for the entire period of 2015 to 2020. OIG
then divided these results by the Facility-Level Incarcerated Population data referenced in
step 5 to determine the likelihood of Misbehavior Reports/violations being issued by each
facility. OIG narrowed its analysis based on multiple factors such as race/ethnicity, age,
incident category, and rule violated.
Disparities in Likelihood of Issuing Misbehavior Reports/Violations:
13. Using the results from step 11, OIG used two different calculations. For calculation 1,
OIG used the percentage change formula ((rate 1 – rate 2)/ rate 2) to calculate the
percentage difference that one race/ethnicity was more or less likely than another
race/ethnicity to be issued a Misbehavior Report/violation. For calculation 2, OIG used
the following formula (rate 1 / rate 2) to calculate how many times one race/ethnicity was
more or less likely than another race/ethnicity to be issued a Misbehavior
Report/violation. OIG chose to focus most of its comparisons between the following four
groups: Black vs. White, Black vs. Hispanic, Hispanic vs. White, and Other vs. White.
OIG calculated disparities individually for each year as well as for the entire period of
2015 to 2020. To illustrate these calculations, assume there are 100 Black incarcerated
individuals and 100 White incarcerated individuals. Within those groups, 66, or 66
percent of Black individuals were issued a Misbehavior Report while 33, or 33 percent of
White individuals were issued a Misbehavior Report.
4

Calculation 1: (66% – 33%) / 33% = 1 or 100%, meaning Black incarcerated
individuals were 100 percent more likely than White incarcerated individuals to
be issued a Misbehavior Report.
Calculation 2: (66% / 33%) = 2, meaning Black individuals were twice as likely
as White incarcerated individuals to be issued a Misbehavior Report. Stated
differently, for every 100 incarcerated individuals in each race, there were twice
as many Black incarcerated individuals that were issued a Misbehavior Report
than White incarcerated individuals.
14. To calculate disparities at a facility level, OIG used the results from step 12 and the same
percentage change formulas described in step 13 to calculate the extent to which a
particular race/ethnicity population at a facility was more or less likely than another
race/ethnicity at the same facility to be issued a Misbehavior Report/violation. OIG again
chose to focus most of its comparisons between the following four groups: Black vs.
White, Black vs. Hispanic, Hispanic vs. White, and Other vs. White. OIG calculated
disparities individually for each year as well as for the entire period of 2015 to 2020.
15. OIG ranked facilities based on their racial/ethnic disparities. Specifically, OIG
individually ranked the overall disparities calculated for facilities in step 14 for each of
the four comparisons: Black vs. White, Black vs. Hispanic, Hispanic vs. White, and
Other vs. White. Facilities were ranked from 1 to 54, with 1 being the facility with the
largest disparity. OIG then combined the rankings for these four comparisons to compute
a combined ranking score for each facility. The facilities with the smallest combined
ranking score were those with the largest overall disparities. OIG separately ranked
facilities based on their overall combined ranking score when excluding Black vs.
Hispanic disparities.
16. OIG further analyzed these racial/ethnic disparities by age, incident category, and rule
violation. To help limit the possible skewing of results, OIG excluded any disparities
from its analysis in which both populations being compared were smaller than 50. For
example, at Clinton, OIG calculated that Black incarcerated individuals were nearly 153
percent more likely than White incarcerated individuals to have been issued a
Misbehavior Report for an incident related to an attempted escape. However, OIG
excluded this finding from its analysis and did not factor it into its facility rankings

5

because there were only 45 Black incarcerated individuals and six White incarcerated
individuals at Clinton that were issued such a Misbehavior Report.
Average Misbehavior Report/Violation Rates:
17. For each race/ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic, Other) and age group (Under 25, 25 to
29, 30 to 39, 40 and above), OIG calculated an average rate of Misbehavior Reports
issued and violations charged per incarcerated individual by dividing the number of
Misbehavior Reports and violations reported for a particular race/ethnicity by the number
of incarcerated individuals in that group, both overall and for each year. OIG separately
calculated average Misbehavior Report and violation rates for each DOCCS facility, both
overall and by year, by dividing the number of Misbehavior Reports and violations
reported for each facility by each facility’s population.
Disparities in Average Misbehavior Reports and Violations:
18. Using the average Misbehavior Report and violation rates described in Step 17, OIG used
the percentage change formula ((rate 1 – rate 2)/ rate 2) to calculate disparities between
different race/ethnicities. OIG chose to focus most of its comparisons of these average
rates between the following four groups: Black vs. White, Black vs. Hispanic, Hispanic
vs. White, and Other vs. White.
19. To calculate disparities at a facility level, OIG first aggregated its results from step 8 by
the facility where a Misbehavior Report was issued; and its results from step 9 by the
facility where the reported violation occurred. OIG then followed the same methodology
described in step 18 to compute percentage disparities in Misbehavior Reports and
violations between different races/ethnicities.
20. To help limit the possible skewing of results by smaller facilities, OIG then weighted its
results from step 19 utilizing two different statistics: a population factor and a
misbehavior factor. OIG calculated two different weights, one for its analysis of
Misbehavior Reports and one for its analysis of violations. Specifically:
a. Population Factor: OIG used the incarcerated population data results from step 5
and calculated each facility’s percentage share of the total number of incarcerated
individuals between 2015 and 2020.

6

b. Misbehavior Factor (for Misbehavior Report analyses): OIG used the results
from step 8 to calculate each facility’s percentage share of the total Misbehavior
Reports issued between 2015 and 2020.
c. Misbehavior Factor (for violation analyses): OIG used the results from step 9 to
calculate each facility’s percentage share of the total violations reported between
2015 and 2020.
d. Weight for Misbehavior Report Analyses: OIG averaged each facility’s
percentage share of the incarcerated population (from step 20a) with its
percentage share of total Misbehavior Reports (from step 20b). The result was a
numerical weight for each facility that OIG multiplied by each facility’s
calculated disparities from step 19 to compute weighted average disparities.
e. Weight for Violation Analyses: OIG averaged each facility’s percentage share of
the incarcerated population (from step 20a) with its percentage share of total
violations (from step 20c). The result was a numerical weight for each facility
that OIG multiplied by each facility’s calculated disparities from step 19 to
compute weighted average disparities.107
Analysis of Demographics of DOCCS’s Workforce:
The Inspector General’s analysis of the demographics of DOCCS’s workforce was based on the
following records:
•

File provided to the Inspector General by DOCCS that listed annual racial/ethnic
demographics for DOCCS’s employees at 52 correctional facilities for the period 2015 to
2022 (Workforce Data).
o No staffing data was provided by DOCCS for Lincoln* or Livingston*
Correctional Facilities.
o Data for Elmira Correctional Facility was only provided for 2022.

•

US Census Bureau: 2020 Decennial Census Data which provided population estimates,
by race/ethnicity, for each county in New York State as per the 2020 census (Census
Data). Link to Source Data

107

Notably, the resulting weighted average values calculated in step 13d and 13e have no significant utility in terms
of their values. Instead, they are solely used to adjust the ranking of facility disparities to help reduce skewed
results.

7

•

DOCCS facility map as of April 2021 found on DOCCS’s website. The map identified
the county and DOCCS’s hub where each facility was located. This map was updated
subsequent to completing this analysis and is no longer available online.

•

Map entitled “OSC ECONOMIC REGIONS* OF NEW YORK STATE” obtained off the
Office of the New York State Comptroller’s website. This map was used to associate
each county with a particular region in the State. Link

Methodology:
1. Using the Workforce Data provided by DOCCS, the Inspector General identified the
racial breakdown of staff at each facility and statewide.
2. Using the Census Data, DOCCS’s facility map, and the Office of the New York State
Comptroller’s economic regions map described above, the Inspector General identified
the racial breakdown of the population in each county, economic region, and DOCCS
hub.
3. The Inspector General used the results from Step 1 and 2 to analyze racial disparities
between DOCCS’s workforce at each facility to the population in the county, region, and
DOCCS’s Hub in which the facilities are located. The Inspector General also compared
the racial demographics of DOCCS workforce at each facility to the racial demographics
of the incarcerated population at each facility.
4. The Inspector General compared the results from Step 3 to the facilities’ racial disparities
in issuing misbehavior reports.
Notes on Data Quality/OIG Cleansing of Data
In both the incarcerated population data and disciplinary incident data, OIG identified
inconsistencies and omissions of data relevant to its analysis. To the extent possible, OIG
manually updated the datasets to be more consistent and complete. Specifically:
Incarcerated Population (Overall):
•

From the incarcerated population data provided by DOCCS, OIG identified 116,136
unique DINs across the review period of 2015-2020, representing the number of
individuals who were incarcerated at any time during this period.

8

•

When analyzed individually for each year and totaling the annual populations, OIG
produced a file with 332,619 rows of data:
Number of Unique Individuals Incarcerated
Each Year per Population Data
Year
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Total

•

Unique DINs
61,293
60,712
59,278
56,468
53,044
41,824
332,619

OIG’s analysis of the disciplinary incident data identified 9,728 individuals (based on
DIN) that were issued a Misbehavior Report but were not included in DOCCS’s
incarcerated population data for the same year. Some of these individuals were issued
Misbehavior Reports in multiple years, meaning they were not represented in DOCCS’s
population data for multiple years. When accounting for each of these additional
individuals separately for each year, OIG added 10,177 rows to the total incarcerated
population file, resulting in a total of 342,796 rows of data. (When not broken down by
year, OIG identified 118,727 unique individuals incarcerated at any point between 2015
and 2020.):
Additional Incarcerated Individuals OIG
Identified from Misbehavior Report Data

•

Minimum Number of Individuals
Incarcerated Each Year

Year
2015
2016
2017
2018

Unique DINs
2,035
1,549
1,825
1,713

Year
2015
2016
2017
2018

Unique DINs
63,328
62,261
61,103
58,181

2019
2020
Total

1,659
1,396
10,177

2019
2020
Total

54,703
43,220
342,796

OIG analyzed the reported race/ethnicity for all incarcerated individuals in each of the
years of data and identified over 1,800 individuals for whom DOCCS reported
inconsistent races/ethnicities (two to three different races/ethnicities were reported for the
same DIN). To address this inconsistency, OIG modified the race/ethnicity for these
individuals using two different methods. OIG first deferred to the race/ethnicity reported
most frequently for that individual by DOCCS in its population data. When this method
did not provide reliable results, OIG accessed DOCCS’s online Incarcerated Lookup,
searched by DIN, and utilized the race/ethnicity reported by DOCCS on this site.

9

•

OIG also found DOCCS did not fully report a race/ethnicity for some individuals in its
population data. In such cases, OIG reviewed the disciplinary incident data to see if that
individual was issued a Misbehavior Report, and if so, used the race/ethnicity reported in
the disciplinary incident data for that individual. Ultimately, OIG did not identify a
race/ethnicity for 1,017 of the 342,796 rows of data in its incarcerated population file.
Since this number was relatively small compared to the total population (less than 0.3
percent of total) and therefore unlikely to significantly affect results, OIG chose to not
manually search for each individual’s race/ethnicity using DOCCS’s Incarcerated
Lookup and instead reported the race/ethnicity of these individuals as “Not Reported.”

Incarcerated Population (Facility Level):
•

Incarcerated individuals often move between facilities in a given year, sometimes
multiple times. In such instances, they are part of the populations of multiple facilities
during that year. The Overall incarcerated individuals population figures identified by
OIG and described above only accounted for each individual once per year and do not
take into account where they were incarcerated. To calculate accurate statistics for each
facility, such as the average number of Misbehavior Reports, it was necessary to identify
all individuals who were incarcerated at each facility each year. To do so, OIG
aggregated its primary incarcerated population datafile of 558,218 records by DIN,
facility, and year. The result was a total facility-level population file of 403,058 records.

•

As described above, OIG’s analysis of the disciplinary incident data identified individuals
that were issued a Misbehavior Report but were not included in DOCCS’s population
data for the same year, resulting in OIG adding 11,083 to the total facility-level
incarcerated population file and increasing it to 414,141. OIG’s analysis of the
disciplinary incident data on a facility level for each year identified an additional 27,434
individuals (based on DIN and facility where the Misbehavior Report was issued) that
were issued a Misbehavior Report at a particular facility during a specific year, were
included in DOCCS population data for that year, but were not included in DOCCS’s
population data for the facility where the individual was issued the Misbehavior Report
that year. Accounting for each of these additional incarcerated individual-facility
combinations for each year added an additional 45,348 rows to the total facility-level
incarcerated population file, increasing the total to 459,489 records.
10

Number of Unique Incarcerated Individuals/Facility
Combinations Each Year, per Population Data
Year
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Total

•

Additional Incarcerated Individuals OIG Identified
from Facility-Level Misbehavior Report Data

Unique DINs
77,104
75,292
74,040
70,445
66,326
50,934
414,141

Year
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Total

Unique DINs
8,019
8,456
8,319
8,582
8,239
3,733
45,348

Minimum Facility-Level Number of Individuals
Incarcerated Each Year
Year
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Total

Unique DINs
85,123
83,748
82,359
79,027
74,565
54,667
459,489

Where necessary, OIG “cleaned” an incarcerated individual’s reported race/ethnicity for
this facility-level data using the same procedures described above for the overall
population data (deferred to most frequently reported information or searched DOCCS
online Incarcerated Lookup system). OIG also “cleaned” the facility names to make
them consistent and easier to analyze by standardizing (e.g., converting all variations of
Clinton Correctional Facility including Clinton Annex, Clinton APPU, and Clinton Gen
to simply Clinton) and converting locations reported as a number to their corresponding
facility name (e.g., changing 276 to Hudson).

Disciplinary Incident Data (Overall):
•

OIG identified 75,154 unique DINs across the review period of 2015-2020, representing
the number of individuals who were issued a Misbehavior Report at any time during this
period.

•

When analyzed to separately identify all unique incarcerated individuals that were issued
a Misbehavior Report each year and then totaling the results, OIG produced a file with
158,716 records:
Number of Unique Incarcerated Individuals/Facility Combinations that
Received a Misbehavior Report Each Year, per Population Data
Year
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Total

•

Unique DINs
29,002
28,199
28,211
27,104
25,888
20,312
158,716

There were over 500 DINs reported in the disciplinary incident data with inconsistent
races/ethnicities reported by DOCCS (same DIN with two to three reported
races/ethnicities). Where necessary, OIG “cleaned” individual’s reported race/ethnicity
for this data using the same procedures described above (deferred to most frequently
reported information or searched DOCCS online Incarcerated Lookup system).
11

•

As reported above, OIG identified 9,728 individuals, equating to a total annualized
population of 10,177, who were issued Misbehavior Reports but were not included in
DOCCS’s incarcerated population data.

Disciplinary Incident Data (Facility Level):
•

OIG identified 75,154 unique DINs that were issued a Misbehavior Report across the
review period of 2015 to 2020. When analyzed further by the facility where they were
issued the Misbehavior Report and the year they were issued it and then totaling each
year’s results, OIG produced a file containing 200,247 records.

•

As reported above, OIG identified over 27,000 individuals, equating to a total annualized
population of 45,348, who were issued Misbehavior Reports at a facility in a specific
year, were in DOCCS’s incarcerated population for that year, but were not included in
DOCCS’s incarcerated population data for the facility where they were issued the
Misbehavior Report.

•

Where necessary, OIG “cleaned” an incarcerated individual’s reported race/ethnicity for
this facility-level data using the same procedures described above for the overall
population data (deferred to most frequently reported information or searched DOCCS
online Incarcerated Lookup system). OIG also “cleaned” the facility names to make
them consistent and easier to analyze by standardizing facility names (e.g., converting all
variations of Clinton including Clinton Annex, Clinton APPU, and Clinton Gen to
Clinton) and converting locations reported as a number to their corresponding facility
name (e.g., changing 276 to Hudson).

12

Appendix 3: Average Number of Misbehavior Reports by Race/Ethnicity and Age Group
Average Number of Misbehavior Reports Issued to Incarcerated Individuals
2015
Age
Inc. Ind.
Under 25
1,620
25 to 29
2,837
30 to 39
4,753
40 and Older 6,956
Total
16,166

White
M/R
2,507
3,289
4,091
3,734
13,621

Rate
1.55
1.16
0.86
0.54
0.84

Inc. Ind.
4,977
5,598
8,833
11,759
31,167

Black
M/R
10,994
8,344
9,287
7,673
36,298

Rate
2.21
1.49
1.05
0.65
1.16

Inc. Ind.
1,969
2,346
4,254
5,488
14,057

Hispanic
M/R
4,260
3,071
4,291
3,590
15,212

Rate
2.16
1.31
1.01
0.65
1.08

Inc. Ind.
270
315
466
679
1,730

Other
M/R
481
390
417
395
1,683

Rate
1.78
1.24
0.89
0.58
0.97

ALL GROUPS
Inc. Ind. M/R
Rate
8,865 18,314 2.07
11,132 15,129 1.36
18,368 18,128 0.99
24,963 15,426 0.62
63,328 66,997 1.06

2016
Age
Inc. Ind.
Under 25
1,369
25 to 29
2,847
30 to 39
4,871
40 and Older 6,912
Total
15,999

White
M/R
2,079
3,401
4,511
3,843
13,834

Rate
1.52
1.19
0.93
0.56
0.86

Inc. Ind.
4,179
5,593
8,870
11,638
30,280

Black
M/R
8,960
8,699
9,806
7,574
35,039

Rate
2.14
1.56
1.11
0.65
1.16

Inc. Ind.
1,744
2,383
4,251
5,547
13,925

Hispanic
M/R
3,389
3,328
4,404
3,756
14,877

Rate
1.94
1.40
1.04
0.68
1.07

Inc. Ind.
264
382
540
693
1,879

Other
M/R
507
464
497
408
1,876

Rate
1.92
1.21
0.92
0.59
1.00

ALL GROUPS
Inc. Ind. M/R
Rate
7,578 14,956 1.97
11,232 15,927 1.42
18,584 19,244 1.04
24,867 15,602 0.63
62,261 65,729 1.06

2017
Age
Inc. Ind.
Under 25
1,257
25 to 29
2,663
30 to 39
4,983
40 and Older 6,727
Total
15,630

White
M/R
1,952
3,431
5,050
3,791
14,224

Rate
1.55
1.29
1.01
0.56
0.91

Inc. Ind.
3,952
5,402
8,748
11,500
29,602

Black
M/R
8,769
9,152
10,361
7,691
35,973

Rate
2.22
1.69
1.18
0.67
1.22

Inc. Ind.
1,645
2,352
4,292
5,536
13,825

Hispanic
M/R
3,695
3,595
4,803
3,622
15,715

Rate
2.25
1.53
1.12
0.65
1.14

Inc. Ind.
259
361
560
697
1,877

Other
M/R
477
505
551
422
1,955

Rate
1.84
1.40
0.98
0.61
1.04

ALL GROUPS
Inc. Ind. M/R
Rate
7,122 14,906 2.09
10,811 16,730 1.55
18,639 20,809 1.12
24,531 15,560 0.63
61,103 68,005 1.11

2018
Age
Inc. Ind.
Under 25
1,081
25 to 29
2,374
30 to 39
4,971
40 and Older 6,508
Total
14,934

White
M/R
1,771
3,134
5,197
3,826
13,928

Rate
1.64
1.32
1.05
0.59
0.93

Inc. Ind.
3,335
5,123
8,602
11,107
28,167

Black
M/R
8,065
8,911
10,817
7,966
35,759

Rate
2.42
1.74
1.26
0.72
1.27

Inc. Ind.
1,432
2,222
4,095
5,371
13,120

Hispanic
M/R
3,067
3,831
4,625
3,866
15,389

Rate
2.14
1.72
1.13
0.72
1.17

Inc. Ind.
209
349
561
658
1,777

Other
M/R
358
659
703
410
2,130

Rate
1.71
1.89
1.25
0.62
1.20

ALL GROUPS
Inc. Ind. M/R
Rate
6,068 13,265 2.19
10,102 16,575 1.64
18,291 21,395 1.17
23,720 16,094 0.68
58,181 67,329 1.16

2019
Age
Inc. Ind.
Under 25
935
25 to 29
2,066
30 to 39
4,787
40 and Older 6,192
Total
13,980

White
M/R
1,640
2,796
4,934
3,607
12,977

Rate
1.75
1.35
1.03
0.58
0.93

Inc. Ind.
2,851
4,677
8,364
10,623
26,515

Black
M/R
7,318
8,995
10,948
7,771
35,032

Rate
2.57
1.92
1.31
0.73
1.32

Inc. Ind.
1,260
2,100
3,944
5,105
12,409

Hispanic
M/R
2,860
3,766
4,928
3,538
15,092

Rate
2.27
1.79
1.25
0.69
1.22

Inc. Ind.
171
299
545
628
1,643

Other
M/R
390
553
643
373
1,959

Rate
2.28
1.85
1.18
0.59
1.19

ALL GROUPS
Inc. Ind. M/R
Rate
5,223 12,214 2.34
9,177 16,153 1.76
17,690 21,497 1.22
22,613 15,318 0.68
54,703 65,182 1.19

2020
Age
Inc. Ind.
Under 25
639
25 to 29
1,352
30 to 39
3,466
40 and Older 5,106
Total
10,563

White
M/R
1,082
1,938
3,406
2,457
8,883

Rate
1.69
1.43
0.98
0.48
0.84

Inc. Ind.
1,919
3,582
6,850
9,086
21,437

Black
M/R
5,338
7,355
9,781
6,548
29,022

Rate
2.78
2.05
1.43
0.72
1.35

Inc. Ind.
788
1,630
3,155
4,204
9,777

Hispanic
M/R
2,013
3,221
4,161
2,878
12,273

Rate
2.55
1.98
1.32
0.68
1.26

Inc. Ind.
114
214
427
565
1,320

Other
M/R
326
402
498
296
1,522

Rate
2.86
1.88
1.17
0.52
1.15

ALL GROUPS
Inc. Ind. M/R
Rate
3,462 8,759
2.53
6,800 12,947 1.90
13,936 17,911 1.29
19,022 12,198 0.64
43,220 51,815 1.20

Inc. Ind. = Number of Incarcerated Individuals

M/R = Number of Misbehavior Reports Issued

1

Rate = Average Number of Misbehavior Reports per Incarcerated Individual

Appendix 4: Racial/Ethnic Disparities in the Average Number of Misbehavior Reports

Racial/Ethnic Disparities in the Average Number of Misbehavior Reports Issued
Year Age Group Black vs White Black vs Hispanic Black vs. Other Hispanic vs White Hispanic vs. Other Other vs. White Non-White vs. White
<25
42.74%
2.10%
24.00%
39.81%
21.45%
15.12%
40.91%
25-29
28.57%
13.86%
20.39%
12.91%
5.73%
6.79%
23.29%
2015 30-39
22.15%
4.23%
17.49%
17.19%
12.72%
3.97%
19.97%
40+
21.56%
(0.25%)
12.17%
21.86%
12.45%
8.37%
21.15%
Overall
38.22%
7.62%
19.72%
28.44%
11.24%
15.46%
34.45%
<25
41.18%
10.33%
11.64%
27.96%
1.19%
26.46%
36.83%
25-29
30.20%
11.37%
28.05%
16.91%
14.98%
1.68%
25.11%
2016 30-39
19.38%
6.71%
20.12%
11.87%
12.56%
(0.62%)
16.25%
40+
17.05%
(3.89%)
10.54%
21.79%
15.01%
5.89%
18.09%
Overall
33.83%
8.31%
15.90%
23.56%
7.01%
15.47%
29.97%
<25
42.89%
(1.22%)
20.48%
44.65%
21.96%
18.60%
42.31%
25-29
31.50%
10.84%
21.11%
18.63%
9.26%
8.58%
26.75%
2017 30-39
16.87%
5.84%
20.37%
10.42%
13.73%
(2.91%)
14.02%
40+
18.67%
2.22%
10.46%
16.10%
8.06%
7.44%
17.43%
Overall
33.53%
6.91%
16.67%
24.91%
9.14%
14.45%
30.11%
<25
47.61%
12.91%
41.18%
30.73%
25.04%
4.55%
40.94%
25-29
31.76%
0.89%
(7.88%)
30.60%
(8.69%)
43.03%
31.94%
2018 30-39
20.28%
11.34%
0.35%
8.03%
(9.87%)
19.86%
16.48%
40+
22.00%
(0.36%)
15.10%
22.44%
15.52%
5.99%
21.52%
Overall
36.12%
8.24%
5.91%
25.77%
(2.14%)
28.52%
32.65%
<25
46.34%
13.08%
12.55%
29.41%
(0.48%)
30.03%
40.71%
25-29
42.11%
7.24%
3.99%
32.51%
(3.04%)
36.66%
39.03%
2019 30-39
26.99%
4.76%
10.94%
21.23%
5.91%
14.47%
24.69%
40+
25.58%
5.55%
23.16%
18.97%
16.68%
1.96%
22.61%
Overall
42.33%
8.63%
10.81%
31.02%
2.00%
28.45%
38.31%
<25
64.28%
8.89%
(2.73%)
50.87%
(10.67%)
68.88%
60.72%
25-29
43.25%
3.91%
9.31%
37.86%
5.19%
31.05%
41.15%
2020 30-39
45.30%
8.27%
22.43%
34.21%
13.08%
18.68%
40.86%
40+
49.77%
5.27%
37.56%
42.27%
30.67%
8.87%
45.82%
Overall
60.99%
7.85%
17.41%
49.27%
8.87%
37.11%
56.50%
The above values represent the percentage difference in the average number of Misbehavior Reports each incarcerated individual in the first race/ethnic group was
issued compared to each incarcerated individual in the second race/ethnic group. Results are further broken down by age group.

1

Appendix 5: Racial/Ethnic Disparities in the Likelihood of Being Issued a Misbehavior
Report, by Incident Category
Racial/Ethnic Disparities in the Likelihood of Being Issued a Misbehavior Report, by Incident Category
Incident Category

Comparison

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Overall

Assaultive
Black vs White
198.6%
161.3%
185.9%
205.0%
150.3%
166.0%
184.8%
Assaultive
Hispanic vs White 180.2%
156.4%
171.3%
195.9%
146.9%
170.3%
158.7%
Assaultive
Other vs White
138.7%
73.9%
102.4%
129.7%
88.6%
67.1%
97.9%
Potentially Violent
Black vs White
76.4%
69.7%
70.7%
75.8%
85.6%
80.7%
72.5%
Violent
Black vs White
63.2%
70.7%
59.2%
63.6%
67.2%
74.3%
66.1%
Escape
Black vs White
(10.2%)
35.0%
72.0%
59.1%
81.1%
22.3%
55.8%
Violent
Hispanic vs White 58.1%
54.1%
54.9%
52.3%
52.6%
66.9%
54.1%
Potentially Violent Hispanic vs White 46.2%
45.2%
42.2%
48.1%
55.2%
57.0%
44.7%
Non-Violent
Black vs White
44.9%
44.3%
45.5%
52.1%
48.7%
48.7%
44.2%
Escape
Black vs Other
79.5%
1.9%
80.7%
75.1%
22.4%
(17.5%)
43.9%
Assaultive
Black vs Other
25.1%
50.3%
41.3%
32.8%
32.8%
59.2%
43.9%
Violent
Other vs White
30.5%
43.7%
30.1%
40.8%
40.3%
40.3%
36.6%
Potentially Violent
Other vs White
48.5%
30.3%
21.5%
35.1%
51.0%
32.0%
34.0%
Escape
Hispanic vs White (3.5%)
27.7%
32.4%
16.9%
51.8%
56.1%
33.0%
Assaultive
Hispanic vs Other 17.4%
47.4%
34.0%
28.8%
30.9%
61.8%
30.7%
Potentially Violent
Black vs Other
18.8%
30.3%
40.6%
30.1%
22.9%
36.9%
28.7%
Non-Violent
Hispanic vs White 20.4%
20.6%
24.1%
27.3%
26.4%
30.3%
23.4%
Escape
Hispanic vs Other 92.8%
(3.6%)
39.2%
28.7%
2.6%
5.3%
22.9%
Violent
Black vs Other
25.0%
18.8%
22.4%
16.2%
19.2%
24.3%
21.6%
Non-Violent
Other vs White
16.8%
10.0%
24.0%
27.8%
24.9%
30.9%
21.3%
Potentially Violent Black vs Hispanic 20.7%
16.8%
20.1%
18.7%
19.6%
15.1%
19.2%
Non-Violent
Black vs Other
24.1%
31.1%
17.3%
19.1%
19.1%
13.6%
18.8%
Escape
Black vs Hispanic (6.9%)
5.8%
29.9%
36.1%
19.3%
(21.6%)
17.1%
Non-Violent
Black vs Hispanic 20.3%
19.7%
17.3%
19.5%
17.7%
14.1%
16.9%
Violent
Hispanic vs Other 21.2%
7.2%
19.1%
8.2%
8.8%
19.0%
12.8%
Drugs/Alcohol
Hispanic vs Other 25.9%
16.4%
9.8%
0.4%
14.5%
22.4%
10.9%
Assaultive
Black vs Hispanic
6.6%
1.9%
5.4%
3.1%
1.4%
(1.6%)
10.1%
Life/Safety
Black vs White
(7.3%)
(11.2%)
(6.3%)
(3.9%)
(0.2%)
17.1%
9.7%
Life/Safety
Other vs White
(3.1%)
(4.4%)
0.3%
12.0%
13.4%
18.9%
8.7%
Escape
Other vs White
(49.9%)
32.4%
(4.8%)
(9.1%)
48.0%
48.2%
8.2%
Potentially Violent Hispanic vs Other (1.6%)
11.5%
17.1%
9.6%
2.8%
18.9%
7.9%
Violent
Black vs Hispanic
3.2%
10.8%
2.8%
7.4%
9.5%
4.4%
7.8%
Drugs/Alcohol
Hispanic vs White 6.7%
(7.1%)
(10.5%) (13.3%) (10.3%)
14.6%
5.9%
Life/Safety
Black vs Hispanic
0.1%
(0.3%)
2.1%
2.0%
(1.2%)
(2.1%)
5.3%
Life/Safety
Hispanic vs White (7.3%)
(10.9%)
(8.3%)
(5.8%)
1.0%
19.7%
4.2%
Drugs/Alcohol
Black vs Other
9.5%
(4.4%)
(15.7%) (25.3%)
(8.7%)
15.9%
1.9%
Non-Violent
Hispanic vs Other
3.1%
9.6%
0.1%
(0.4%)
1.2%
(0.5%)
1.7%
Life/Safety
Black vs Other
(4.2%)
(7.1%)
(6.7%)
(14.2%) (12.0%)
(1.5%)
1.0%
Drugs/Alcohol
Black vs White
(7.2%)
(23.8%) (31.3%) (35.5%) (28.5%)
8.5%
(2.7%)
Life/Safety
Hispanic vs Other (4.3%)
(6.8%)
(8.6%)
(15.9%) (10.9%)
0.6%
(4.1%)
Drugs/Alcohol
Other vs White
(15.2%) (20.2%) (18.5%) (13.7%) (21.6%)
(6.4%)
(4.5%)
Drugs/Alcohol
Black vs Hispanic (13.0%) (17.9%) (23.2%) (25.6%) (20.3%)
(5.3%)
(8.2%)
Values represent the greater or (lesser) percentage likelihood that an individual in the first race/ethnic group was Issued a
Misbehavior Report compared to an individual in the second race/ethnic group

1

Appendix 6: Racial/Ethnic Disparities in the Issuance of Misbehavior Reports, by Age
Group

Race/Age Group

Racial/Ethnic Disparities in the Share of Misbehavior Reports Issued vs.
Share of Incarcerated Population, by Age Group
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Overall

Black:
Under 25
25 to 29
30 to 39
40 and Older

8.6%
3.6%
(0.1%)
(7.1%)

6.9%
4.3%
0.7%
(7.2%)

6.4%
4.6%
0.9%
(7.5%)

6.2%
4.4%
1.3%
(7.3%)

6.0%
5.3%
1.5%
(7.5%)

5.9%
5.9%
3.0%
(8.4%)

7.4%
4.8%
1.4%
(6.4%)

Hispanic:
Under 25
25 to 29
30 to 39
40 and Older

3.2%
0.9%
(0.3%)
(3.3%)

2.4%
1.2%
(0.1%)
(3.2%)

2.7%
1.4%
0.0%
(3.7%)

2.1%
1.9%
(0.2%)
(3.5%)

2.1%
1.9%
0.4%
(3.9%)

2.1%
2.4%
0.7%
(4.2%)

2.6%
1.5%
(0.2%)
(3.5%)

Under 25
25 to 29
30 to 39
40 and Older

1.2%
0.4%
(1.4%)
(5.4%)

1.0%
0.6%
(1.0%)
(5.3%)

0.8%
0.7%
(0.7%)
(5.4%)

0.8%
0.6%
(0.8%)
(5.5%)

0.8%
0.5%
(1.2%)
(5.8%)

0.6%
0.6%
(1.4%)
(7.1%)

0.8%
0.1%
(2.1%)
(6.0%)

Other:
Under 25
25 to 29
30 to 39
40 and Older

0.3%
0.1%
(0.1%)
(0.5%)

0.3%
0.1%
(0.1%)
(0.5%)

0.3%
0.2%
(0.1%)
(0.5%)

0.2%
0.4%
0.1%
(0.5%)

0.3%
0.3%
(0.0%)
(0.6%)

0.4%
0.3%
(0.0%)
(0.7%)

0.3%
0.2%
(0.1%)
(0.5%)

Not Reported:
Under 25
25 to 29
30 to 39
40 and Older

0.1%
(0.0%)
(0.0%)
(0.1%)

(0.0%)
0.0%
(0.0%)
(0.1%)

0.0%
0.0%
(0.0%)
(0.1%)

(0.0%)
0.0%
(0.0%)
(0.1%)

(0.0%)
0.0%
(0.0%)
(0.1%)

(0.0%)
0.0%
0.0%
(0.1%)

0.0%
(0.0%)
(0.0%)
(0.1%)

All Races:
Under 25
25 to 29
30 to 39
40 and Older

13.3%
5.0%
(1.9%)
(16.4%)

10.6%
6.2%
(0.6%)
(16.2%)

10.3%
6.9%
0.1%
(17.3%)

9.3%
7.3%
0.3%
(16.9%)

9.2%
8.0%
0.6%
(17.8%)

8.9%
9.3%
2.3%
(20.5%)

11.0%
6.6%
(1.0%)
(16.6%)

White:

Above values represent the greater or (lesser) share of Misbehavior Reports each race/age group was
issued when compared to that group's share of the total incarcerated population for that age group.

1

Appendix 7: Number of Misbehavior Reports Issued by DOCCS Facilities
Numbe r Of Misbe havior Re ports Issue d, By Facility
Facility
Clinton
Gowanda
Great Meadow
Auburn
Midstate
Franklin
Attica
Five Points
Bare Hill
Sing Sing
Mohawk
Wyoming
Fishkill
Marcy
Greene
Collins
Green Haven
Elmira
Washington
Albion
Upstate
Groveland
Downstate
Gouverneur
Wende
Orleans
Bedford Hills
Riverview
Coxsackie
Livingston
Sullivan
Cape Vincent
Southport
Lakeview
Eastern
Watertown
Willard
Shawangunk
Cayuga
Woodbourne
Ulster
Altona
Wallkill
Ogdensburg
Queensboro
Adirondack
Taconic
Otisville
Hale Creek
Hudson
Edgecombe
Moriah
Lincoln
Rochester
Totals

Se curity Le ve l

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Total

Maximum
Medium
Maximum
Maximum
Medium
Medium
Maximum
Maximum
Medium
Maximum
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Maximum
Maximum
Medium
Medium
Maximum
Medium
Maximum
Medium
Maximum
Medium
Maximum
Medium
Maximum
Medium
Maximum
Medium
Maximum
Minimum
Maximum
Medium
DTC
Maximum
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Minimum
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum

3,323
3,590
2,470
2,467
2,654
2,871
1,550
1,795
2,868
1,468
1,706
2,429
1,745
1,898
1,893
1,641
1,506
1,569
1,950
1,259
1,601
1,215
1,507
1,292
971
1,097
1,071
1,136
1,011
1,314
1,085
1,085
686
988
785
757
824
518
837
563
585
497
347
479
536
448
273
180
299
209
57
49
25
18
66,997

4,003
3,330
2,287
2,341
2,735
2,315
2,174
2,095
2,398
1,606
1,632
2,400
1,969
1,621
1,420
1,811
1,627
1,647
1,535
1,205
1,442
1,426
1,828
1,173
1,034
1,158
1,139
971
1,100
1,210
778
758
897
828
719
606
767
533
666
531
638
590
456
377
491
449
267
243
166
125
82
75
33
22
65,729

4,697
2,932
2,628
2,559
2,411
2,431
2,833
2,457
2,415
2,090
2,338
1,730
1,776
1,938
1,639
1,621
1,505
1,513
1,359
1,680
1,406
1,328
1,575
989
1,189
1,466
1,041
911
1,059
1,338
741
749
763
921
694
635
621
737
746
557
561
484
425
404
333
601
200
197
227
269
77
67
100
42
68,005

4,693
2,552
2,790
2,769
2,626
2,133
2,792
2,560
2,119
2,217
2,138
1,652
1,913
1,882
1,636
1,608
1,857
1,807
1,272
1,552
1,386
1,536
1,495
1,067
1,189
1,080
1,021
1,068
1,063
1,082
828
690
624
751
631
946
478
716
472
553
462
555
450
492
384
163
355
332
281
306
115
58
98
34
67,329

4,883
2,528
3,095
2,458
2,430
2,582
2,481
2,162
1,971
3,077
2,118
1,496
1,522
1,489
1,802
1,729
1,794
1,729
1,376
1,626
1,352
1,332
948
1,322
1,081
1,015
1,337
1,094
907
390
809
954
581
423
676
792
706
568
441
492
407
473
422
397
315
229
371
325
132
271
125
54
81
12
65,182

3,700
1,360
2,983
1,938
1,468
1,623
1,903
2,322
1,420
1,671
1,656
1,110
1,439
1,437
1,787
1,726
1,688
1,669
1,388
1,067
840
1,167
624
1,594
1,003
642
829
848
872

25,299
16,292
16,253
14,532
14,324
13,955
13,733
13,391
13,191
12,129
11,588
10,817
10,364
10,265
10,177
10,136
9,977
9,934
8,880
8,389
8,027
8,004
7,977
7,437
6,467
6,458
6,438
6,028
6,012
5,334
5,076
4,944
4,375
4,261
4,182
4,100
3,964
3,599
3,572
3,090
2,992
2,984
2,426
2,424
2,244
1,943
1,717
1,493
1,277
1,265
500
350
337
134
385,057

1

835
708
824
350
677
364
568
527
410
394
339
385
326
275
185
53
251
216
172
85
44
47
6
51,815

% of
Total
6.57%
4.23%
4.22%
3.77%
3.72%
3.62%
3.57%
3.48%
3.43%
3.15%
3.01%
2.81%
2.69%
2.67%
2.64%
2.63%
2.59%
2.58%
2.31%
2.18%
2.08%
2.08%
2.07%
1.93%
1.68%
1.68%
1.67%
1.57%
1.56%
1.39%
1.32%
1.28%
1.14%
1.11%
1.09%
1.06%
1.03%
0.93%
0.93%
0.80%
0.78%
0.77%
0.63%
0.63%
0.58%
0.50%
0.45%
0.39%
0.33%
0.33%
0.13%
0.09%
0.09%
0.03%
100%

% Change
2020 vs 2015
11.3%
(62.1%)
20.8%
(21.4%)
(44.7%)
(43.5%)
22.8%
29.4%
(50.5%)
13.8%
(2.9%)
(54.3%)
(17.5%)
(24.3%)
(5.6%)
5.2%
12.1%
6.4%
(28.8%)
(15.3%)
(47.5%)
(4.0%)
(58.6%)
23.4%
3.3%
(41.5%)
(22.6%)
(25.4%)
(13.7%)
(100.0%)
(23.0%)
(34.7%)
20.1%
(64.6%)
(13.8%)
(51.9%)
(31.1%)
1.7%
(51.0%)
(30.0%)
(42.1%)
(22.5%)
(6.1%)
(42.6%)
(65.5%)
(88.2%)
(8.1%)
20.0%
(42.5%)
(59.3%)
(22.8%)
(4.1%)
(100.0%)
(66.7%)
(22.7%)

Appendix 8: Facility Trends (2020 vs. 2015) – Misbehavior Reports Issued vs. Incarcerated
Population
Facility
Southport
Gouverneur
Moriah
Attica
Five Points
Great Meadow
Clinton
Green Haven
Sing Sing
Taconic
Greene
Otisville
Elmira
Groveland
Albion
Wallkill
Willard
Altona
Shawangunk
Wende
Riverview
Collins
Mohawk
Fishkill
Ulster
Auburn
Cape Vincent
Bedford Hills
Bare Hill
Coxsackie
Ogdensburg
Washington
Livingston
Lincoln
Orleans
Marcy
Upstate
Eastern
Franklin
Wyoming
Adirondack
Watertown
Woodbourne
Hudson
Cayuga
Sullivan
Edgecombe
Downstate
Gowanda
Midstate
Lakeview
Hale Creek
Queensboro
Rochester
Totals

Se curity Le ve l
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Medium
Medium
Medium
Maximum
Medium
Medium
Medium
DTC
Medium
Maximum
Maximum
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Maximum
Medium
Maximum
Medium
Maximum
Medium
Medium
Medium
Minimum
Medium
Medium
Maximum
Maximum
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Maximum
Minimum
Maximum
Medium
Medium
Minimum
Medium
Minimum
Minimum

Change in Incarce rate d
Change In Numbe r of
Population
Mis be havior Re ports Is s ue d
(40.76%)
(34.37%)
(50.33%)
(22.04%)
(14.29%)
(19.59%)
(26.35%)
(24.73%)
(22.88%)
(44.69%)
(40.21%)
(14.56%)
(27.43%)
(36.55%)
(45.29%)
(35.06%)
(57.92%)
(47.56%)
(22.52%)
(19.97%)
(47.20%)
(16.08%)
(23.28%)
(32.17%)
(53.21%)
(31.69%)
(43.85%)
(31.39%)
(53.46%)
(15.67%)
(44.46%)
(29.41%)
(100.00%)
(100.00%)
(40.48%)
(22.66%)
(45.35%)
(9.96%)
(39.48%)
(49.97%)
(83.60%)
(45.45%)
(22.63%)
(49.30%)
(40.79%)
(11.95%)
(11.21%)
(46.55%)
(48.60%)
(29.87%)
(48.23%)
(16.73%)
(33.33%)
10.74%
(35.78%)

20.12%
23.37%
(4.08%)
22.77%
29.36%
20.77%
11.35%
12.08%
13.83%
(8.06%)
(5.60%)
20.00%
6.37%
(3.95%)
(15.25%)
(6.05%)
(31.07%)
(22.54%)
1.74%
3.30%
(25.35%)
5.18%
(2.93%)
(17.54%)
(42.05%)
(21.44%)
(34.75%)
(22.60%)
(50.49%)
(13.75%)
(42.59%)
(28.82%)
(100.00%)
(100.00%)
(41.48%)
(24.29%)
(47.53%)
(13.76%)
(43.47%)
(54.30%)
(88.17%)
(51.92%)
(30.02%)
(59.33%)
(51.02%)
(23.04%)
(22.81%)
(58.59%)
(62.12%)
(44.69%)
(64.57%)
(42.47%)
(65.49%)
(66.67%)
(22.66%)

1

Diffe re nce
60.88%
57.75%
46.25%
44.81%
43.65%
40.36%
37.70%
36.81%
36.71%
36.63%
34.62%
34.56%
33.81%
32.59%
30.04%
29.00%
26.86%
25.02%
24.26%
23.26%
21.84%
21.26%
20.35%
14.63%
11.16%
10.25%
9.11%
8.80%
2.97%
1.92%
1.87%
0.59%
0.00%
0.00%
(1.00%)
(1.63%)
(2.18%)
(3.80%)
(3.99%)
(4.34%)
(4.57%)
(6.46%)
(7.39%)
(10.03%)
(10.22%)
(11.09%)
(11.60%)
(12.05%)
(13.51%)
(14.82%)
(16.34%)
(25.75%)
(32.15%)
(77.41%)
13.12%

Appendix 9: Average Misbehavior Reports Issued by DOCCS Facilities
Ave rage Mis be havior Re ports Is s ue d Pe r Incarce rate d Individual, By Facility
Facility
Sullivan
Sing Sing
Clinton
Shawangunk
Great Meadow
Bedford Hills
Five Points
Auburn
Wende
Albion
Gowanda
Green Haven
Eastern
Attica
Midstate
Collins
Franklin
Washington
Bare Hill
Coxsackie
Marcy
Mohawk
Groveland
Watertown
Fishkill
Livingston
Adirondack
Wyoming
Gouverneur
Orleans
Southport
Riverview
Altona
Elmira
Upstate
Greene
Woodbourne
Cape Vincent
Taconic
Ogdensburg
Hudson
Wallkill
Willard
Cayuga
Downstate
Otisville
Edgecombe
Lakeview
Queensboro
Ulster
Hale Creek
Lincoln
Rochester
Moriah
Ove rall

Se curity Le ve l 2015
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Medium
Medium
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Maximum
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Maximum
Medium
Medium
Maximum
Maximum
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
DTC
Medium
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Medium
Medium
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum

1.64
0.72
0.89
0.78
1.00
1.01
0.96
1.04
0.81
0.77
1.30
0.60
0.73
0.54
1.04
0.96
1.07
1.29
1.01
0.83
0.98
0.75
0.71
0.91
0.69
0.87
0.72
0.85
0.75
0.73
0.56
0.70
0.64
0.62
0.78
0.68
0.51
0.74
0.50
0.67
0.37
0.39
0.67
0.53
0.58
0.23
0.49
0.59
0.66
0.38
0.37
0.14
0.15
0.11
0.79

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Ove rall

% Change
2020 vs 2015

1.20
0.81
1.04
0.81
0.95
1.02
1.04
1.01
0.88
0.77
1.21
0.65
0.68
0.77
1.05
1.08
0.95
1.05
0.89
0.84
0.85
0.70
0.84
0.70
0.82
0.83
0.70
0.84
0.67
0.73
0.83
0.61
0.73
0.65
0.72
0.56
0.49
0.54
0.53
0.51
0.50
0.52
0.61
0.43
0.72
0.32
0.56
0.54
0.72
0.38
0.22
0.12
0.16
0.19
0.78

1.16
1.02
1.18
1.09
1.14
0.96
1.22
1.04
0.99
1.10
1.13
0.61
0.61
0.93
1.02
1.01
1.01
0.93
0.97
0.80
0.98
0.96
0.83
0.74
0.75
0.92
0.91
0.75
0.58
0.97
0.78
0.60
0.62
0.57
0.76
0.61
0.53
0.54
0.42
0.58
0.92
0.51
0.58
0.52
0.64
0.26
0.45
0.55
0.48
0.38
0.29
0.27
0.31
0.17
0.83

1.29
1.09
1.22
1.07
1.20
0.97
1.21
1.20
1.03
1.05
1.09
0.79
0.55
0.97
1.12
0.98
0.94
0.84
0.89
0.85
0.98
0.92
0.91
1.06
0.77
0.78
0.83
0.77
0.65
0.76
0.86
0.73
0.68
0.71
0.78
0.60
0.51
0.51
0.73
0.63
1.21
0.51
0.68
0.37
0.65
0.40
0.73
0.50
0.53
0.37
0.36
0.27
0.25
0.15
0.85

1.25
1.56
1.37
0.95
1.30
1.40
1.16
1.17
0.93
1.23
1.12
0.78
0.61
0.90
1.04
1.01
1.13
0.93
0.96
0.77
0.77
0.92
0.83
0.99
0.65
0.46
6.54
0.70
0.82
0.72
0.83
0.84
0.68
0.71
0.90
0.71
0.47
0.72
0.85
0.62
1.40
0.44
0.83
0.35
0.46
0.41
0.76
0.32
0.40
0.39
0.15
0.48
0.12
0.17
0.87

1.43
1.07
1.34
1.02
1.50
1.14
1.45
1.19
1.05
1.19
0.96
0.90
0.70
0.85
0.82
1.20
1.00
1.30
1.07
0.85
0.95
0.95
1.08
0.80
0.84
0.00
0.52
0.77
1.40
0.72
1.13
0.99
0.94
0.91
0.74
1.07
0.46
0.86
0.83
0.69
0.30
0.56
1.10
0.44
0.45
0.33
0.43
0.41
0.34
0.47
0.25
0.00
0.04
0.21
0.95

2.94
2.51
2.39
2.24
2.17
2.14
2.12
2.07
1.89
1.88
1.87
1.85
1.80
1.75
1.72
1.72
1.63
1.61
1.57
1.52
1.49
1.46
1.40
1.36
1.32
1.31
1.30
1.28
1.22
1.22
1.16
1.13
1.12
1.12
1.11
1.08
1.07
1.05
1.05
0.96
0.83
0.80
0.77
0.75
0.72
0.69
0.65
0.58
0.58
0.44
0.33
0.32
0.21
0.18
1.40

(12.60%)
47.60%
51.18%
31.31%
50.19%
12.82%
50.93%
15.01%
29.07%
54.90%
(26.29%)
48.91%
(4.22%)
57.48%
(21.13%)
25.34%
(6.59%)
0.84%
6.39%
2.28%
(2.10%)
26.52%
51.37%
(11.85%)
21.57%
(100.00%)
(27.86%)
(8.67%)
87.99%
(1.68%)
102.78%
41.37%
47.71%
46.59%
(4.00%)
57.90%
(9.55%)
16.22%
66.23%
3.37%
(19.79%)
44.66%
63.83%
(17.26%)
(22.54%)
40.46%
(13.06%)
(31.57%)
(48.23%)
23.85%
(30.92%)
(100.00%)
(69.90%)
93.13%
20.43%

1

Appendix 10: Percentage of Incarcerated Individuals who Were Issued Misbehavior
Report by DOCCS Facility

Percentage Of Incarcerated Individuals That Were Issued A Misbehavior Report, By Facility
Facility

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Overall

Auburn
Clinton
Great Meadow
Shawangunk
Sullivan
Five Points
Bare Hill
Sing Sing
Green Haven
Gowanda
Wende
Washington
Eastern
Attica
Watertown
Franklin
Riverview
Mohawk
Marcy
Wyoming
Collins
Livingston
Coxsackie
Willard
Midstate
Orleans
Groveland
Gouverneur
Adirondack
Cape Vincent
Ogdensburg
Fishkill
Albion
Altona
Greene
Elmira
Woodbourne
Bedford Hills
Upstate
Edgecombe
Wallkill
Southport
Taconic
Downstate
Cayuga
Otisville
Queensboro
Ulster
Hudson
Lakeview
Hale Creek
Lincoln
Rochester
Moriah
Not Reported
Overall

54.1%
49.3%
53.3%
44.9%
49.0%
49.6%
52.8%
38.6%
37.4%
60.4%
45.4%
55.7%
40.5%
34.1%
50.4%
52.7%
44.4%
43.5%
46.7%
46.3%
44.8%
47.2%
42.8%
54.7%
46.1%
42.1%
39.4%
40.0%
44.1%
41.5%
41.7%
35.6%
34.2%
37.1%
40.3%
39.5%
30.0%
38.4%
38.3%
37.1%
26.2%
31.8%
29.7%
40.9%
31.8%
16.6%
44.3%
31.8%
25.7%
28.8%
25.6%
13.6%
13.2%
10.0%
0.0%
42.5%

53.1%
52.8%
52.3%
43.6%
48.3%
50.9%
48.5%
39.6%
39.7%
56.8%
45.2%
50.0%
39.9%
41.6%
44.9%
47.6%
42.0%
40.7%
45.5%
48.0%
49.6%
47.0%
39.8%
50.5%
47.4%
43.3%
41.5%
38.9%
40.0%
36.3%
36.1%
41.4%
36.2%
42.7%
30.3%
40.3%
30.9%
38.9%
37.3%
40.8%
33.3%
38.8%
30.1%
43.4%
28.0%
22.6%
43.1%
30.0%
22.6%
24.4%
17.3%
9.9%
14.4%
16.5%
0.0%
42.3%

55.7%
56.5%
57.1%
52.0%
49.3%
56.7%
52.0%
44.5%
37.0%
53.4%
47.2%
47.8%
32.5%
47.2%
46.7%
48.9%
41.9%
46.5%
48.0%
42.8%
43.9%
48.3%
40.4%
50.6%
48.2%
53.1%
40.5%
37.6%
47.7%
36.4%
39.9%
40.1%
44.8%
36.5%
36.0%
35.9%
31.0%
41.2%
40.5%
32.9%
31.1%
35.5%
26.1%
40.9%
30.0%
19.8%
32.9%
31.5%
39.4%
27.9%
21.7%
21.3%
26.3%
15.6%
0.0%
43.4%

57.7%
56.2%
57.0%
51.8%
50.7%
56.4%
50.1%
48.3%
41.7%
52.1%
50.8%
45.6%
33.9%
46.6%
53.7%
47.9%
45.9%
47.2%
48.4%
42.6%
43.3%
41.9%
44.8%
56.6%
46.6%
46.1%
45.2%
41.7%
46.9%
35.0%
41.6%
40.7%
44.0%
37.3%
34.0%
42.6%
29.9%
39.8%
39.1%
51.0%
31.1%
39.5%
36.6%
40.7%
25.9%
27.3%
33.0%
31.9%
40.7%
27.9%
26.7%
21.0%
23.4%
14.3%
0.0%
44.0%

60.2%
59.5%
61.0%
46.6%
52.2%
54.7%
51.9%
57.3%
42.7%
52.9%
48.7%
51.4%
36.9%
46.5%
52.8%
51.8%
50.8%
48.4%
44.3%
41.7%
46.1%
31.1%
41.2%
63.2%
44.9%
43.4%
42.4%
46.8%
94.3%
43.7%
38.9%
35.9%
47.6%
39.4%
39.2%
39.8%
28.0%
47.6%
43.2%
52.7%
29.4%
37.3%
41.2%
33.5%
25.0%
26.7%
28.2%
33.4%
38.1%
24.2%
13.6%
30.6%
11.1%
16.5%
0.0%
44.7%

59.4%
58.6%
59.7%
44.0%
56.0%
62.9%
52.1%
47.3%
39.6%
44.5%
50.0%
56.8%
41.1%
44.3%
43.4%
47.0%
54.3%
48.5%
46.8%
42.1%
47.2%
0.0%
45.4%
72.6%
39.9%
41.7%
45.7%
57.0%
20.6%
42.8%
43.2%
39.5%
48.2%
48.5%
48.2%
47.2%
26.4%
43.3%
36.2%
28.2%
37.0%
44.2%
37.4%
32.1%
28.3%
24.0%
22.5%
35.9%
21.9%
21.9%
17.6%
0.0%
4.5%
19.3%
0.0%
45.3%

74.9%
74.8%
74.1%
72.2%
71.1%
68.7%
66.8%
66.6%
66.3%
66.1%
65.3%
65.3%
64.9%
63.2%
63.1%
63.0%
62.1%
61.2%
60.0%
59.9%
59.3%
58.9%
58.6%
58.5%
58.0%
58.0%
56.4%
55.7%
55.2%
54.5%
54.5%
52.4%
52.3%
52.1%
50.4%
49.0%
47.8%
47.5%
45.4%
45.0%
43.9%
43.8%
43.1%
41.7%
40.0%
38.3%
36.3%
35.0%
33.9%
28.5%
23.7%
23.1%
18.5%
16.3%
0.0%
55.7%

1

% Change
2020 vs 2015
9.8%
18.9%
12.2%
(2.0%)
14.3%
26.9%
(1.4%)
22.5%
5.9%
(26.4%)
10.0%
2.1%
1.4%
29.7%
(13.8%)
(10.9%)
22.1%
11.6%
0.3%
(9.0%)
5.4%
(100.0%)
6.1%
32.9%
(13.5%)
(0.8%)
16.2%
42.7%
(53.3%)
3.3%
3.7%
11.1%
41.1%
30.6%
19.7%
19.5%
(12.0%)
12.6%
(5.5%)
(24.0%)
41.4%
39.0%
26.1%
(21.4%)
(10.9%)
44.5%
(49.2%)
12.9%
(14.9%)
(24.1%)
(31.3%)
(100.0%)
(66.1%)
92.4%
0.0%
6.5%

Appendix 11: Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Issuing Misbehavior Reports, by DOCCS
Facility
Facility

Comparison

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Overall

Elmira

Hispanic vs White

100.3%

122.6%

70.8%

90.8%

112.6%

112.2%

115.8%

Elmira

Black vs White

78.3%

104.3%

64.6%

84.0%

92.5%

107.2%

100.4%

Downstate*

Black vs White

75.0%

61.0%

90.9%

77.1%

107.3%

114.3%

90.0%

Downstate*

Other vs White

29.8%

70.0%

36.7%

142.1%

80.1%

103.5%

83.0%

Moriah*

Black vs White

34.4%

47.1%

90.9%

143.8%

81.5%

106.5%

79.2%

Downstate*

Hispanic vs White

70.1%

55.5%

78.6%

64.6%

94.8%

98.7%

78.1%

Lakeview

Black vs White

76.0%

48.7%

48.7%

63.8%

78.9%

96.7%

67.2%

Lincoln*

Other vs White

106.7%

14.3%

45.8%

51.6%

50.0%

0.0%

65.8%

Hudson

Black vs White

34.3%

203.1%

134.2%

43.0%

12.7%

57.1%

56.7%

Lincoln*

Black vs White

90.8%

77.8%

44.2%

84.7%

48.2%

0.0%

52.9%

Hudson

Other vs White

62.2%

180.0%

(6.3%)

51.9%

36.2%

10.0%

52.6%

Lakeview

Other vs White

83.1%

18.2%

23.5%

74.0%

43.7%

24.1%

52.5%

Elmira

Other vs White

19.3%

56.0%

(28.1%)

19.9%

51.7%

27.4%

49.2%

Bedford Hills

Black vs White

60.5%

65.1%

41.9%

46.6%

52.1%

89.1%

48.9%

Lincoln*

Black vs Hispanic

70.8%

4.0%

76.0%

92.7%

11.6%

0.0%

47.6%

Rochester*

Black vs White

126.2%

(8.2%)

33.6%

92.9%

138.9%

0.0%

46.5%

Moriah*

Black vs Hispanic

160.5%

7.8%

78.9%

22.2%

16.9%

63.0%

44.0%

Coxsackie

Other vs White

71.7%

55.7%

40.0%

37.5%

11.1%

73.7%

38.6%

Bedford Hills

Hispanic vs White

44.8%

43.7%

18.4%

38.2%

25.4%

95.9%

37.9%

Hudson

Hispanic vs White

37.7%

196.3%

97.2%

11.2%

25.2%

(6.4%)

37.3%

Edgecombe

Black vs White

46.8%

35.7%

121.8%

42.0%

(3.2%)

65.1%

36.8%

Attica

Hispanic vs White

65.5%

40.5%

68.6%

56.9%

73.7%

103.2%

36.1%

Taconic

Black vs White

23.5%

34.0%

30.3%

34.0%

54.4%

15.9%

35.9%

Lakeview

Hispanic vs White

28.4%

35.0%

35.1%

18.7%

47.7%

80.5%

35.4%

Attica

Black vs White

51.0%

48.5%

47.9%

48.6%

70.8%

92.5%

34.4%

Coxsackie

Black vs White

77.1%

77.5%

51.2%

26.3%

33.6%

53.8%

33.9%

Moriah*

Other vs White

30.6%

63.3%

77.8%

(100.0%)

72.0%

(100.0%)

32.0%

Otisville

Black vs White

66.1%

102.6%

23.4%

1.4%

32.2%

95.5%

31.1%

Edgecombe

Hispanic vs White

14.8%

11.6%

109.1%

60.8%

(6.0%)

90.5%

30.6%

Albion

Black vs White

58.0%

33.8%

27.1%

29.3%

36.1%

25.7%

29.1%

Five Points

Black vs White

40.1%

41.5%

43.2%

27.0%

50.8%

46.2%

28.0%

Taconic

Hispanic vs White

0.3%

44.9%

40.8%

50.8%

34.2%

23.2%

27.7%

Gowanda*

Black vs White

23.3%

45.8%

28.6%

25.3%

31.9%

56.2%

25.4%

Wende

Black vs White

31.8%

27.7%

62.4%

31.4%

45.9%

40.8%

25.4%

Clinton

Black vs White

50.7%

49.5%

47.1%

40.6%

24.3%

69.9%

25.3%

Hale Creek

Black vs Hispanic

45.6%

31.9%

23.5%

(11.9%)

6.0%

117.8%

25.2%

Rochester*

Black vs Hispanic

(19.2%)

108.5%

43.6%

(4.8%)

116.7%

0.0%

24.4%

Moriah*

Hispanic vs White

(48.4%)

36.5%

6.7%

99.5%

55.3%

26.7%

24.4%

Wyoming

Black vs White

20.4%

19.7%

19.8%

28.3%

24.2%

50.9%

24.3%

1

Facility

Comparison

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Overall

Albion

Black vs Hispanic

25.2%

20.4%

26.9%

33.7%

20.1%

2.5%

23.7%

Lakeview

Black vs Hispanic

37.0%

10.2%

10.1%

38.0%

21.1%

9.0%

23.5%

Coxsackie

Hispanic vs White

60.3%

77.5%

35.2%

25.8%

10.5%

26.5%

23.5%

Altona

Black vs White

23.8%

26.5%

3.6%

63.5%

25.2%

39.9%

23.3%

Washington

Black vs White

37.5%

19.9%

34.6%

17.3%

6.4%

22.4%

22.9%

Otisville

Hispanic vs White

40.6%

42.5%

47.0%

(16.7%)

20.1%

144.1%

22.6%

Livingston*

Black vs White

48.6%

35.9%

22.5%

20.7%

23.9%

0.0%

22.5%

Gowanda*

Black vs Hispanic

25.9%

30.5%

32.4%

15.5%

14.3%

19.3%

22.0%

Washington

Hispanic vs White

33.9%

23.5%

49.4%

20.2%

6.5%

14.4%

21.6%

Five Points

Hispanic vs White

16.9%

29.3%

34.4%

29.8%

45.9%

45.8%

21.4%

Livingston*

Hispanic vs White

36.9%

30.3%

39.1%

24.1%

12.1%

0.0%

21.3%

Wende

Hispanic vs White

18.0%

25.3%

55.7%

53.0%

52.2%

34.4%

20.9%

Clinton

Other vs White

28.5%

51.9%

44.4%

10.5%

(1.4%)

28.8%

20.4%

Ulster

Black vs White

4.0%

41.4%

28.7%

31.3%

28.3%

30.8%

20.3%

Washington

Other vs White

31.3%

13.2%

61.2%

12.7%

11.0%

42.8%

20.0%

Greene

Black vs White

46.0%

43.6%

17.6%

0.8%

4.0%

19.1%

19.1%

Attica

Other vs White

13.9%

14.1%

23.3%

46.4%

82.4%

67.4%

18.8%

Five Points

Other vs White

52.3%

45.9%

37.4%

46.1%

20.0%

28.1%

18.7%

Wyoming

Hispanic vs White

11.1%

13.7%

0.8%

22.3%

17.7%

41.6%

18.6%

Wallkill

Other vs White

(7.7%)

(21.1%)

74.4%

73.7%

12.8%

(5.0%)

18.6%

Ulster

Black vs Hispanic

16.5%

34.1%

1.9%

7.2%

21.4%

25.8%

18.4%

Great Meadow

Black vs White

23.5%

24.4%

16.9%

41.2%

35.5%

46.5%

18.1%

Rochester*

Hispanic vs White

180.0%

(56.0%)

(6.9%)

102.5%

10.3%

0.0%

17.8%

Ogdensburg*

Other vs White

34.5%

34.4%

30.2%

31.1%

33.6%

(21.6%)

17.7%

Greene

Other vs White

21.9%

42.7%

15.5%

22.1%

8.0%

(5.5%)

17.6%

Hale Creek

Black vs White

23.9%

(1.1%)

7.7%

15.1%

19.5%

38.8%

17.1%

Clinton

Hispanic vs White

34.9%

33.6%

33.7%

23.1%

9.2%

54.2%

17.0%

Groveland

Hispanic vs White

6.1%

13.6%

12.6%

34.6%

15.5%

30.5%

16.6%

Auburn

Hispanic vs White

18.5%

28.2%

10.4%

38.8%

30.0%

41.4%

16.5%

Auburn

Black vs White

23.3%

32.4%

13.6%

24.1%

25.5%

27.9%

16.1%

Midstate

Hispanic vs White

23.0%

22.2%

15.7%

10.9%

30.8%

41.0%

15.9%

Gouverneur

Black vs White

30.3%

(3.3%)

25.2%

1.8%

21.6%

38.2%

14.9%

Great Meadow

Other vs White

14.6%

7.0%

(2.5%)

31.5%

12.4%

39.0%

14.9%

Altona

Hispanic vs White

4.8%

24.3%

(8.8%)

50.5%

3.5%

22.0%

14.8%

Great Meadow

Hispanic vs White

13.5%

23.8%

15.2%

30.5%

25.3%

42.0%

14.4%

Groveland

Other vs White

14.7%

14.5%

10.9%

20.1%

20.6%

38.0%

14.3%

Ulster

Other vs White

(9.0%)

38.5%

13.0%

44.9%

17.1%

19.9%

14.2%

Hudson

Black vs Hispanic

(2.4%)

2.3%

18.8%

28.6%

(10.0%)

67.9%

14.1%

Sullivan

Black vs White

9.0%

17.6%

2.7%

11.8%

11.2%

15.7%

14.0%

Wende

Other vs White

3.5%

7.2%

47.1%

45.1%

40.8%

30.9%

13.9%

Eastern

Black vs White

7.2%

11.0%

31.1%

50.3%

10.1%

37.1%

13.9%

Riverview

Black vs White

16.3%

7.3%

(0.6%)

32.8%

(1.0%)

46.4%

13.7%

2

Facility

Comparison

2015

2016

Woodbourne
Shawangunk

Black vs White

20.3%

13.1%

Black vs White

(2.4%)

6.1%

Green Haven

Black vs White

18.5%

1.4%

Livingston*

Other vs White

48.5%

2017

2018

2019

2020

Overall

0.2%

6.2%

(2.6%)

13.4%

(0.9%)

7.1%

13.7%

28.1%

40.0%

13.5%

7.0%

17.5%

15.7%

11.2%

13.0%

(6.6%)

20.1%

25.2%

(3.1%)

0.0%

12.8%

Bare Hill

Black vs White

12.0%

10.3%

14.7%

11.0%

19.7%

30.2%

12.7%

Adirondack

Black vs Hispanic

10.4%

1.5%

17.1%

12.2%

14.3%

(2.0%)

12.6%

Cayuga

Black vs White

45.8%

4.2%

(5.5%)

20.4%

47.1%

10.8%

12.6%

Wallkill

Hispanic vs White

30.6%

3.5%

4.6%

25.3%

8.0%

6.9%

12.4%

Cayuga

Hispanic vs White

21.2%

(2.9%)

3.0%

20.0%

33.3%

52.2%

12.1%

Gouverneur

Other vs White

34.5%

(2.6%)

33.5%

(7.3%)

4.1%

20.3%

11.9%

Midstate

Black vs White

19.3%

4.7%

10.7%

2.1%

12.8%

35.8%

11.6%

Queensboro

Black vs White

(0.7%)

(4.0%)

8.1%

11.3%

16.6%

28.8%

11.4%

Ogdensburg*

Black vs Hispanic

11.9%

(3.4%)

25.6%

34.1%

(6.1%)

(6.6%)

11.2%

Southport*

Hispanic vs White

4.9%

20.8%

(6.7%)

(7.9%)

7.8%

77.5%

10.6%

Marcy

Black vs White

21.5%

15.8%

7.1%

6.6%

26.7%

32.2%

10.4%

Shawangunk

Black vs Hispanic

1.4%

15.8%

23.7%

4.2%

(5.7%)

(18.7%)

10.4%

Midstate

Other vs White

18.8%

(6.4%)

20.5%

(7.0%)

12.9%

13.7%

10.3%

Greene

Hispanic vs White

35.5%

15.7%

15.1%

1.4%

(0.5%)

5.0%

10.2%

Collins

Hispanic vs White

1.8%

1.3%

17.8%

4.4%

10.2%

34.9%

9.9%

Queensboro

Hispanic vs White

8.3%

0.6%

23.7%

20.8%

4.4%

(18.2%)

9.9%

Franklin

Hispanic vs White

13.2%

4.9%

8.1%

6.1%

6.7%

7.3%

9.9%

Gouverneur

Hispanic vs White

9.7%

7.4%

16.9%

6.8%

9.1%

40.3%

9.8%

Auburn

Other vs White

24.5%

39.6%

3.4%

12.9%

21.3%

17.4%

9.8%

Sing Sing

Black vs Hispanic

5.5%

11.1%

32.8%

17.5%

5.8%

14.6%

9.7%

Franklin

Black vs White

17.2%

12.6%

1.0%

1.6%

8.8%

18.5%

9.4%

Green Haven

Black vs Hispanic

17.5%

14.8%

18.8%

9.2%

20.5%

4.2%

9.3%

Groveland

Black vs White

(5.4%)

(3.0%)

4.2%

19.6%

26.5%

16.6%

9.1%

Southport*

Black vs White

10.9%

13.7%

3.5%

(11.9%)

19.0%

50.9%

9.1%

Sullivan

Hispanic vs White

23.7%

17.3%

6.1%

7.3%

(1.7%)

0.6%

8.9%

Upstate

Hispanic vs White

3.1%

(0.8%)

2.9%

49.2%

10.5%

0.0%

8.8%

Hale Creek

Other vs White

25.4%

30.7%

22.6%

2.8%

(67.7%)

40.1%

8.8%

Woodbourne

Black vs Hispanic

53.2%

20.3%

(6.7%)

26.7%

6.2%

10.4%

8.6%

Coxsackie

Black vs Hispanic

10.5%

0.0%

11.8%

0.4%

20.8%

21.6%

8.5%

Southport*

Other vs White

(19.1%)

(10.4%)

79.2%

15.5%

64.0%

71.4%

8.5%

Greene

Black vs Hispanic

7.8%

24.1%

2.1%

(0.6%)

4.5%

13.5%

8.1%

Bedford Hills

Black vs Hispanic

10.8%

14.9%

19.9%

6.1%

21.3%

(3.5%)

8.0%

Marcy

Other vs White

24.5%

(9.3%)

21.4%

25.1%

55.6%

16.1%

7.7%

Bare Hill

Hispanic vs White

15.4%

(3.3%)

8.2%

5.2%

9.7%

20.2%

7.7%

Sing Sing

Black vs White

6.3%

26.3%

7.3%

17.2%

23.1%

17.4%

7.7%

Altona

Black vs Hispanic

18.1%

1.8%

13.7%

8.6%

21.0%

14.6%

7.5%

Watertown*

Black vs Hispanic

7.3%

6.4%

4.1%

25.6%

14.8%

16.2%

7.5%

Collins

Other vs White

(3.5%)

21.9%

(4.2%)

(5.1%)

9.5%

40.0%

7.4%

3

Facility

Comparison

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Overall

Riverview

Black vs Hispanic

11.8%

(1.9%)

25.5%

18.7%

3.3%

19.8%

7.4%

Ogdensburg*

Black vs White

25.9%

3.5%

17.6%

11.4%

(5.2%)

(24.2%)

7.3%

Clinton

Black vs Hispanic

11.7%

11.9%

10.0%

14.2%

13.8%

10.2%

7.1%

Upstate

Other vs White

0.9%

(15.3%)

10.6%

83.2%

(7.4%)

(34.8%)

7.0%

Eastern

Black vs Hispanic

10.4%

(3.4%)

(7.8%)

24.6%

12.5%

21.2%

7.0%

Otisville

Black vs Hispanic

18.2%

42.2%

(16.1%)

21.8%

10.1%

(19.9%)

6.9%

Upstate

Black vs White

2.2%

(5.0%)

8.6%

42.6%

19.6%

7.0%

6.9%

Downstate*

Black vs Hispanic

2.9%

3.5%

6.9%

7.6%

6.4%

7.8%

6.7%

Willard*

Other vs White

2.4%

26.0%

3.3%

16.2%

2.3%

(4.0%)

6.6%

Eastern

Hispanic vs White

(2.9%)

14.9%

42.2%

20.7%

(2.2%)

13.1%

6.5%

Bare Hill

Other vs White

(1.1%)

(2.8%)

2.4%

14.8%

15.4%

19.0%

6.4%

Taconic

Black vs Hispanic

23.2%

(7.5%)

(7.4%)

(11.2%)

15.0%

(5.9%)

6.4%

Cape Vincent

Black vs White

15.8%

11.8%

0.7%

17.9%

(5.9%)

18.7%

6.3%

Wallkill

Black vs White

12.6%

(8.7%)

18.0%

11.9%

2.3%

(0.5%)

6.2%

Riverview

Hispanic vs White

4.0%

9.4%

(20.7%)

11.9%

(4.2%)

22.3%

5.9%

Collins

Black vs White

5.8%

6.5%

(0.1%)

(2.4%)

7.3%

29.4%

5.6%

Five Points

Black vs Hispanic

19.9%

9.5%

6.6%

(2.2%)

3.3%

0.2%

5.5%

Orleans

Hispanic vs White

20.5%

0.1%

19.1%

13.6%

3.1%

26.7%

5.5%

Cape Vincent

Black vs Hispanic

16.0%

24.8%

1.5%

20.8%

(3.1%)

(16.1%)

5.2%

Altona

Other vs White

21.1%

29.6%

(42.6%)

(35.6%)

(5.9%)

13.2%

5.2%

Marcy

Hispanic vs White

7.0%

0.2%

9.0%

9.2%

30.4%

29.6%

5.2%

Marcy

Black vs Hispanic

13.6%

15.5%

(1.7%)

(2.3%)

(2.8%)

2.0%

5.0%

Taconic

Other vs White

(26.2%)

106.7%

5.3%

(8.6%)

10.3%

(47.7%)

5.0%

Wyoming

Black vs Hispanic

8.3%

5.3%

18.9%

4.8%

5.5%

6.6%

4.8%

Edgecombe

Black vs Hispanic

27.9%

21.6%

6.1%

(11.7%)

3.0%

(13.3%)

4.7%

Woodbourne

Hispanic vs White

(21.5%)

(6.0%)

7.4%

(16.2%)

(6.7%)

(3.1%)

4.7%

Sullivan

Black vs Hispanic

(11.9%)

0.3%

(3.2%)

4.3%

13.2%

15.0%

4.7%

Bare Hill

Black vs Hispanic

(2.9%)

14.0%

6.0%

5.5%

9.1%

8.3%

4.6%

Gouverneur

Black vs Hispanic

18.8%

(10.0%)

7.1%

(4.6%)

11.5%

(1.4%)

4.6%

Wyoming

Other vs White

13.3%

(5.7%)

5.5%

13.6%

6.2%

(11.0%)

4.4%

Albion

Hispanic vs White

26.2%

11.1%

0.2%

(3.3%)

13.3%

22.6%

4.4%

Mohawk

Black vs White

12.7%

3.1%

9.8%

9.0%

10.0%

23.1%

4.3%

Franklin

Other vs White

13.7%

(11.3%)

(2.9%)

8.3%

21.0%

14.1%

4.1%

Green Haven

Other vs White

(30.7%)

(21.1%)

17.2%

(22.7%)

9.7%

(9.0%)

4.0%

Wende

Black vs Hispanic

11.7%

2.0%

4.3%

(14.1%)

(4.1%)

4.8%

3.8%

Fishkill

Black vs White

14.2%

4.9%

7.9%

(12.7%)

(9.9%)

25.9%

3.7%

Lincoln*

Hispanic vs White

11.7%

70.9%

(18.1%)

(4.2%)

32.8%

0.0%

3.6%

Watertown*

Black vs White

16.7%

0.3%

11.8%

1.3%

1.1%

(6.9%)

3.5%

Woodbourne

Other vs White

(46.2%)

0.0%

(17.5%)

(10.5%)

7.0%

(23.0%)

3.4%

Green Haven

Hispanic vs White

0.9%

(11.7%)

(9.9%)

7.6%

(4.0%)

6.8%

3.4%

Edgecombe

Other vs White

(100.0%)

(100.0%)

63.3%

85.2%

22.8%

(100.0%)

3.4%

Watertown*

Other vs White

14.1%

(3.2%)

33.1%

(8.5%)

23.4%

(4.9%)

3.4%

4

Facility

Comparison

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Great Meadow

Black vs Hispanic

Mohawk

Black vs Hispanic

Shawangunk

2020

Overall

8.9%

0.5%

1.4%

8.2%

2.5%

10.5%

2.1%

6.2%

8.1%

3.1%

3.2%

4.6%

16.7%

2.9%

Hispanic vs White

(3.7%)

(8.4%)

(21.3%)

8.8%

35.9%

72.2%

2.8%

Gowanda*

Hispanic vs White

(2.0%)

11.8%

(2.9%)

8.4%

15.4%

30.9%

2.8%

Orleans

Black vs White

9.9%

(4.4%)

15.9%

10.6%

1.2%

30.8%

2.8%

Mohawk

Other vs White

36.8%

(0.6%)

(5.0%)

17.4%

3.5%

6.2%

2.4%

Fishkill

Black vs Hispanic

2.2%

4.8%

3.1%

5.1%

(7.2%)

9.6%

2.2%

Ulster

Hispanic vs White

(10.7%)

5.5%

26.3%

22.5%

5.7%

4.0%

1.6%

Fishkill

Hispanic vs White

11.8%

0.1%

4.6%

(16.9%)

(2.9%)

14.9%

1.5%

Queensboro

Black vs Hispanic

(8.3%)

(4.5%)

(12.6%)

(7.9%)

11.7%

57.4%

1.4%

Mohawk

Hispanic vs White

10.0%

(6.7%)

7.6%

2.6%

5.1%

5.4%

1.4%

Washington

Black vs Hispanic

2.7%

(2.9%)

(9.9%)

(2.4%)

(0.1%)

7.0%

1.1%

Cape Vincent

Hispanic vs White

(0.2%)

(10.4%)

(0.7%)

(2.4%)

(2.9%)

41.6%

1.1%

Livingston*

Black vs Hispanic

8.6%

4.3%

(11.9%)

(2.8%)

10.5%

0.0%

1.0%

Willard*

Black vs Hispanic

(0.1%)

6.5%

(0.5%)

(2.1%)

2.1%

1.8%

0.8%

Cayuga

Black vs Hispanic

20.3%

7.3%

(8.2%)

0.3%

10.4%

(27.2%)

0.4%

Franklin

Black vs Hispanic

3.5%

7.4%

(6.6%)

(4.2%)

2.0%

10.5%

(0.4%)

Auburn

Black vs Hispanic

4.0%

3.3%

2.9%

(10.6%)

(3.5%)

(9.6%)

(0.4%)

Attica

Black vs Hispanic

(8.8%)

5.7%

(12.2%)

(5.3%)

(1.7%)

(5.3%)

(1.2%)

Southport*

Black vs Hispanic

5.7%

(5.9%)

10.9%

(4.4%)

10.4%

(15.0%)

(1.4%)

Upstate

Black vs Hispanic

(0.8%)

(4.2%)

5.5%

(4.4%)

8.3%

6.9%

(1.7%)

Sing Sing

Hispanic vs White

0.7%

13.7%

(19.2%)

(0.3%)

16.3%

2.5%

(1.9%)

Bedford Hills

Other vs White

(7.0%)

(3.3%)

(16.4%)

(2.5%)

(36.9%)

(7.0%)

(2.0%)

Adirondack

Other vs White

1.1%

(10.6%)

17.9%

(2.9%)

(33.3%)

380.0%

(2.5%)

Orleans

Black vs Hispanic

(8.8%)

(4.5%)

(2.7%)

(2.6%)

(1.8%)

3.2%

(2.6%)

Willard*

Black vs White

(17.6%)

5.4%

0.4%

(3.2%)

7.4%

(5.8%)

(2.8%)

Eastern

Other vs White

(29.3%)

(24.3%)

(49.7%)

5.3%

9.4%

32.9%

(3.1%)

Adirondack

Black vs White

(5.7%)

(10.7%)

(1.3%)

25.8%

0.0%

63.3%

(3.4%)

Ogdensburg*

Hispanic vs White

12.5%

7.1%

(6.4%)

(17.0%)

1.0%

(18.8%)

(3.5%)

Sing Sing

Other vs White

(12.4%)

20.5%

(32.9%)

25.4%

7.7%

(22.1%)

(3.5%)

Willard*

Hispanic vs White

(17.5%)

(1.0%)

0.9%

(1.2%)

5.2%

(7.5%)

(3.5%)

Watertown*

Hispanic vs White

8.8%

(5.8%)

7.4%

(19.4%)

(11.9%)

(19.9%)

(3.6%)

Midstate

Black vs Hispanic

(3.0%)

(14.3%)

(4.3%)

(8.0%)

(13.7%)

(3.7%)

(3.8%)

Collins

Black vs Hispanic

3.9%

5.1%

(15.2%)

(6.5%)

(2.7%)

(4.1%)

(3.9%)

Riverview

Other vs White

(22.1%)

(21.4%)

4.9%

35.3%

(3.4%)

(12.9%)

(5.5%)

Wallkill

Black vs Hispanic

(13.8%)

(11.8%)

12.8%

(10.7%)

(5.3%)

(7.0%)

(5.5%)

Queensboro

Other vs White

(1.0%)

(48.1%)

44.4%

(2.4%)

15.0%

(100.0%)

(5.8%)

Fishkill

Other vs White

(35.2%)

(3.0%)

8.3%

1.0%

(16.4%)

39.3%

(6.4%)

Groveland

Black vs Hispanic

(10.8%)

(14.6%)

(7.5%)

(11.2%)

9.5%

(10.7%)

(6.5%)

Hale Creek

Hispanic vs White

(14.9%)

(25.0%)

(12.8%)

30.7%

12.7%

(36.2%)

(6.5%)

Cayuga

Other vs White

14.3%

(2.6%)

4.2%

(43.0%)

(42.2%)

54.7%

(6.8%)

Elmira

Black vs Hispanic

(11.0%)

(8.2%)

(3.6%)

(3.6%)

(9.4%)

(2.3%)

(7.1%)

5

Facility

Comparison

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Overall

Gowanda*

Other vs White

(30.6%)

(1.3%)

(12.6%)

4.7%

5.9%

(10.6%)

(7.2%)

Cape Vincent

Other vs White

(2.4%)

(8.4%)

11.2%

18.9%

(17.7%)

(27.6%)

(10.9%)

Orleans

Other vs White

(21.7%)

(13.6%)

22.4%

3.3%

(17.1%)

(1.6%)

(11.2%)

Albion

Other vs White

31.4%

11.3%

2.7%

(11.2%)

(12.5%)

(43.8%)

(11.9%)

Adirondack

Hispanic vs White

(14.6%)

(12.0%)

(15.7%)

12.1%

(12.5%)

66.7%

(14.2%)

Shawangunk

Other vs White

(27.7%)

(7.2%)

(51.5%)

6.3%

(10.5%)

46.0%

(16.0%)

Sullivan

Other vs White

(50.1%)

(17.2%)

(2.6%)

(20.6%)

(19.3%)

(40.8%)

(16.4%)

Otisville

Other vs White

(12.9%)

48.6%

6.1%

(19.2%)

(23.6%)

73.9%

(16.6%)

Above Values Represent the Greater or (Lesser) Percentage Likelihood that an Individual in the First Group was Issued a Misbehavior
Report Compared to an Individual in the Second Group

6

Appendix 12: Ranking of DOCCS Facilities Based on Racial/Ethnic Disparities in
Likelihood of Issuing Misbehavior Reports
FACILITY RACIAL/ETHNIC DISPARITY RANKING - LIKELIHOOD OF ISSUING MISBEHAVIOR REPORTS
(Weighted Based on Facility's Share of Total Incarcerated Population and Misbehavior Reports)

Facility
Elmira
Downstate
Clinton
Attica
Lakeview
Five Points
Great Meadow
Coxsackie
Greene
Auburn
Midstate
Washington
Wyoming
Bare Hill
Wende
Groveland
Livingston
Bedford Hills
Gouverneur
Franklin
Hudson
Marcy
Upstate
Collins
Ulster
Moriah
Altona
Green Haven
Gowanda
Taconic
Southport
Albion
Cayuga
Wallkill
Riverview
Otisville
Woodbourne
Mohawk
Queensboro
Hale Creek
Eastern
Sullivan
Ogdensburg
Edgecombe
Sing Sing
Lincoln
Rochester
Willard
Watertown
Fishkill
Orleans
Shawangunk
Cape Vincent
Adirondack

Combined Rank
(Exluding Black Vs Hispanic)
1
54
1
2
9
1
2
10
2
1
2
2
3
4
4
3
1
3
5
47
3
5
10
4
4
3
5
4
3
4
7
12
6
7
4
6
10
18
11
9
6
7
13
17
13
6
7
8
11
6
16
8
5
9
14
44
10
12
14
10
17
52
8
11
19
10
15
38
12
10
12
12
8
14
7
26
8
13
16
13
19
17
11
14
18
33
18
18
18
15
29
53
14
13
27
16
20
40
17
20
23
17
9
20
9
41
13
18
23
21
22
14
14
18
21
45
15
24
26
20
26
31
23
15
21
21
25
15
26
19
17
22
34
48
21
22
30
23
37
51
20
21
33
24
19
5
44
16
16
25
22
11
35
27
21
26
28
30
29
33
28
27
24
9
38
30
24
28
6
1
32
54
20
28
31
36
25
36
32
28
43
46
27
28
38
31
12
2
37
53
25
32
33
43
24
45
39
32
50
50
30
23
43
34
27
16
31
46
28
35
32
35
28
47
37
36
39
25
41
35
36
37
40
23
43
32
35
37
42
39
33
43
45
39
35
8
53
31
31
40
38
28
40
42
42
41
36
34
36
49
44
42
49
22
49
25
39
43
47
42
39
37
48
43
30
7
51
44
34
45
41
19
47
38
39
46
48
37
48
38
51
47
54
41
52
29
52
48
52
24
50
34
46
49
44
32
42
51
49
50
51
49
34
52
54
50
45
26
45
48
47
52
46
27
46
50
49
53
53
29
54
40
52
54
Rankings are based on a facility's disparity with a ranking of 1 being the largest disparity and 54 being the smallest disparity.

Security Level Black vs White
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Minimum
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Medium
Maximum
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Maximum
Medium
Medium
Maximum
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Maximum
Medium
Medium
Minimum
Medium
Maximum
Medium
Medium
Maximum
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Minimum
Medium
Maximum
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Maximum
Minimum
Minimum
DTC
Medium
Medium
Medium
Maximum
Medium
Medium

Black vs Hispanic

Hispanic vs White

1

Other vs White

Combined Rank

Appendix 13: Ranking of DOCCS Facilities Based on Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Average
Misbehavior Reports
FACILITY RACIAL/ETHNIC DISPARITY RANKING - AVERAGE MISBEHAVIOR REPORTS
(Weighted Based on Facility's Share of Total Incarcerated Population and Misbehavior Reports)

Facility
Downstate
Clinton
Attica
Elmira
Five Points
Great Meadow
Auburn
Coxsackie
Wende
Lakeview
Washington
Gowanda
Bare Hill
Bedford Hills
Marcy
Greene
Midstate
Gouverneur
Groveland
Livingston
Hudson
Franklin
Collins
Ulster
Wyoming
Albion
Mohawk
Otisville
Orleans
Southport
Cape Vincent
Lincoln
Moriah
Green Haven
Sing Sing
Cayuga
Altona
Upstate
Adirondack
Taconic
Riverview
Ogdensburg
Wallkill
Edgecombe
Sullivan
Watertown
Hale Creek
Fishkill
Willard
Rochester
Shawangunk
Eastern
Queensboro
Woodbourne

Black vs White

Black vs Hispanic

Hispanic vs White

Other vs White

Combined Rank

Combined Rank
(Exluding Black Vs Hispanic)

2
25
2
1
2
1
1
3
4
2
1
2
4
52
3
3
7
3
3
51
1
10
9
4
9
46
5
4
8
5
8
33
6
5
6
6
13
47
9
6
13
7
10
13
12
7
3
8
12
40
10
11
12
9
7
15
8
19
5
10
15
39
13
9
15
11
5
1
14
28
4
12
17
31
16
16
16
13
6
24
7
38
13
14
18
20
21
12
11
14
16
11
23
17
10
16
24
54
11
21
24
16
21
29
22
15
21
18
37
53
15
8
25
19
20
35
19
23
23
20
19
18
25
20
19
21
28
49
20
18
27
22
27
48
17
27
30
23
26
9
33
14
19
24
14
6
18
42
16
25
11
4
24
41
16
26
25
8
37
24
22
27
32
44
26
31
37
28
31
34
28
36
35
29
42
23
41
13
30
30
35
27
30
33
34
31
38
22
39
25
32
32
30
14
38
35
29
33
22
5
42
44
25
34
23
2
54
37
28
35
36
43
27
51
45
35
33
17
34
47
36
35
34
21
32
48
38
35
50
45
40
26
46
39
40
38
31
46
43
40
29
7
45
43
32
40
48
32
48
22
41
42
54
50
35
29
49
42
43
37
36
39
43
42
39
42
29
54
47
45
45
16
50
30
40
46
41
10
49
40
39
47
49
19
52
34
42
48
53
28
51
32
47
49
46
36
43
49
53
50
47
30
47
45
51
51
44
26
46
53
51
52
52
41
44
50
54
53
51
12
53
52
49
54
Rankings are based on a facility's disparity with a ranking of 1 being the largest disparity and 54 being the smallest disparity

1

Appendix 14: Rule Violations by Race/Ethnicity and Rule

Rule No

Rule Description

Black

Hispanic

White

Other Not Reported

Total

Percentage of Incarcerated Population for Race/Ethnicity
with Violation
Black Hispanic White Other Not Reported Overall

106.1

Direct Order

29,414

12,458

11,393

1,550

134

54,949

53.2%

46.3%

35.1% 42.9%

34.3%

46.3%

104.13

Create Disturb

22,533

9,078

7,109

1,101

94

39,915

40.7%

33.7%

21.9% 30.5%

24.0%

33.6%

104.11

Violent Conduct

17,582

7,579

5,927

887

70

32,045

31.8%

28.2%

18.2% 24.6%

17.9%

27.0%

109.1

Out Of Place

16,787

6,794

6,655

935

81

31,252

30.3%

25.2%

20.5% 25.9%

20.7%

26.3%

100.13

Fighting

15,243

6,842

5,463

790

57

28,395

27.6%

25.4%

16.8% 21.9%

14.6%

23.9%

Incarcerated Population with Violations

107.1

Interference

15,077

5,898

4,197

708

70

25,950

27.3%

21.9%

12.9% 19.6%

17.9%

21.9%

109.12

Movement Vio

13,387

5,471

4,977

692

59

24,586

24.2%

20.3%

15.3% 19.2%

15.1%

20.7%

107.11

Harassment

12,596

4,640

3,548

604

48

21,436

22.8%

17.2%

10.9% 16.7%

12.3%

18.1%

114.1

Smuggling

9,810

4,402

4,105

555

45

18,917

17.7%

16.4%

12.6% 15.4%

11.5%

15.9%

113.23

Contraband

8,355

3,876

3,425

486

31

16,173

15.1%

14.4%

10.5% 13.5%

7.9%

13.6%

107.2

False Information

8,574

3,478

3,519

465

39

16,075

15.5%

12.9%

10.8% 12.9%

10.0%

13.5%

102.1

Threats

9,208

3,412

2,469

410

39

15,538

16.6%

12.7%

7.6%

11.3%

10.0%

13.1%

113.24

Drug Use

5,474

3,599

4,590

425

30

14,118

9.9%

13.4%

14.1% 11.8%

7.7%

11.9%

116.1

Loss/Damage Prop

6,922

3,332

3,183

408

37

13,882

12.5%

12.4%

9.8%

11.3%

9.5%

11.7%

122.1

Smoking

6,047

2,782

4,227

454

27

13,537

10.9%

10.3%

13.0% 12.6%

6.9%

11.4%

113.22

Prop Unauth Loc

5,879

2,691

3,484

392

22

12,468

10.6%

10.0%

10.7% 10.8%

5.6%

10.5%

112.21

Comp Count Procedure

5,788

2,295

1,696

300

33

10,112

10.5%

8.5%

5.2%

8.3%

8.4%

8.5%

113.25

Drug Possession

5,197

2,424

2,095

280

11

10,007

9.4%

9.0%

6.4%

7.7%

2.8%

8.4%

113.11

Altered Item

4,626

2,507

2,239

273

23

9,668

8.4%

9.3%

6.9%

7.6%

5.9%

8.1%

113.1

Weapon

5,500

2,608

1,263

263

17

9,651

9.9%

9.7%

3.9%

7.3%

4.3%

8.1%

181.1

Hearing Disp

5,035

2,186

1,972

300

22

9,515

9.1%

8.1%

6.1%

8.3%

5.6%

8.0%

113.15

Unauth Exchange

4,293

1,858

1,624

233

18

8,026

7.8%

6.9%

5.0%

6.4%

4.6%

6.8%

113.13

Alcohol/Intox

4,066

1,837

1,583

240

17

7,743

7.3%

6.8%

4.9%

6.6%

4.3%

6.5%

115.1

Search/Frisk

4,161

1,476

820

168

17

6,642

7.5%

5.5%

2.5%

4.6%

4.3%

5.6%

105.13

Gangs

3,852

1,549

439

151

8

5,999

7.0%

5.8%

1.4%

4.2%

2.0%

5.1%

100.1

Assault On Inmate

3,764

1,530

402

132

10

5,838

6.8%

5.7%

1.2%

3.7%

2.6%

4.9%

112.2

Delay Count

3,374

1,337

838

176

19

5,744

6.1%

5.0%

2.6%

4.9%

4.9%

4.8%

180.14

Urinalysis Test

1,947

1,403

1,908

152

7

5,417

3.5%

5.2%

5.9%

4.2%

1.8%

4.6%

112.22

Obstruct Visib

3,050

1,243

710

132

10

5,145

5.5%

4.6%

2.2%

3.7%

2.6%

4.3%

118.22

Unhygienic Act

2,579

1,240

904

152

11

4,886

4.7%

4.6%

2.8%

4.2%

2.8%

4.1%

100.11

Assault On Staff

2,922

1,079

588

143

10

4,742

5.3%

4.0%

1.8%

4.0%

2.6%

4.0%

110.1

No Id Card

2,872

991

634

147

13

4,657

5.2%

3.7%

2.0%

4.1%

3.3%

3.9%

118.21

Flammable Mater

2,088

1,066

1,169

127

8

4,458

3.8%

4.0%

3.6%

3.5%

2.0%

3.8%

118.23

Unreported Ill

1,690

1,172

1,358

159

11

4,390

3.1%

4.4%

4.2%

4.4%

2.8%

3.7%

116.11

Tamper With Prop

2,172

1,072

923

112

9

4,288

3.9%

4.0%

2.8%

3.1%

2.3%

3.6%

109.11

Assigned Area

2,410

891

766

111

14

4,192

4.4%

3.3%

2.4%

3.1%

3.6%

3.5%

116.13

Vandal/Stealing

2,130

967

938

126

10

4,171

3.8%

3.6%

2.9%

3.5%

2.6%

3.5%

100.15

Disorderly Cond

2,318

966

746

112

6

4,148

4.2%

3.6%

2.3%

3.1%

1.5%

3.5%

113.14

Unauth Medic

1,368

743

1,052

98

13

3,274

2.5%

2.8%

3.2%

2.7%

3.3%

2.8%

Comp Mess Hall Policy 1,880

678

448

76

5

3,087

3.4%

2.5%

1.4%

2.1%

1.3%

2.6%

124.16

1

Rule No

Rule Description

Black

Hispanic

White

Total

Percentage of Incarcerated Population for Race/Ethnicity
with Violation
Black Hispanic White Other Not Reported Overall

118.3

Untidy

1,674

664

568

99

7

3,012

3.0%

2.5%

1.7%

2.7%

1.8%

2.5%

180.1

Facil Visiting

1,920

595

352

65

7

2,939

3.5%

2.2%

1.1%

1.8%

1.8%

2.5%

180.18

Prog Committee

1,613

652

520

101

10

2,896

2.9%

2.4%

1.6%

2.8%

2.6%

2.4%

180.11

Facil Correspond

1,498

581

714

81

8

2,882

2.7%

2.2%

2.2%

2.2%

2.0%

2.4%

104.12

Demonstration

1,868

689

218

75

5

2,855

3.4%

2.6%

0.7%

2.1%

1.3%

2.4%

Incarcerated Population with Violations
Other Not Reported

101.2

Lewd Conduct

1,739

533

276

71

6

2,625

3.1%

2.0%

0.8%

2.0%

1.5%

2.2%

124.15

Wasting Food

1,306

477

446

59

7

2,295

2.4%

1.8%

1.4%

1.6%

1.8%

1.9%

118.2

Tattooing

566

554

1,085

79

9

2,293

1.0%

2.1%

3.3%

2.2%

2.3%

1.9%

109.15

Refuse Dbl Celling

1,177

546

451

67

4

2,245

2.1%

2.0%

1.4%

1.9%

1.0%

1.9%

118.31

Tamper W/ Elec

1,089

539

510

57

5

2,200

2.0%

2.0%

1.6%

1.6%

1.3%

1.9%

121.14

Exchanging Pins

1,256

455

320

59

5

2,095

2.3%

1.7%

1.0%

1.6%

1.3%

1.8%

113.2

Excess/Altered Cl

1,069

466

349

57

5

1,946

1.9%

1.7%

1.1%

1.6%

1.3%

1.6%

121.13

Unauth Phone Use

1,111

345

219

50

3

1,728

2.0%

1.3%

0.7%

1.4%

0.8%

1.5%

118.24

Safety Violation

836

386

404

52

5

1,683

1.5%

1.4%

1.2%

1.4%

1.3%

1.4%

101.22

Stalking

998

369

192

31

2

1,592

1.8%

1.4%

0.6%

0.9%

0.5%

1.3%

118.25

Littering

748

335

427

46

2

1,558

1.4%

1.2%

1.3%

1.3%

0.5%

1.3%

103.2

Soliciting

724

236

341

36

1

1,338

1.3%

0.9%

1.0%

1.0%

0.3%

1.1%

121.11

Unauth Call

833

241

165

34

1

1,274

1.5%

0.9%

0.5%

0.9%

0.3%

1.1%

124.13

Meal Absence

704

265

228

34

4

1,235

1.3%

1.0%

0.7%

0.9%

1.0%

1.0%

101.1

Sex Offense

761

260

174

26

3

1,224

1.4%

1.0%

0.5%

0.7%

0.8%

1.0%

103.1

Bribery/Extortion

758

265

170

28

2

1,223

1.4%

1.0%

0.5%

0.8%

0.5%

1.0%

116.12

Counterfeiting

566

257

219

33

1

1,076

1.0%

1.0%

0.7%

0.9%

0.3%

0.9%

118.33

Flooding

500

262

153

30

1

946

0.9%

1.0%

0.5%

0.8%

0.3%

0.8%

124.12

Utensils

568

214

136

24

0

942

1.0%

0.8%

0.4%

0.7%

0.0%

0.8%

118.1

Arson

434

259

143

23

0

859

0.8%

1.0%

0.4%

0.6%

0.0%

0.7%

113.16

Unauth Valuable

416

185

132

22

3

758

0.8%

0.7%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

0.6%

180.12

Facil Packages

333

153

216

23

2

727

0.6%

0.6%

0.7%

0.6%

0.5%

0.6%

111.1

Impersonation

438

136

118

25

1

718

0.8%

0.5%

0.4%

0.7%

0.3%

0.6%

108.14

Temp Release

336

144

193

26

2

701

0.6%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.5%

0.6%

120.2

Gambling

376

128

167

24

2

697

0.7%

0.5%

0.5%

0.7%

0.5%

0.6%

105.1

Unauth Assembly

395

133

58

6

0

592

0.7%

0.5%

0.2%

0.2%

0.0%

0.5%

112.1

Cause Miscount

308

142

103

18

1

572

0.6%

0.5%

0.3%

0.5%

0.3%

0.5%

101.21

Phys. Contact

240

118

178

19

2

557

0.4%

0.4%

0.5%

0.5%

0.5%

0.5%

110.21

Unauthorized Id

348

96

64

20

0

528

0.6%

0.4%

0.2%

0.6%

0.0%

0.4%

113.19

Excess Tobacco

255

112

90

18

1

476

0.5%

0.4%

0.3%

0.5%

0.3%

0.4%

119.1

False Alarm

251

104

51

12

0

418

0.5%

0.4%

0.2%

0.3%

0.0%

0.4%

105.14

Ua Organizations

253

80

52

7

0

392

0.5%

0.3%

0.2%

0.2%

0.0%

0.3%

113.17

Unauth Jewelry

181

90

53

14

1

339

0.3%

0.3%

0.2%

0.4%

0.3%

0.3%

113.27

Oth Inm Crim Info

176

71

64

7

1

319

0.3%

0.3%

0.2%

0.2%

0.3%

0.3%

110.3

Unrpt Id Loss

177

66

34

12

0

289

0.3%

0.2%

0.1%

0.3%

0.0%

0.2%

180.17

Unauth Legal

154

51

66

4

1

276

0.3%

0.2%

0.2%

0.1%

0.3%

0.2%

113.18

Unauth Tools

84

65

61

10

0

220

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

0.3%

0.0%

0.2%

2

Incarcerated Population with Violations
Other Not Reported

Total

Percentage of Incarcerated Population for Race/Ethnicity
with Violation
Black Hispanic White Other Not Reported Overall

Rule No

Rule Description

Black

Hispanic

White

113.21

Unauth Lit

99

49

63

3

0

214

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

0.1%

0.0%

0.2%

104.1

Rioting

131

44

20

7

0

202

0.2%

0.2%

0.1%

0.2%

0.0%

0.2%

113.31

Alcohol Use

101

59

34

6

1

201

0.2%

0.2%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.2%

113.26

Employee Info.

119

36

32

10

0

197

0.2%

0.1%

0.1%

0.3%

0.0%

0.2%

110.2

Tampering With Id

92

42

38

4

1

177

0.2%

0.2%

0.1%

0.1%

0.3%

0.1%

110.31

Unrpt Id Change

75

29

28

2

0

134

0.1%

0.1%

0.1%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

108.15

Abscondence

48

23

50

4

0

125

0.1%

0.1%

0.2%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

109.13

Assigned Area

65

31

21

6

0

123

0.1%

0.1%

0.1%

0.2%

0.0%

0.1%

110.33

Unfastened Hair

66

33

16

8

0

123

0.1%

0.1%

0.0%

0.2%

0.0%

0.1%

121.1

Call Employee

81

21

16

2

0

120

0.1%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

113.3

Poss Unauth UCC Mat

71

27

13

6

0

117

0.1%

0.1%

0.0%

0.2%

0.0%

0.1%

180.13

Family Reunion

81

22

10

3

0

116

0.1%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

100.12

Assault On Other

71

25

10

1

0

107

0.1%

0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.1%

101.11

Forcible Touching

57

22

12

1

0

92

0.1%

0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.1%

108.12

Exceed Time

45

24

23

0

0

92

0.1%

0.1%

0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.1%

124.11

Food Into Mess

51

19

8

2

0

80

0.1%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

110.32

Beard/Mustache

31

16

25

1

0

73

0.1%

0.1%

0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.1%

108.13

Escape Items

33

21

17

0

1

72

0.1%

0.1%

0.1%

0.0%

0.3%

0.1%

113.28

Poss Fac Document

43

8

14

3

0

68

0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

113.34

Drug Use

45

10

10

3

0

68

0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

119.11

Fire Extinguisher

43

17

4

4

0

68

0.1%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

1

Penal Law Offense

34

14

15

2

0

65

0.1%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

118.32

Fire Drill Viol

34

11

17

2

0

64

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

113.33

Drug Posses

32

11

15

2

0

60

0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

124.1

Messhall Contain

43

8

8

1

0

60

0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.1%

108.1

Escape

22

16

20

0

0

58

0.0%

0.1%

0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

107.21

Unauth Lien

27

9

7

0

0

43

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

105.11

Unauth Speech

25

10

3

2

0

40

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

180.16

Sunglasses Unauth

23

9

4

1

0

37

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

111.11

Possess Emp Prop

17

8

5

1

0

31

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

109.14

Unauth Rel Garm

19

4

2

1

0

26

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.14

Practice Martial Arts

19

4

2

0

0

25

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

124.14

Headwear In Mess

17

5

2

1

0

25

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

108.11

Exceed Limits

16

2

5

0

0

23

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

106.11

DNA Refusal

16

1

2

0

2

21

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.5%

0.0%

113.32

Alcohol/Drug Dist

14

2

2

1

0

19

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

117.1

Explosives

4

1

9

2

0

16

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

120.21

Lottery

8

0

2

0

0

10

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

180.19

Alcohol Testing

2

3

3

0

0

8

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

888.88

888.88

1

0

0

0

0

1

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

3

Appendix 15: Racial Disparities Between DOCCS’s Workforce and Community Population
in each DOCCS HUB108
Black
Facility
Adirondack
Albion
Altona
Attica
Auburn
Bare Hill
Bedford Hills
Cape Vincent
Cayuga
Clinton
Collins
Coxsackie
Downstate
Eastern

t

Edgecombe
Elmira
Fishkill
Five Points
Franklin
Gouverneur
Gowanda
Great Meadow
Green Haven
Greene
Groveland
Hale Creek
Hudson
Lakeview

Hub
Clinton
Wende
Clinton
Wende
Elmira
Clinton
NYC
Watertown
Elmira
Clinton
Wende
Great Meadow
Green Haven

County
Essex
Orleans
Clinton
Wyoming
Cayuga
Franklin
Westchester
Jefferson
Cayuga
Clinton
Erie
Greene
Dutchess

Midstate
Moriah

Otisville
Riverview

Sing Sing

Taconic

Washington
Wende

Region
North Country
Finger Lakes
North Country
Finger Lakes
Central
North Country
Mid-Hudson
North Country
Central
North Country
Western
Capital District
Mid-Hudson

Franklin

Clinton

Seneca

Elmira

Dutchess

Green Haven

Souther Tier

Chemung

Elmira

NYC

New York

NYC

Ulster

Sullivan

Watertown St. Lawrence
Wende
Erie
Great Meadow Washington
Green Haven
Dutchess
Great Meadow
Greene
Wende
Livingston
Central
Fulton
Great Meadow Columbia
Wende
Chautauqua

Marcy
Mohawk
Ogdensburg
Orleans
Queensboro
Rochester
Shawangunk
Southport
Sullivan
Ulster
Upstate
Wallkill
Watertown
Willard
Woodbourne
Wyoming
Overall

Essex

Great Meadow

Oneida

Central

Oneida

Central

Oneida

Central

Orange

Sullivan

Orleans

Wende

St. Lawrence

Watertown

Mid-Hudson

Mid-Hudson
Finger Lakes
North Country
North Country
Western
Capital District
Mid-Hudson
Capital District
Finger Lakes
Mohawk Valley
Capital District
Western
Mohawk Valley
Mohawk Valley
Mohawk Valley
North Country
North Country
Finger Lakes
Mid-Hudson

Capital District

Great Meadow Washington

Mid-Hudson

Ulster

Green Haven

North Country

Franklin

Clinton

Mid-Hudson

Ulster

Sullivan

Mid-Hudson

Westchester

NYC

Sullivan

Sullivan

Souther Tier

Chemung

Elmira

Mid-Hudson

Westchester

NYC

Ulster

Green Haven

Monroe

Wende

St. Lawrence

Watertown

Queens

NYC

NYC
North Country
Finger Lakes
Mid-Hudson

Mid-Hudson

TOTALS

Overall

Wyoming

Wende

Sullivan

Sullivan

Finger Lakes

Seneca

Elmira

Western

Erie

Wende

Jefferson

Watertown

North Country

Mid-Hudson
Finger Lakes
TOTALS

3%
11%
3%
11%
6%
3%
17%
3%
6%
3%
11%

1%
13%
2%
2%
3%
0%
53%
0%
2%
1%
2%

Community
Population

DOCCS
Staff

6%
32%
8%

t

56%
2%
31%
3%
0%
0%
2%
4%
23%
9%
3%
5%
7%
3%
2%
3%
2%
1%
0%
7%
11%
63%
0%
22%
7%
54%
2%
7%
51%
10%
0%
7%
4%
1%
20%
2%
9%
4%
11%

7%
9%

Disparity
(1.8%)
2.2%
(1.1%)
(9.1%)
(2.6%)
(2.5%)
35.8%
(2.6%)
(4.1%)
(2.4%)
(8.9%)
(0.2%)
23.3%

(2.4%)

3%

(2.9%)

6%

22.0%

9%

(3.7%)

6%

38.7%

17%

(0.7%)

9%

(0.6%)

3%

(1.1%)

3%

(2.5%)
(8.8%)
(3.1%)
13.9%
2.0%
(7.3%)
1.5%
(0.1%)
(8.1%)

3%
11%
7%
9%
7%
11%
3%
7%
11%

(5.4%)

7%

(1.6%)

3%

2.3%

9%

(4.0%)

11%

(2.8%)

3%

DOCCS
Staff
0%
3%
1%
1%
2%
0%
16%
0%
1%
1%
1%
5%
20%
8%
18%
2%
17%
2%
1%
1%
1%
2%
14%
5%
1%
4%
4%
4%
1%
1%
1%
2%
0%
2%

(2.6%)

7%

(1.6%)

9%

(2.5%)

3%

1.6%

9%

33.1%

17%

(1.9%)

9%

(3.7%)

6%

36.6%

17%

(2.3%)

9%

7%

11.0%

11%

1%

(2.6%)

3%

12%

45.8%

17%

14%

9.7%

11%

(2.1%)

3%

(3.1%)

14%

(6.6%)

11%

0.1%

9%

(4.1%)

6%

9%
22%
1%
8%
18%
12%
1%
11%
2%
2%
4%
2%
6%
2%
5%

Hispanic
Community
Population
3%
7%
3%
7%
5%
3%
26%
4%
5%
3%
7%
6%
17%
18%
26%
5%
17%
5%
3%
4%
7%
6%
17%
6%
7%
5%
6%
7%
5%
5%
5%
6%
4%
7%
18%
26%
4%
7%
17%
26%
5%
18%
26%
18%
3%
17%
6%
4%
7%
5%
18%
7%
20%

Disparity
(2.6%)
(3.6%)
(1.8%)
(5.3%)
(2.9%)
(2.6%)
(9.8%)
(3.7%)
(3.6%)
(2.1%)
(5.2%)
(1.0%)
3.0%
(9.7%)
(7.7%)
(2.9%)
(0.3%)
(2.7%)
(1.7%)
(3.3%)
(5.6%)
(3.9%)
(3.3%)
(0.4%)
(5.7%)
(1.1%)
(1.4%)
(3.1%)
(4.5%)
(4.0%)
(4.4%)
(3.5%)
(4.0%)
(4.4%)
(3.7%)
(13.7% )
(3.4%)
0.1%
(8.3%)
(4.3%)
(3.8%)
(10.0% )
(7.9%)
(6.2%)
(2.0%)
(6.3%)
(3.5%)
(2.1%)
(2.9%)
(2.8%)
(12.0% )
(4.9%)
(14.5% )

DOCCS
Staff
93%
79%
95%
94%
92%
96%
19%
96%
94%
96%
94%
83%
42%
81%
16%
90%
46%
91%
95%
94%
94%
91%
57%
81%
93%
87%
84%
92%
93%
92%
90%
93%
99%
86%
69%
17%
97%
64%
79%
18%
94%
80%
22%
73%
95%
75%
90%
96%
73%
93%
79%
90%
79%

White
Community
Population
91%
78%
91%
78%
85%
91%
42%
91%
85%
91%
78%
82%
69%
69%
42%
85%
69%
85%
91%
91%
78%
82%
69%
82%
78%
89%
82%
78%
89%
89%
89%
82%
91%
78%
69%
42%
91%
78%
69%
42%
85%
69%
42%
69%
91%
69%
82%
91%
78%
85%
69%
78%
55%

Disparity
2.3%
0.9%
3.9%
15.9%
6.7%
5.4%
(22.8% )
5.2%
8.6%
5.5%
15.7%
0.7%
(26.7% )
11.9%
(26.7% )
4.7%
(22.5% )
5.1%
3.9%
3.3%
15.5%
8.1%
(11.5% )
(1.3%)
14.3%
(1.8%)
1.9%
13.6%
3.7%
3.1%
1.5%
10.3%
8.3%
8.1%
0.4%
(25.2% )
6.1%
(14.1% )
10.3%
(24.7% )
8.9%
11.5%
(20.5% )
4.5%
4.3%
5.8%
7.8%
5.6%
(5.3%)
7.9%
10.2%
12.1%
24.2%

Other
DOCCS Community
Staff
Population
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
5%
1%
1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
1%
6%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
5%
1%
3%
1%
4%
0%
1%
4%
1%
1%
2%
1%
0%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%

3%
4%
3%
4%
4%
3%
14%
2%
4%
3%
4%
5%
5%
5%
14%
4%
5%
4%
3%
2%
4%
5%
5%
5%
4%
3%
5%
4%
3%
3%
3%
5%
2%
4%
5%
14%
2%
4%
5%
14%
4%
5%
14%
5%
3%
5%
5%
2%
4%
4%
5%
4%
11%

Disparity
(2.3%)
(3.5%)
(1.8%)
(3.7%)
(2.6%)
(1.5%)
(9.1%)
(1.1%)
(2.9%)
(2.9%)
(2.9%)
(2.7%)
(2.2%)
(4.1%)
(8.6%)
(3.1%)
(2.4%)
(3.0%)
(2.2%)
(0.9%)
(2.7%)
(4.2%)
(3.4%)
(3.8%)
(3.3%)
(2.1%)
(4.1%)
(3.2%)
(1.8%)
(2.1%)
(2.3%)
(5.1%)
(2.0%)
(3.5%)
(3.7%)
(9.5%)
(1.2%)
(1.7%)
(3.7%)
(10.2% )
(3.6%)
(3.9%)
(10.3% )
(3.7%)
(2.2%)
(3.1%)
(4.4%)
(1.8%)
(3.4%)
(3.1%)
(3.3%)
(3.6%)
(9.6%)

108
Disparities highlighted in red represent races/ethnicities that were under-represented by more than 10 percent in a
facility’s workforce, whereas values highlighted in green represent races/ethnicities that were over-represented by
more than 10 percent in a facility’s workforce.

1

Appendix 16: Demographics of DOCCS Facilities (Workforce and Incarcerated
Population)
DOCCS Workforce
Facility
Adirondack
Albion
Altona
Attica
Auburn
Bare Hill
Bedford Hills
Cape Vincent
Cayuga
Clinton
Collins
Coxsackie
Downstate
Eastern
Edgecombe
Elmira
Fishkill
Five Points
Franklin
Gouverneur
Gowanda
Great Meadow
Green Haven
Greene
Groveland
Hale Creek
Hudson
Lakeview
Marcy
Midstate
Mohawk
Moriah
Ogdensburg
Orleans
Otisville
Queensboro
Riverview
Rochester
Shawangunk
Sing Sing
Southport
Sullivan
Taconic
Ulster
Upstate
Wallkill
Washington
Watertown
Wende
Willard
Woodbourne
Wyoming
Overall

HUB
Clinton
Wende
Clinton
Wende
Elmira
Clinton
NYC
Watertown
Elmira
Clinton
Wende
Great Meadow
Green Haven
Sullivan
NYC
Elmira
Green Haven
Elmira
Clinton
Watertown
Wende
Great Meadow
Green Haven
Great Meadow
Wende
Central
Great Meadow
Wende
Central
Central
Central
Great Meadow
Watertown
Wende
Sullivan
NYC
Watertown
Wende
Green Haven
NYC
Elmira
Sullivan
NYC
Sullivan
Clinton
Green Haven
Great Meadow
Watertown
Wende
Elmira
Sullivan
Wende

Black
1%
13%
2%
2%
3%
0%
53%
0%
2%
1%
2%
6%
32%
8%
56%
2%
31%
3%
0%
0%
2%
4%
23%
9%
3%
5%
7%
3%
2%
3%
2%
1%
0%
7%
11%
63%
0%
22%
7%
54%
2%
7%
51%
10%
0%
7%
4%
1%
20%
2%
9%
4%
11%

Hispanic
0%
3%
1%
1%
2%
0%
16%
0%
1%
1%
1%
5%
20%
8%
18%
2%
17%
2%
1%
1%
1%
2%
14%
5%
1%
4%
4%
4%
1%
1%
1%
2%
0%
2%
14%
12%
1%
7%
9%
22%
1%
8%
18%
12%
1%
11%
2%
2%
4%
2%
6%
2%
5%

White
93%
79%
95%
94%
92%
96%
19%
96%
94%
96%
94%
83%
42%
81%
16%
90%
46%
91%
95%
94%
94%
91%
57%
81%
93%
87%
84%
92%
93%
92%
90%
93%
99%
86%
69%
17%
97%
64%
79%
18%
94%
80%
22%
73%
95%
75%
90%
96%
73%
93%
79%
90%
79%

Incarcerated Population
Other
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
5%
1%
1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
1%
6%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
5%
1%
3%
1%
4%
0%
1%
4%
1%
1%
2%
1%
0%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%

Black
45%
31%
44%
57%
57%
51%
42%
48%
49%
53%
37%
50%
51%
55%
51%
54%
48%
55%
45%
49%
40%
56%
58%
50%
37%
46%
45%
39%
42%
41%
42%
39%
49%
53%
54%
56%
49%
38%
57%
59%
59%
53%
41%
53%
58%
54%
48%
47%
55%
51%
45%
53%
49%

1

Hispanic
22%
10%
26%
19%
22%
24%
13%
27%
18%
25%
18%
26%
25%
27%
23%
19%
26%
23%
25%
24%
20%
23%
26%
25%
16%
25%
17%
21%
22%
21%
21%
19%
27%
20%
28%
33%
26%
13%
26%
26%
25%
26%
17%
31%
26%
27%
23%
27%
20%
18%
32%
21%
23%

White
29%
56%
27%
21%
19%
22%
41%
22%
30%
20%
42%
21%
20%
14%
24%
24%
23%
18%
27%
24%
37%
17%
13%
21%
45%
27%
34%
36%
33%
34%
33%
39%
20%
25%
15%
8%
21%
46%
16%
12%
14%
19%
39%
13%
13%
16%
25%
22%
23%
28%
20%
24%
25%

Other
4%
3%
3%
2%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
4%
4%
2%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
4%
2%
3%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
4%
2%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
3%
2%
2%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
3%
3%
3%

Disparity
(Workforce vs. Incarcerated Population)
Black Hispanic White
Other
(44.0%) (22.1%) 64.5%
(2.8%)
(18.2%) (7.4%)
23.6%
(1.7%)
(42.1%) (24.7%) 67.9%
(1.7%)
(55.5%) (17.5%) 72.8%
(1.9%)
(53.5%) (20.0%) 73.6%
(1.3%)
(50.2%) (23.8%) 74.5%
(1.3%)
11.4%
2.9%
(21.8%)
2.0%
(47.7%) (26.4%) 74.2%
(1.9%)
(47.5%) (16.7%) 64.3%
(2.1%)
(52.0%) (23.7%) 76.7%
(2.5%)
(34.9%) (16.5%) 51.6%
(1.4%)
(43.1%) (20.8%) 62.2%
(1.0%)
(18.6%) (4.5%)
22.0%
(1.1%)
(46.6%) (19.1%) 66.9%
(2.9%)
5.3%
(5.0%)
(8.0%)
3.4%
(51.5%) (17.7%) 66.0%
(1.8%)
(17.2%) (8.7%)
23.8%
(0.9%)
(52.3%) (21.6%) 72.5%
(1.8%)
(44.3%) (23.7%) 68.2%
(2.4%)
(48.2%) (23.1%) 69.9%
(1.8%)
(37.5%) (19.1%) 57.0%
(1.7%)
(52.7%) (21.6%) 73.6%
(2.1%)
(34.9%) (11.6%) 44.2%
(1.6%)
(41.2%) (19.8%) 60.1%
(2.3%)
(33.5%) (14.7%) 47.6%
(1.3%)
(41.0%) (20.5%) 60.4%
(2.2%)
(38.7%) (12.3%) 50.4%
(2.8%)
(36.6%) (17.7%) 55.9%
(2.0%)
(39.8%) (21.1%) 59.3%
(1.8%)
(38.8%) (19.7%) 57.9%
(2.8%)
(40.0%) (20.6%) 56.8%
(2.7%)
(38.1%) (17.2%) 53.8%
(1.9%)
(48.5%) (27.0%) 78.7%
(3.4%)
(46.2%) (17.5%) 61.7%
(1.6%)
(42.9%) (13.7%) 54.4%
(1.8%)
7.6%
(20.6%)
8.9%
2.0%
(48.8%) (25.5%) 75.5%
(2.0%)
(16.7%) (6.7%)
18.1%
0.6%
(50.1%) (16.5%) 63.5%
(0.6%)
(5.3%)
(4.2%)
5.7%
1.5%
(56.6%) (24.6%) 80.8%
(1.7%)
(46.3%) (17.7%) 61.6%
(1.6%)
9.3%
1.5%
(17.5%)
1.4%
(42.5%) (19.0%) 60.4%
(2.2%)
(57.7%) (25.2%) 82.3%
(1.7%)
(46.4%) (15.6%) 58.5%
(1.1%)
(44.2%) (21.1%) 65.2%
(2.5%)
(46.3%) (25.5%) 74.7%
(2.9%)
(34.3%) (15.9%) 49.9%
(1.3%)
(49.0%) (16.5%) 65.0%
(1.5%)
(36.2%) (25.6%) 58.9%
(1.5%)
(48.3%) (18.9%) 66.6%
(2.1%)
(38.5%) (17.4%) 54.7%
(1.6%)

Appendix 17: Comparison of Disparities in Facilities’ Workforce and Issuance of
Misbehavior Reports – Sorted by Staff Disparity Ranks from Worst to Best
Facility
Upstate
Southport
Ogdensburg
Clinton
Riverview
Bare Hill
Cape Vincent
Five Points
Great Meadow
Watertown
Auburn
Gouverneur
Franklin
Attica
Altona
Adirondack
Elmira
Washington
Wyoming
Woodbourne
Coxsackie
Eastern
Shawangunk
Marcy
Willard
Sullivan
Mohawk
Cayuga
Hale Creek
Greene
Ulster
Orleans
Midstate
Wallkill
Gowanda
Lakeview
Otisville
Moriah
Queensboro
Collins
Hudson
Wende
Groveland
Green Haven
Albion
Fishkill
Downstate
Rochester
Edgecombe
Sing Sing
Taconic
Bedford Hills

Staff Disparity Rank Staff Disparity Rank
Black
Hispanic
1
2
13
7
12
9
16
6
5
21
4
15
23
3
29
25
8
24
14
39
26
18
10
33
11
20
32
17
31
30
28
22
34
19
37
38
27
36
50
40
35
42
43
41
45
46
44
47
49
48
51
52

6
8
1
10
5
9
2
14
15
4
22
12
11
32
7
13
31
17
28
3
18
26
37
16
38
30
19
35
21
23
27
33
24
40
25
29
42
34
20
36
43
39
41
44
46
45
49
47
48
50
51
52

1

Staff Disparity Rank
Black and Hispanic

Misbehavior Report
Disparity Rank

1
2
3
4
4
6
6
8
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
19
21
21
23
24
24
26
27
28
28
30
31
31
33
34
35
36
37
38
38
40
41
42
43
44
45
45
47
48
49
50
51
52

27
29
42
2
36
14
41
5
6
50
9
18
22
4
31
49
3
10
20
46
8
48
54
17
51
44
33
34
45
12
25
39
13
37
21
7
32
28
47
24
23
11
16
30
26
53
1
52
43
40
35
15

Appendix 18: Comparison of Disparities in Facilities’ Workforce and Issuance of
Misbehavior Reports – Sorted by Misbehavior Report Disparity Rank from Worst to Best
Facility
Downstate
Clinton
Elmira
Attica
Five Points
Great Meadow
Lakeview
Coxsackie
Auburn
Washington
Wende
Greene
Midstate
Bare Hill
Bedford Hills
Groveland
Marcy
Gouverneur
Wyoming
Gowanda
Franklin
Hudson
Collins
Ulster
Albion
Upstate
Moriah
Southport
Green Haven
Altona
Otisville
Mohawk
Cayuga
Taconic
Riverview
Wallkill
Orleans
Sing Sing
Cape Vincent
Ogdensburg
Edgecombe
Sullivan
Hale Creek
Woodbourne
Queensboro
Eastern
Adirondack
Watertown
Willard
Rochester
Fishkill
Shawangunk

Staff Disparity Rank Staff Disparity Rank
Black
Hispanic
44
7
8
3
6
5
38
26
4
24
42
30
34
9
52
43
33
15
14
37
23
35
40
28
45
1
36
2
41
29
27
32
17
51
12
19
22
48
16
13
49
20
31
39
50
18
25
21
11
47
46
10

49
10
31
32
14
15
29
18
22
17
39
23
24
9
52
41
16
12
28
25
11
43
36
27
46
6
34
8
44
7
42
19
35
51
5
40
33
50
2
1
48
30
21
3
20
26
13
4
38
47
45
37

1

Staff Disparity Rank
Black and Hispanic

Misbehavior Report
Disparity Rank

47
4
17
14
8
8
36
21
11
18
42
30
33
6
52
43
24
12
19
35
13
41
40
31
45
1
38
2
44
15
37
27
28
51
4
34
31
50
6
3
49
26
28
19
38
21
16
10
24
48
45
23

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54

Appendix 19: Violation Dismissal Rates by DOCCS Rule
Rule
Number

Description

Charge
Considered
at Hearing

Charge
Dismissed
at Hearing

Charge
Dismissed
at Appeal

Total
Violations
Reported

% of Violations
Dismissed at
Hearing

% of Violations
Dismissed at
Appeal

Total Percent of
Violations
Dismissed

888.88

888.88

1

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

104.1

Rioting

68

130

1
7

205

63.4%

3.4%

66.8%

1

Penal Law Offense

28

35

3

66

53.0%

4.5%

57.6%

180.18

Prog Committee

1,558

1,849

7

3,414

54.2%

0.2%

54.4%

110.3

Unrpt Id Loss

136

155

1

292

53.1%

0.3%

53.4%

112.1

Cause Miscount

295

290

3

588

49.3%

0.5%

49.8%

103.1

Bribery/Extortion

690

495

92

1,277

38.8%

7.2%

46.0%

121.14

Exchanging Pins

1,322

1,038

12

2,372

43.8%

0.5%

44.3%

107.21

Unauth Lien

33

24

2

59

40.7%

3.4%

44.1%

100.12

Assault On Other

60

43

4

107

40.2%

3.7%

43.9%

105.14

Ua Organizations

234

152

21

407

37.3%

5.2%

42.5%

101.11

Forcible Touching

54

34

5

93

36.6%

5.4%

41.9%

100.14

Practice Martial Arts

15

9

1

25

36.0%

4.0%

40.0%

113.21

Unauth Lit

132

84

4

220

38.2%

1.8%

40.0%

120.21

Lottery

6

4

10

40.0%

0.0%

40.0%

104.12

Demonstration

1,897

1,149

3,154

36.4%

3.4%

39.9%

109.13

Assigned Area

76

49

125

39.2%

0.0%

39.2%

180.17

Unauth Legal

187

114

5

306

37.3%

1.6%

38.9%

101.22

Stalking

1,215

656

113

1,984

33.1%

5.7%

38.8%

119.1

False Alarm

286

172

5

463

37.1%

1.1%

38.2%

117.1

Explosives

10

5

1

16

31.3%

6.3%

37.5%

180.19

Alcohol Testing

5

1

2

8

12.5%

25.0%

37.5%

110.2

Tampering With Id

112

67

179

37.4%

0.0%

37.4%

180.13

Family Reunion

76

29

16

121

24.0%

13.2%

37.2%

113.32

Alcohol/Drug Dist

12

6

1

19

31.6%

5.3%

36.8%

116.13

Vandal/Stealing

2,820

1,616

28

4,464

36.2%

0.6%

36.8%

113.28

Poss Fac Document

43

22

3

68

32.4%

4.4%

36.8%

108.13

Escape Items

50

28

1

79

35.4%

1.3%

36.7%

124.1

Messhall Contain

40

23

63

36.5%

0.0%

36.5%

124.14

Headwear In Mess

16

9

25

36.0%

0.0%

36.0%

113.18

Unauth Tools

144

74

6

224

33.0%

2.7%

35.7%

111.11

Possess Emp Prop

20

9

2

31

29.0%

6.5%

35.5%

113.26

Employee Info.

142

64

14

220

29.1%

6.4%

35.5%

121.1

Call Employee

79

42

121

34.7%

0.0%

34.7%

121.13

Unauth Phone Use

1,245

654

7

1,906

34.3%

0.4%

34.7%

110.31

Unrpt Id Change

90

45

1

136

33.1%

0.7%

33.8%

105.1

Unauth Assembly

398

176

27

601

29.3%

4.5%

33.8%

108.1

Escape

42

14

6

62

22.6%

9.7%

32.3%

113.27

Oth Inm Crim Info

227

97

6

330

29.4%

1.8%

31.2%

124.15

Wasting Food

1,865

832

10

2,707

30.7%

0.4%

31.1%

112.2

Delay Count

5,159

2,276

26

7,461

30.5%

0.3%

30.9%

110.32

Beard/Mustache

52

23

75

30.7%

0.0%

30.7%

101.1

Sex Offense

973

378

1,396

27.1%

3.2%

30.3%

105.11

Unauth Speech

28

12

40

30.0%

0.0%

30.0%

107.2

False Information

15,194

6,261

21,632

28.9%

0.8%

29.8%

108.11

Exceed Limits

17

7

24

29.2%

0.0%

29.2%

180.16

Sunglasses Unauth

27

11

38

28.9%

0.0%

28.9%

124.13

Meal Absence

1,142

451

5

1,598

28.2%

0.3%

28.5%

118.1

Arson

731

276

9

1,016

27.2%

0.9%

28.1%

100.1

Assault On Inmate

5,318

1,857

197

7,372

25.2%

2.7%

27.9%

100.15

Disorderly Cond

3,373

1,214

72

4,659

26.1%

1.5%

27.6%

102.1

Threats

20,511

7,364

426

28,301

26.0%

1.5%

27.5%

118.24

Safety Violation

1,322

493

6

1,821

27.1%

0.3%

27.4%

108

45

177

1

Charge
Considered
at Hearing

Charge
Dismissed
at Hearing

Charge
Dismissed
at Appeal

Total
Violations
Reported

% of Violations
Dismissed at
Hearing

% of Violations
Dismissed at
Appeal

Total Percent of
Violations
Dismissed

40

4,897

26.5%

0.8%

27.4%

929

55,424

25.5%

1.7%

27.1%

5,228

26.4%

0.3%

26.8%

30

26.7%

0.0%

26.7%

12

761

25.0%

1.6%

26.5%

1

69

24.6%

1.4%

26.1%

27

25.9%

0.0%

25.9%

4,818

25.2%

0.3%

25.5%

81

23.5%

0.0%

23.5%

8

5,197

23.1%

0.2%

23.2%

8,797

393

40,383

21.8%

1.0%

22.8%

107

30

1

138

21.7%

0.7%

22.5%

Counterfeiting

901

245

11

1,157

21.2%

1.0%

22.1%

116.1

Loss/Damage Prop

15,689

4,168

151

20,008

20.8%

0.8%

21.6%

113.33

Drug Posses

48

11

2

61

18.0%

3.3%

21.3%

113.2

Excess/Altered Cl

1,664

432

18

2,114

20.4%

0.9%

21.3%

118.31

Tamper W/ Elec

1,973

512

5

2,490

20.6%

0.2%

20.8%

180.12

Facil Packages

586

141

11

738

19.1%

1.5%

20.6%

110.21

Unauthorized Id

432

110

1

543

20.3%

0.2%

20.4%

118.25

Littering

1,365

342

7

1,714

20.0%

0.4%

20.4%

120.2

Gambling

591

141

5

737

19.1%

0.7%

19.8%

124.16

Comp Mess Hall Policy

2,896

689

12

3,597

19.2%

0.3%

19.5%

103.2

Soliciting

1,169

241

41

1,451

16.6%

2.8%

19.4%

118.32

Fire Drill Viol

52

12

64

18.8%

0.0%

18.8%

115.1

Search/Frisk

6,628

1,398

107

8,133

17.2%

1.3%

18.5%

114.1

Smuggling

22,736

4,411

513

27,660

15.9%

1.9%

17.8%

118.3

Untidy

2,835

589

15

3,439

17.1%

0.4%

17.6%

121.11

Unauth Call

1,107

215

14

1,336

16.1%

1.0%

17.1%

104.13

Create Disturb

84,336

16,013

1,133

101,482

15.8%

1.1%

16.9%

104.11

Violent Conduct

58,543

10,195

1,113

69,851

14.6%

1.6%

16.2%

113.17

Unauth Jewelry

294

54

2

350

15.4%

0.6%

16.0%

113.24

Drug Use

20,665

918

3,018

24,601

3.7%

12.3%

16.0%

106.1

Direct Order

168,399

30,735

1,272

200,406

15.3%

0.6%

16.0%

105.13

Gangs

6,833

1,102

190

8,125

13.6%

2.3%

15.9%

113.23

Contraband

19,011

2,863

591

22,465

12.7%

2.6%

15.4%

109.12

Movement Vio

36,523

6,410

191

43,124

14.9%

0.4%

15.3%

113.1

Weapon

11,255

1,670

346

13,271

12.6%

2.6%

15.2%

101.2

Lewd Conduct

4,250

672

84

5,006

13.4%

1.7%

15.1%

109.1

Out Of Place

53,864

9,237

211

63,312

14.6%

0.3%

14.9%

113.25

Drug Possession

11,165

937

1,020

13,122

7.1%

7.8%

14.9%

101.21

Phys. Contact

542

90

3

635

14.2%

0.5%

14.6%

113.15

Unauth Exchange

7,998

1,285

77

9,360

13.7%

0.8%

14.6%

113.11

Altered Item

10,709

1,614

182

12,505

12.9%

1.5%

14.4%

113.3

Poss Ua Ucc Mat

163

22

4

189

11.6%

2.1%

13.8%

113.14

Unauth Medic

3,114

463

28

3,605

12.8%

0.8%

13.6%

100.11

Assault On Staff

6,225

806

166

7,197

11.2%

2.3%

13.5%

180.1

Facil Visiting

2,982

382

56

3,420

11.2%

1.6%

12.8%

113.19

Excess Tobacco

427

51

11

489

10.4%

2.2%

12.7%

108.14

Temp Release

786

82

31

899

9.1%

3.4%

12.6%

180.11

Facil Correspond

3,023

376

58

3,457

10.9%

1.7%

12.6%

113.16

Unauth Valuable

678

91

6

775

11.7%

0.8%

12.5%

118.23

Unreported Ill

4,184

533

45

4,762

11.2%

0.9%

12.1%

181.1

Hearing Disp

14,339

1,930

31

16,300

11.8%

0.2%

12.0%

124.12

Utensils

1,157

148

9

1,314

11.3%

0.7%

11.9%

118.33

Flooding

1,108

141

8

1,257

11.2%

0.6%

11.9%

Rule
Number

Description

116.11

Tamper With Prop

3,557

1,300

107.1

Interference

40,379

14,116

118.21

Flammable Mater

3,828

1,382

18

106.11

DNA Refusal

22

8

111.1

Impersonation

559

190

113.34

Drug Use

51

17

109.14

Unauth Rel Garm

20

7

109.11

Assigned Area

3,590

1,213

124.11

Food Into Mess

62

19

110.1

No Id Card

3,990

1,199

107.11

Harassment

31,193

110.33

Unfastened Hair

116.12

15

2

Charge
Dismissed
at Hearing

Charge
Dismissed
at Appeal

Total
Violations
Reported

% of Violations
Dismissed at
Hearing

% of Violations
Dismissed at
Appeal

Total Percent of
Violations
Dismissed

8,419

982

48,420

5,775

139

9,540

10.3%

1.5%

11.8%

504

54,699

10.6%

0.9%

113

11.5%

12

2

127

9.4%

1.6%

Fire Extinguisher

11.0%

74

8

1

83

9.6%

1.2%

113.13

10.8%

Alcohol/Intox

9,330

818

271

10,419

7.9%

2.6%

10.5%

113.22

Prop Unauth Loc

14,861

1,566

71

16,498

9.5%

0.4%

9.9%

112.22

Obstruct Visib

7,042

684

44

7,770

8.8%

0.6%

9.4%

118.2

Tattooing

2,704

259

16

2,979

8.7%

0.5%

9.2%

112.21

Comp Count Procedure

13,027

1,249

39

14,315

8.7%

0.3%

9.0%

109.15

Refuse Dbl Celling

3,012

276

21

3,309

8.3%

0.6%

9.0%

113.31

Alcohol Use

195

18

1

214

8.4%

0.5%

8.9%

121.12

Phone Violation

11,582

968

57

12,607

7.7%

0.5%

8.1%

108.12

Exceed Time

92

7

99

7.1%

0.0%

7.1%

180.14

Urinalysis Test

7,084

431

87

7,602

5.7%

1.1%

6.8%

122.1

Smoking

18,826

1,233

23

20,082

6.1%

0.1%

6.3%

894,959

175,960

14,979

1,085,898

16.2%

1.4%

17.6%

Rule
Number

Description

118.22

Unhygienic Act

100.13

Fighting

108.15

Abscondence

119.11

Totals

Charge
Considered
at Hearing

3

Appendix 20: DOCCS Correctional Facilities
Facility Name
Adirondack
Albion
Altona
Attica
Auburn
Bare Hill
Bedford Hills
Cape Vincent
Cayuga
Clinton
Collins
Coxsackie
Downstate (#)
Eastern
Edgecombe
Elmira
Fishkill
Five Points
Franklin
Gouverneur
Gowanda (*)
Great Meadow
Green Haven
Greene
Groveland
Hale Creek
Hudson
Lakeview
Lincoln (!)
Livingston (!)
Marcy
MidState
Mohawk
Moriah (#)
Ogdensburg (#)
Orleans
Otisville
Queensboro
Riverview
Rochester (#)
Shawangunk
Sing
Southport (#)
Sullivan
Taconic
Ulster
Upstate
Wallkill
Washington
Watertown (*)
Wende
Willard (#)
Woodbourne
Wyoming

Security Level
Population
Hub
County
Medium
Male
Clinton
Essex
Medium
Female
Wende
Orleans
Medium
Male
Clinton
Clinton
Maximum
Male
Wende
Wyoming
Maximum
Male
Elmira
Cayuga
Medium
Male
Clinton
Franklin
Maximum
Female
NYC
Westchester
Medium
Male
Watertown
Jefferson
Medium
Male
Elmira
Cayuga
Maximum
Male
Clinton
Clinton
Medium
Male
Wende
Erie
Maximum
Male
Great Meadow
Greene
Maximum
Male
Green Haven
Dutchess
Maximum
Male
Sullivan
Ulster
Minimum
Male
NYC
New York
Maximum
Male
Elmira
Chemung
Medium
Male
Green Haven
Dutchess
Maximum
Male
Elmira
Seneca
Medium
Male
Clinton
Franklin
Medium
Male
Watertown
St. Lawrence
Medium
Male
Wende
Erie
Maximum
Male
Great Meadow Washington
Maximum
Male
Green Haven
Dutchess
Medium
Male
Great Meadow
Greene
Medium
Male
Wende
Livingston
Medium
Male
Central
Fulton
Medium
Male
Great Meadow
Columbia
Minimum
Dual
Wende
Chautauqua
Minimum
Male
NYC
New York
Medium
Male
Wende
Livingston
Medium
Male
Central
Oneida
Medium
Male
Central
Oneida
Medium
Male
Central
Oneida
Minimum
Male
Great Meadow
Essex
Medium
Male
Watertown
St. Lawrence
Medium
Male
Wende
Orleans
Medium
Male
Sullivan
Orange
Minimum
Male
NYC
Queens
Medium
Male
Watertown
St. Lawrence
Minimum
Male
Wende
Monroe
Maximum
Male
Green Haven
Ulster
Maximum
Male
NYC
Westchester
Maximum
Male
Elmira
Chemung
Maximum
Male
Sullivan
Sullivan
Medium
Male
NYC
Westchester
Medium
Male
Sullivan
Ulster
Maximum
Male
Clinton
Franklin
Medium
Male
Green Haven
Ulster
Medium
Male
Great Meadow Washington
Medium
Male
Watertown
Jefferson
Maximum
Male
Wende
Erie
Drug
Dual
Elmira
Seneca
Medium
Male
Sullivan
Sullivan
Medium
Male
Wende
Wyoming
! - Closed in 2019 * - Closed in 2021 # - Closed in 2022

1

Region
North Country
Finger Lakes
North Country
Finger Lakes
Central
North Country
Mid-Hudson
North Country
Central
North Country
Western
Capital District
Mid-Hudson
Mid-Hudson
NYC
Southern Tier
Mid-Hudson
Finger Lakes
North Country
North Country
Western
Capital District
Mid-Hudson
Capital District
Finger Lakes
Mohawk Valley
Capital District
Western
NYC
Finger Lakes
Mohawk Valley
Mohawk Valley
Mohawk Valley
North Country
North Country
Finger Lakes
Mid-Hudson
NYC
North Country
Finger Lakes
Mid-Hudson
Mid-Hudson
Southern Tier
Mid-Hudson
Mid-Hudson
Mid-Hudson
North Country
Mid-Hudson
Capital District
North Country
Western
Finger Lakes
Mid-Hudson
Finger Lakes

Appendix 21: DOCCS Misbehavior Report
FORM 2171 A (11/2021)
Side 1

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION

Correctional Facility
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUAL MISBEHAVIOR REPORT ♦ INFORME DE MAL COMPORTAMIENTO DEL INDIVIDUO ENCARCELADO
1. NAME OF INCARCERATED INDIVIDUAL (Last, First) ♦ NOMBRE DEL INDIVIDUO ENCARCELADO (Apellido, Nombre) DIN

HOUSING LOCATION ♦ CELDA

2. LOCATION OF INCIDENT ♦ LUGAR DEL INCIDENTE

INCIDENT TIME ♦ HORA

INCIDENT DATE ♦ FECHA

3. RULE VIOLATION(S) ♦ VIOLACIÓN (ES)

4. DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT ♦ DESCRIPCIÓN DEL INCIDENTE

REPORT DATE ♦ FECHA

REPORTED BY ♦ REPORTADO POR

I

5. ENDORSEMENTS OF OTHER EMPLOYEE WITNESSES (if any)

SIGNATURE ♦ FIRMA

I

SIGNATURES:

ENDOSOS DE OTROS EMPLEADOS TESTIGOS (si hay)

FIRMAS:

2.

TITLE ♦ TÍTULO

1.
3.

NOTE: Fold back Page 2 on dotted line before completing below.
6. WERE OTHER INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED?

YES

¿HUBO OTROS INDIVIDUOS ENCARCELADOS ENVUELTOS? SÍ

NO

IF YES, GIVE NAME & DIN ___________________________________________________

NO

DE SER SÍ DÉ LOS NOMBRES Y DIN

7. AT THE TIME OF THIS INCIDENT:
AL MOMENTO DE ESTE INCIDENTE:
(A) WAS INCARCERATED INDIVIDUAL UNDER PRIOR CONFINEMENT/RESTRICTION?
¿ESTUVO EL INDIVIDUO ENCARCELADO CONFINADO/RESTRINGIDO PREVIO AL INCIDENTE?
(B) WAS INCARCERATED INDIVIDUAL HOUSED IN A SHU CELL?
¿ESTUVO EL INDIVIDUO ENCARCELADO EN UNA CELDA DEL SHU?
(C) AS A RESULT OF THIS INCIDENT, WAS INCARCERATED INDIVIDUAL CONFINED/RESTRICTED?
¿SE CONFINÓ/RESTRINGÓ AL INDIVIDUO ENCARCELADO COMO RESULTADO DE ESTE INCIDENTE?
8. WAS INCARCERATED INDIVIDUAL MOVED AT ANOTHER HOUSING UNIT?
¿MUDARON AL INDIVIDUO ENCARCELADO A OTRA UNIDAD DE VIVIENDA?

YES

NO

SÍ

NO

IF YES, (a) CURRENT HOUSING UNIT

¿SE USÓ FUERZA FISICA?

NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO

OR ♦ O

(b) AUTHORIZED BY

DER SER SÍ, (a) UNIDAD DE VIVIENDA ACTUAL
9. WAS PHYSICAL FORCE USED?

YES
SÍ
YES
SÍ
YES
SÍ

_

(b) AUTORIZADO POR

YES

NO

(IF YES, FILE FORM 2104)

SÍ

NO

(DER SER SÍ, SOMETA EL FORMULARIO 2104)

____________________

AREA SUPERVISOR ENDORSEMENT
ENDOSO DEL SUPERVISOR DEL ÁREA

Distribution: WHITE - Disciplinary Office CANARY - Incarcerated Individual (After review) ♦ Distribución: BLANCA - Oficina Disciplinaria AMARILLA – Individuo Encarcelado (después de la revisión)

1

FORM 2171 B (11/2021)
Side 2

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION

Correctional Facility
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUAL MISBEHAVIOR REPORT ♦ INFORME DE MAL COMPORTAMIENTO DEL INDIVIDUO ENCARCELADO
1. NAME OF INCARCERATED INDIVIDUAL (Last, First) ♦ NOMBRE DEL INDIVIDUO ENCARCELADO (Apellido, Nombre) DIN

HOUSING LOCATION ♦ CELDA

2. LOCATION OF INCIDENT ♦ LUGAR DEL INCIDENTE

INCIDENT TIME ♦ HORA

INCIDENT DATE ♦ FECHA

3. RULE VIOLATION(S) ♦ VIOLACIÓN (ES)

4. DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT ♦ DESCRIPCIÓN DEL INCIDENTE

REPORT DATE ♦ FECHA

REPORTED BY ♦ REPORTADO POR

I

5. ENDORSEMENTS OF OTHER EMPLOYEE WITNESSES (if any)
ENDOSOS DE OTROS EMPLEADOS TESTIGOS (si hay)

SIGNATURE ♦ FIRMA

SIGNATURES:
FIRMAS:

2.

TITLE ♦ TÍTULO

I
1.

3.

NOTE: Fold back Page 2 on dotted line before completing below.
DATE AND TIME SERVED UPON INCARCERATED INDIVIDUAL

NAME AND TITLE OF SERVER

FECHA Y HORA DADO AL INDIVIDUO ENCARCELADO

NOMBRE Y TÍTULO DEL QUE ENTREGA

You are hereby advised that no statement made by you in response to the charges or information derived therefrom may be used against you in a criminal
proceeding. ♦ Por este medio se le informa que no se puede usar ninguna declaración hecha por usted como respuesta al cargo o la información derivada de ella
en una demanda criminal.

NOTICE ♦ AVISO
REVIEWING OFFICER (DETACH BELOW FOR VIOLATION HEARING ONLY)
You are hereby notified that the above report is a formal charge and will be considered and determined at a hearing to be held. ♦ Por este medio se le notifica que
el informe anterior es un cargo formal el cual se considerará y determinará en una audiencia a celebrarse.
The incarcerated individual shall be permitted to call witnesses provided that so doing does not jeopardize institutional safety or correctional goals. ♦ Se le permitirá
al individuo encarcelado llamar testigos con tal de que al hacerlo no pondrá en peligro la seguridad de la institución ni las metas del Departamento.
If restricted pending a hearing for this misbehavior report, you may write to the Deputy Superintendent for Security or their designee prior to the hearing to make a
statement on the need for continued prehearing confinement. ♦ Si está restringido pendiente a una audiencia por este informe de mal comportamiento, puede
escribirle al Diputado del Superintendente para Seguridad o su representante antes de la audiencia para que haga una declaración acerca de la necesidad de
continuar bajo confinamiento, previo a la audiencia.

Distribution: WHITE - Disciplinary Office CANARY - Incarcerated Individual (After review) ♦ Distribución: BLANCA - Oficina Disciplinaria AMARILLA – Individuo Encarcelado (después de la revisión)

2

Appendix 22: DOCCS Directive 4932—Standards Behavior & Allowances

4

RK
ATE

Corrections and
Community Supervision

NO.
4932

TrTLE

Chapter V, Standards
Behavior & Allowances

DIRECTIVE
SUP ERSEO ES

I

DISTRIB UTON

DIR# 4932 Did. 01/20/16

PAG E 1 Of

REFEREte es (IICll de beta It •otlffl ltd tt,l

7NYCR R ChapterV, Subc haptersA an d 8
Di r. #4403, #4 933, #4 944

DATE LPST RE VIS ED

PAGES

A 8

APPA3 VINO ~ ORrTY

~0

DATE

10/02/2018

.

21

oi ~

./\l. _,,,_ ---

SUBCHAPTERA PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENT~ G STANDARDS OF INMATE
BEHAVIOR
Part 250

Scope and Interpretation of Rul es and Regu lations in th is Chapter

Part 251

Cases of Inm ate Misbehavior

Part 252

Violation Heari ng

Part 253

Disciplinary Hearin g

Part 254

Superi ntendent's Heari ng

Part 250 Scope and Interpretation of Rules and Regulations in this Chapter
§ 250.1 Policy and Applicability
(a) It is th e policy of th e Departm ent of Corr ections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) to
eliminate, mitigate, and respond to racia l dispari ties so as to ensu re a fai r and equitable
distri buti on of benefit s and burdens in th e placement of inmates in housin g unit
assignm ents, in stituti onal work assignments, and programs; and th e proper post release
supervision of parolees to in clude, but not li mited to, supervision level, violation processes,
and early discharge/merit termin ations. Moreover, it is our poli cy that any DOCCS
admi nistrati ve processes associated wi th any inmate or parolee who may be subject to
discipl in e and grievances are conducted fai rl y , to ensur e th at decisions are not influ enced
by stereotypes or bias based on race, color, ethnicity, or national origi n To do so , th e
Departm ent shall provide ongoing staff trai nin g, monitori ng, and auditi ng systems to
ensu re compli ance wi th all provisions of this po licy . The Departm en t shall develop
programs to help in mates work and live togeth er regardless of th eir identity and
backgrou nds .
(b) The rules and regulati ons set forth in this Chapter establish procedu res to supp lement th e
Departm ent's ordin ary programs for inmate indoctrin ation, guidance, cou nseling, and
t rain ing Th ey are to be applied for th e fo ll owi ng purposes:
(1 ) Implementation of standards of behavior where an in mate

(i) Violates a ru le or regulation govern ing behavior;
(ii) Fail s or refu ses to comply with an in stru cti on given by an employee of the
Department actin g withi n th e scope of offi cial duties in givin g such instru ction;
or
(iii ) Attempts to escape or escapes or engages in any other unl awful conduct; and

(2 i Adm in istration of procedures for gran ting good behavior all owances ("good time")
(c) The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to all corr ectional facilities in th e Department
§ 250.2 General policies on discipline of inmates.

1

DATE

NO 4932, Chapter V, Standards Behavior & Allowances
10/02/2018
PAGE 2 of 21

(a) Disciplinary action is one of many essential elements in correctional treatment. When
applied reasonably and with fairness it not only assists in protection of the health , safety ,
and security of all persons within a correctional facility , but also is a positive factor in
rehabilitation of inmates and the morale of the facility.
(b) Just as the sentencing of inmates by courts, and the techniques used for correctional
treatment , must be appropriately varied to fit a complex matrix of individual circumstances
and individual conditions, the disciplinary techniques within a correctional facility must be
appropriately varied to fit such factors as:
(1) The particular circumstances involved;
(2) The overall behavior pattern of the inmate; and
(3) The problems in and the present atmosphere of the facility .
Consequently, persons vested with responsibility for disciplinary measures in
facilities of the Department should not establish rigid structures for disciplinary
sanctions, but should consider each situation individually.
(c) Disciplinary action shall be taken only in such measures and degree as is necessary to :
(1) Regulate an inmate's behavior within acceptable limits;
(2) Assist in achieving compliance by the entire inmate population with required
standards of behavior; and
(3) Preserve the confidence of all concerned (i.e., the inmate population and the staff)
in the administration's sincere belief in and determination to maintain the required
standards of behavior.
(4) All control of inmate activities, including disciplinary action, must be administered
in a completely fair, impersonal and impartial manner and must be as consistent
as possible (given the need for individualized decisions).
(d) Disciplinary measures should not be overly severe . A sound disciplinary program relies
upon certainty and promptness of action rather than upon severity.
(e) Disciplinary action must never be arbitrary or capricious, or administered for the purpose
of retaliation or revenge .

(f) Corporal punishment is absolutely forbidden for any purpose and under all circumstances.
(g) Mechanical means of physical restraint must never be used for disciplinary purposes.
Mechanical means of physical restraint may be used only when necessary while
transporting inmates within or outside of the facility, or on orders of the facility
Superintendent, and/or a physician when either deems it necessary to prevent injury to the
inmate or to others.
Part 251 Cases of Inmate Misbehavior

Subpart 251-1

Initial Actions in Cases of Inmate Misbehavior

Subpart 251-2 Review Officer
Subpart 251-3 Misbehavior Report
Subpart 251-4 Inmate Assistant
Subpart 251-5 Timeliness
Subpart 251-1 Initial Actions in Cases of Inmate Misbehavior

§ 251-1.1 General Policy

2

DATE

NO 4932, Chapter V, Standards Behavior & Allowances
10/02/2018
PAGE 3 of 21

All incidents of inmate violations of rules and regulations, inmate misbehavior, and inmate
failure or refusal to comply with an instruction given by an employee acting within the
scope of his or her official duties shall be handled as quietly and routinely as possible ,
giving due regard to danger to life, health, security, and property.
Note: § 251-1 .2 through§ 251-1.4 have been omitted .
See Directive #4944, "Use of Physical Force," and § 251-3.1, "Misbehavior Report ."
§ 251-1.5 Minor Infractions.

An employee should deal with minor infractions, or other violations of rules and policies
governing inmate behavior, that do not involve danger to life, health, security , or property
by counseling , warning, and/or reprimanding the inmate , and the employee need not
report such minor incidents.
§ 251-1.6 Confinement

(a) Where an Officer has reasonable grounds to believe that an inmate should be confined to
a cell or room or housing area because he or she represents an immediate threat to the
safety, security, or order of the facility or is an immediate danger to other persons or to
property, such Officer shall take reasonable and appropriate steps to so confine the
inmate.
(b) An inmate also may be confined to a cell or room where such action appears reasonably
necessary for protection of the inmate. In any such case , however, the inmate shall not be
so confined for more than 72 hours, and within such time period the inmate shall either be:
(1) Transferred to another housing unit;
(2) Scheduled for transfer to another facility ;
(3) Released from such confinement; or
(4) Placed in protective custody.
(c) An inmate who is unable or who refuses to participate in an assigned activity may be
confined to a cell or room and, if such inmate has not been excused for medical reasons,
the Officer having charge of the inmate shall report such incident to the Superintendent.
(d) If the Officer having charge of an inmate or if any superior Officer has reasonable grounds
to believe that an inmate's behavior in a cell or room is disruptive or will be disruptive of
the order and discipline of the housing unit, or is inconsistent with the best interests of the
inmate or of the facility , such fact shall be reported to the Superintendent or the Officer in
charge of the facility and the Superintendent or the Officer in charge of the facility may
order confinement in a special housing unit. Any such order shall be in accordance with
Directive #4933 , "Special Housing Units."

(e)
(1) An employee who places an inmate in confinement in a cell or room or who places
an inmate in a special housing unit pursuant to the provisions of this Section shall
report such fact, in writing, to the Superintendent as soon as possible , but in any
event before going off duty.
(2) Reports of confinement shall be made even where confinement was authorized or
directed by a superior Officer, but need not be made where confinement:
(i)

Is necessitated by a medically excused inability to participate in an assigned
activity; or

3

DATE

NO 4932, Chapter V, Standards Behavior & Allowances
10/02/2018
PAGE 4 of21

(ii) Was directed by a decision in a Disciplinary Superintendent's Hearing .

(f) The provisions of this Section shall not be construed so as to prohibit emergency action by
the Superintendent of the facility and , if necessary for the safety or security of the facility,
all inmates or any segment of the inmates in a facility may, on the order of the person in
charge of the facility, be confined in their cells or rooms for the duration of any period in
which the safety or security of the facility is in jeopardy. In any such case the
Superintendent shall immediately notify the Commissioner.
§ 251-1.7 Admission to Special Housing Units.

Adm ission of an inmate to a special housing unit shall be in accord with Directive #4933 ,
"Special Housing Units."

Subpart 251-2 Review Officer
§ 251-2.1 Establishment of Review Officer

There shall be at each correctional facility one or more staff members of the rank of
Lieutenant or above, to be known as the Review Officer, the number to be dependent
upon the needs of the facility. The Superintendent may, if sufficient reason exists,
designate some other employee to serve as the Review Officer.
§ 251-2.2 Function of the Review Officer.

(a) The Review Officer shall receive , at least once daily, all misbehavior reports issued at the
facility.
(b) Except as provided in subdivision (d) below, the Review Officer shall review such reports
and considering the seriousness of the alleged violations of the standards of inmate
behavior, refer such reports to the lowest appropriate disciplinary body (Tier Level) for
action indicated below. The review officer must document reasons for any decision to
assign a disciplinary violation other than to the lowest possible tier in accordance with §
270.3 of Title 7:
(1) Where the violation , if substantiated, would warrant only a penalty of loss of
recreation for up to and including 13 days and including the loss of privileges, for a
period up to and including 13 days, other than correspondence and visitation
privileges, the report shall be referred to the Violation Officer.
(2) Where the violation , if substantiated, would warrant only a penalty of loss of
privileges up to and including 30 days, and including confinement to a cell or room
(keeplock) for a period up to and including 30 days, the misbehavior report shall
be forwarded to the Disciplinary Hearing Officer for appropriate action.
(3) Where the violation , if substantiated, would warrant imposition of a penalty beyond
that which may be imposed at a Disciplinary Hearing, the misbehavior report shall
be forwarded to the Superintendent for designation of a Hearing Officer to conduct
a Superintendent's Hearing .
(c) The Review Officer may dismiss any misbehavior report which fails to state a valid charge,
or may return it to be rewritten.
(d) The Review Officer shall refer any report that includes a description that an inmate has
engaged in an act of self-harm to the Deputy Superintendent for Security, who shall fulfill
the function of the Review Officer and have the authority to dismiss the charge or charges
if he or she believes, due to the inmate's mental state or for any other reason, that
proceeding to a hearing would serve no useful purpose.

4

DATE

NO 4932, Chapter V, Standards Behavior & Allowances
10/02/2018
PAGE 5 of 21

(e) The Review Officer shall review the status of each inmate keeplocked pursuant to a
misbehavior report under review, and may order the release of an inmate who is no longer
a threat to the safety and security of the facility or to himself or herself.

(f) The Review Officer shall not act as a Hearing Officer in any proceeding arising from
misbehavior report which he or she has reviewed .
Subpart 251-3 Misbehavior Report

§ 251-3.1 Misbehavior Report
(a) Every incident of inmate misbehavior involving danger to life, health, security, or property
must be reported , in writing , as soon as practicable .
(b) The misbehavior report shall be made by the employee who has observed the incident or
who has ascertained the facts of the incident. Where more than one employee has
personal knowledge of the facts, each employee shall make a separate report or, where
appropriate , each employee shall endorse his or her name on a report made by one of the
employees.
(c) The misbehavior report shall include the following :
(1) A written specification of the particulars of the alleged incident of misbehavior
involved;
(2) A reference to the inmate rule book number allegedly violated by the inmate, and
a brief description of the rule;
(3) The date, time , and place of the incident.
(4) Where more than one inmate was involved in an incident, the report should , to the
extent practicable under the given circumstances, indicate the specific role played
by each inmate. Where two or more incidents are involved , all of them may be
incorporated into a single misbehavior report . However, each incident must be
separately stated.
(d) All misbehavior reports shall also contain the following language:

(1) "You are hereby advised that no statement made by you in response to the
charge , or information derived therefrom may be used against you in a criminal
proceeding."
(2) "You will be permitted to call witnesses on your behalf provided that so doing does
not jeopardize institutional safety or correctional goals."
(3) "If restricted pending a Hearing for this misbehavior report, you may write to the
Deputy Superintendent of Security or designee prior to the Hearing to make a
statement on the need for continued prehearing confinement."
NOTE: Paragraphs (2) and (3) , above, shall not be included in misbehavior
reports used in connection with Violation Hearings.
(e) Employees of the Office of Mental Health may write misbehavior reports to the same
extent as Department employees.
Subpart 251-4 Inmate Assistance

§ 251-4.1 Inmate Assistant.
(a) An inmate shall have the opportunity to pick an employee from an established list of
persons who shall assist the inmate when a misbehavior report has been issued against
the inmate if:

5

DATE

NO 4932, Chapter V, Standards Behavior & Allowances
10/0212018
PAGE 6 of 21

(1) The inmate is either illiterate or Limited English Proficient (LEP) (the list of persons
who may assist an LEP inmate will only include qualified interpreters) ; or
(2) The inmate is sensorially disabled, in which case the inmate will be provided
reasonable accommodations including , but not be limited to :
(i) The provision of a qualified sign language interpreter for a deaf and/or hard
of hearing inmate who uses sign language to communicate; or
(ii) Provided all documentation in at least 18 fonts for inmates who are LB/SVI
(Legally Blind or Severely Visually Impaired), including the use of adaptive
equipment (i.e., magnifier, portable CCTV and/or scribe/reader, etc.) or
(3) The inmate is charged with drug use as a result of a urinalysis test ; or
(4) The inmate is confined pending a Superintendent's Hearing to be conducted
pursuant to Part 254.
(b) In other cases where a misbehavior report has been issued , the Review Officer or Hearing
Officer, in his or her absolute discretion, may offer an inmate the opportunity to pick an
Inmate Assistant where such assistance would enable the inmate to adequately
comprehend the case in order to respond to the charges .

§ 251-4.2 Assistant
The Assistant's role is to speak with the inmate charged, to explain the charges to the
inmate, interview witnesses , and to report the results of those efforts to the inmate. He or
she may assist the inmate in obtaining documentary evidence or written statements which
may be necessary. The Assistant may be required by the Hearing Officer to be present at
the Disciplinary or Superintendent's Hearing.

Subpart 251-5 Timeliness

§ 251-5.1 Timeliness
(a) Where an inmate is confined pending a Disciplinary Hearing or Superintendent's Hearing,
the Hearing must be commenced as soon as is reasonably practicable following the
inmate's initial confinement pending said Disciplinary Hearing or Superintendent's Hearing,
but, in no event may it be commenced beyond seven days of said confinement without
authorization of the Commissioner or designee .
(b) The Disciplinary Hearing or Superintendent's Hearing must be completed within 14 days
following the writing of the misbehavior report unless otherwise authorized by the
Commissioner or designee. Where a delay is authorized , the record of the Hearing should
reflect the reasons for any delay or adjournment, and an inmate should ordinarily be made
aware of these reasons unless to do so would jeopardize institutional safety or correctional
goals.
(c) Violation Hearings must be completed within seven days of the writing of the misbehavior
report.
Part 252 Violation Hearing
§ 252.1 Violation Officer
(a) There shall be in each correctional facility one or more Officers of the rank of Sergeant or
above who shall function as a Violation Officer, the number to be dependent upon the
needs of the facility.
(b) The Violation Officer shall be responsible for conducting the Violation Hearing.

6

DATE

NO 4932, Chapter V, Standards Behavior & Allowances
10/02/2018
PAGE 7 of21

§ 252.2 Function of the Violation Hearing.
The purpose of the Violation Hearing shall be to hear and determine allegations of rule
violations contained in the misbehavior reports referred for Violation Hearing .
§ 252.3 Procedure
(a) Upon receipt of a misbehavior report from the Review Officer, the Violation Officer shall:
(1) Give a copy of the misbehavior report to the inmate at the Violation Hearing ;
(2) Allow the inmate to be present at the Violation Hearing, unless he or she refuses
to attend; and
(3) Allow the inmate to present documentary evidence, to submit a written statement
on his or her behalf, and to reply to the charge . The inmate shall not have the
right to call witnesses.
(b) The Violation Officer may allow any evidence necessary to aid in the decision .
§ 252.4 Inmates with Limited English Proficiency (LEP)and Sensorially Disabled
Inmates.
(a) An inmate with LEP who cannot read and understand English must be given a
translated notice of the charges; an inmate with LEP who cannot speak and understand
English must be provided with qualified interpretation services for the Hearing.
(b) A deaf or hard of hearing inmate who uses sign language to communicate shall
receive the assistance of a qualified sign language interpreter who shall be present at the
Hearing. A hard of hearing inmate who uses an amplifier or other device as a reasonable
accommodation must have the opportunity to use such device during the Hearing.
(c) A LB/SVI inmate must be given all relevant documentation (at minimum of 18 font)
prior to the commencement of the disciplinary proceedings, including but not limited to
other adaptive equipment (i.e., magnifier, portable CCTV and/or scribe/reader, etc.), or
other reasonable accommodations during the Hearing.
§ 252.5 Dispositions at Violation Hearing.
(a) Upon affirming a charge , the Violation Officer may impose any two of the following
penalties to be served within a 13-day period. Penalties may be suspended for a period of
13 days:
(1) Loss of all or part of recreation (game room , day room , television , movies, yard ,
gym , special events) for up to 13 days;
(2) Loss of maximum of two of the following privileges; one commissary buy ,
excluding items related to the inmate's health and sanitary needs, withholding of
radio for up to 13 days, withholding of packages for up to 13 days, excluding
perishables that cannot be returned ;
(3) The imposition of one work task per day, other than a regular work assignment for
a maximum of seven days, excluding Sundays and public holidays, to be
performed on the inmate's housing unit, or other designated area.
Inmates given such disposition , who are participating in a regular work
assignment, shall not be required to work more than eight hours per day. The
eight-hour limitation excludes such non-work assignments as educational or
vocational school programming ; and
(4) Counsel and/or reprimand .

7

DATE

NO 4932, Chapter V, Standards Behavior & Allowances
10/02/2018
PAGE 8 of 21

(b) Following the Violation Hearing, the inmate shall receive a written statement indicating the
penalty imposed as soon as possible, but not later than 24 hours after the conclusion of
the Hearing.
(c) Records of disposition of Violation Hearings shall not be used for any purpose, except as
follows:
(1) A Violation Officer shall have available records of an inmate's suspended and
uncompleted dispositions when conducting a Hearing with regard to the inmate;
and
(2) In determining the appropriate level at which an inmate's misbehavior report
should be handled , a Review Officer may consider descriptions of an inmate's
charges and dispositions of Violation Hearings dated within 14 days of the review.
All misbehavior reports for Violation Hearings are to be destroyed 14 days after the
Hearing is held. Dispositions for Violation Hearings shall not be made part of any inmate's
institutional records.

§ 252.6 Appeal Procedures.
Appeals must be submitted within 24 hours of receipt of the violation disposition to the
Superintendent or designee . A decision shall be issued within seven days of receipt of the
appeal.
§ 252.7 Discretionary Review by Superintendent.
At any time during which a penalty imposed pursuant to a Violation Hearing is in effect, the
Superintendent may reduce the penalty.
Part 253 Disciplinary Hearing
§ 253.1 Establishment of the Disciplinary Hearing Officer.
(a) There shall be at each correctional facility one or more Hearing Officers of the rank of
Lieutenant or above who shall function as a Disciplinary Hearing Officer, the number to be
dependent upon the needs of the facility. The Superintendent may, in his or her
discretion , designate some other employee to conduct Disciplinary Hearings.
(b) The Disciplinary Hearing Officer shall be responsible for conducting Disciplinary Hearings
in an impartial manner. No person who has participated in any investigation of the acts
shall be a Hearing Officer at a Hearing relating to those acts, nor shall any person who has
prepared or caused to be prepared the misbehavior report on which a Hearing is held, act
as the Hearing Officer on that charge .
§ 253.2 Inmates with LEP and sensorially disabled inmates.

(a) An inmate with LEP who cannot read and understand English must be given a
translated notice of the charges and statements of evidence relied upon and reasons for
actions taken; an inmate with LEP who cannot speak and understand English must be
provided with qualified interpretation services for the Hearing .
(b) A deaf or hard of hearing inmate who uses sign language to communicate shall
receive the assistance of a qualified sign language interpreter who shall be present at the
Hearing. A hard of hearing inmate who uses an amplifier or other device as a reasonable
accommodation must have the opportunity to use such device during the Hearing.

8

DATE

NO 4932, Chapter V, Standards Behavior & Allowances
10/02/2018
PAGE 9 of 21

(c) A LB/SVI inmate must be given all relevant documentation (at a minimum of 18 font)
prior to the commencement of the disciplinary proceedings, including but not limited to
other adaptive equipment (i.e . magnifier, portable CCTV and/or scribe reader, etc.) or
other reasonable accommodations during the Hearing .

§ 253.3 Formal Charge.
The formal charge shall consist of the misbehavior report which shall be prepared in
accordance with the provisions of§ 251-3.1 of this Chapter.
§ 253.4 Assistance
The inmate shall be provided with an Assistant in accordance with the provisions of
Subpart 251-4 of this Chapter.
§ 253.5 Inmate Witnesses.
The inmate may call witnesses on his or her behalf provided their testimony is material, is
not redundant, and doing so does not jeopardize institutional safety or correctional goals.
If permission to call a witness is denied, the Hearing Officer shall give the inmate a written
statement stating the reasons for the denial, including the specific threat to institutional
safety or correctional goals presented .
(a) Any witness shall be allowed to testify at the Hearing in the presence of the inmate unless
the Hearing Officer determines that so doing will jeopardize institutional safety or
correctional goals. Where an inmate is not permitted to have a witness present, such
witness may be interviewed out of the presence of the inmate and such interview tape
recorded . The recording of the witness' statement is to be made available to the inmate at
the Hearing unless the Hearing Officer determines that so doing would jeopardize
institutional safety or correctional goals.
(b) An inmate may request a witness by either:
(1) Informing his or her Assistant or the Hearing Officer before the Hearing ; or
(2) Informing the Hearing Officer during the Hearing.
§ 253.6 Method of determination.

Upon receipt of a misbehavior report from the Review Officer, the Hearing Officer shall
commence the Disciplinary Hearing as follows:
(a) The misbehavior report shall be served on the inmate at least 24 hours before the
Disciplinary Hearing. If the inmate is confined and requests an Assistant, the Hearing may
not be held until 24 hours after the Assistant meets with the inmate .
(b) The inmate shall be present at the Hearing unless he or she refuses to attend , or is
excluded for reason of institutional safety or correctional goals. The entire Hearing must
be electronically recorded.
(c) The inmate , when present, may reply orally to the charge and/or evidence and shall be
allowed to submit relevant documentary evidence or written statements on his or her
behalf.
§ 253.7 Dispositions and Mandatory Surcharge

(a) Dispositions:
(1) Upon affirming a charge , the Hearing Officer may impose one or more of the
following penalties:
(i)

Counsel and/or reprimand ;

9

DATE

NO 4932, Chapter V, Standards Behavior & Allowances
10/02/2018
PAGE 10 of 21

(ii) Loss of one or more specified privileges, for a period of up to 30 days, however,

Correspondence and visiting privileges may not be withheld ;
(iii) Confinement to a cell or room continuously or to a special housing unit under
keeplock admission or on certain days during certain hours for a period of up to
30 days;
(iv) Restitution for loss or intentiona I damage to property up to $100; or
(v) The imposition of one work task per day, other than a regular work assignment
for a maximum of seven days, excluding Sundays and public holidays, to be
performed on the inmate's housing unit, or other designated area . Inmates
given such disposition who are participating in a regular work assignment shall
not be required to work more than eight hours per day. The eight-hour
limitation excludes such non-work assignments as educational or vocational
school programming.
(2) Any penalty imposed pursuant to this section shall run consecutively to any other
like penalty previously imposed .
(3) Whenever a confinement penalty is being served and a more restrictive
confinement penalty is imposed as a result of another Hearing, the more restrictive
penalty shall begin to be served immediately, and any time owed on the less
restrictive penalty shall be served after completion of the more restrictive penalty
period.
(4) The Disciplinary Hearing Officer may suspend imposition of any penalty for a
period of up to 90 days. Any such suspended penalty, from a Disciplinary
Hearing , may be imposed by a subsequent Disciplinary Hearing or
Superintendent's Hearing Officer upon substantiating a charge of misbehavior in a
subsequent Hearing within a specific period.
(5) As soon as possible, but no later than 24 hours after the conclusion of the
Hearing , the inmate shall be given a written statement of the disposition of the
Hearing . This statement shall set forth the evidence relied upon by the Hearing
Officer in reaching his or her decision and also set forth the reasons for any
penalties imposed.
(b) Mandatory disciplinary surcharge. Upon the conclusion of a Disciplinary Hearing wherein
the inmate admits the charges, or where the Hearing Officer affirms one or more of the
charges, a mandatory disciplinary surcharge in the amount of five dollars ($5.00) shall be
assessed automatically against the inmate .

§ 253.8 Appeal Procedures.
The inmate shall be advised of his or her right to appeal the disposition of the Disciplinary
Hearing to the facility Superintendent. Such appeal shall be submitted in writing to the
Superintendent within 72 hours of the receipt of the disposition. The Superintendent or
designee shall issue a decision within 15 days of receipt of the appeal.
§ 253.9 Discretionary Review by Superintendent.
At any time during which a penalty imposed pursuant to a Disciplinary Hearing is in effect,
the Superintendent may reduce the penalty.
Part 254 Superintendent's Hearing
§ 254.1 Hearing Officer

10

DATE

NO 4932, Chapter V, Standards Behavior & Allowances
PAGE 11 of 21

10/0212018

The person appointed to conduct the Superintendent's Hearing shall be either the
Superintendent, a Deputy Superintendent, Captain , or Commissioner's Hearing Officer
employed by the Department's Central Office, but the Superintendent may, in his or her
discretion , designate some other employee to conduct the proceeding. The following
persons shall not be appointed to conduct the proceeding :
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

a person who actually witnessed the incident;
a person who was directly involved in the incident;
the Review Officer who reviewed the misbehavior report ; or
a person who has investigated the incident.

§ 254.2 Inmates with LEP and Sensorially Disabled Inmates.

(a) An inmate with LEP who cannot read and understand English must be given a
translated notice of the charges and statements of evidence relied upon and reasons for
actions taken; an inmate with LEP who cannot speak and understand English must be
provided with qualified interpretation services for the hearing.
(b) A deaf or hard of hearing inmate who uses sign language to communicate shall
receive the assistance of a qualified sign language interpreter who shall be present at the
Hearing . A hard of hearing inmate who uses an amplifier or other device as a reasonable
accommodation must have the opportunity to use such device during the Hearing.
(c) A LB/SVI inmate must be given all relevant documentation (at a minimum of 18 font)
prior to the commencement of the disciplinary proceedings, including but not limited to
other adaptive equipment (i.e. magnifier, portable CCTV and/or scribe/reader, etc.) or
other reasonable accommodations during the Hearing .
§ 254.3 Formal Charge.

The formal charge shall consist of the misbehavior report which shall be prepared in
accordance with the provisions of§ 251-3.1 of Subpart 251-3 of this Subchapter.
§ 254.4 Notice and assistance.

The inmate shall be provided with an assistant in accordance with the provisions of
Subpart 251-4 of this Subchapter.
§ 254.5 Inmate witnesses.

(a) The inmate may call witnesses on his or her behalf provided their testimony is material, is
not redundant , and doing so does not jeopardize institutional safety or correctional goals.
If permission to call a witness is denied , the Hearing Officer shall give the inmate a written
statement stating the reasons for the denial, including the specific threat to institutional
safety or correctional goals presented .
(b) Any witness shall be allowed to testify at the Hearing in the presence of the inmate unless
the Hearing Officer determines that so doing will jeopardize institutional safety or
correctional goals.
Where an inmate is not permitted to have a witness present, such witness may be
interviewed out of the presence of the inmate and such interview tape recorded.
The recording of the witness' statement is to be made available to the inmate at the
Hearing unless the Hearing Officer determines that so doing would jeopardize institutional
safety or correctional goals.
(c) An inmate may request a witness by either:

11

DATE

NO 4932, Chapter V, Standards Behavior & Allowances
10/02/2018
PAGE 12 of 21

(1) Informing his or her Assistant or the Hearing Officer before the Hearing ; or
(2) Informing the Hearing Officer during the Hearing.
§ 254.6 Method of determination.

(a) Generally. Upon receipt of a misbehavior report from the Review Officer, the Hearing
Officer shall commence the Superintendent's Hearing as follows:
(1) The misbehavior report shall be served on the inmate at least 24 hours before the
Superintendent's Hearing . If the inmate is confined and requests an Assistant, the
Hearing may not start until 24 hours after the Assistant's initial meeting with the
inmate.
(2) The inmate shall be present at the Hearing unless he or she refuses to attend, or
is excluded for reasons of institutional safety or correctional goals. The entire
Hearing must be electronically recorded .
(3) The inmate when present may reply orally to the charge and/or evidence and shall
be allowed to submit relevant documentary evidence or written statements on his
or her behalf.
(4) V\/hen applicable, the information identified in subparagraphs (b)(1 )(i)(ii)(v)(vi) and
(b)(2)(i)(ii) of this Section, derived from the Department's electronic databases,
shall automatically appear on a computer-generated Hearing record sheet that
shall be provided to the Hearing Officer for use at the Hearing.
(b) Mental state or intellectual capacity. When an inmate's mental state or intellectual
capacity is at issue , a Hearing Officer shall consider evidence regarding the inmate's
mental condition or intellectual capacity at the time of the incident and at the time of the
Hearing in accordance with this Section.
(1) For the purposes of this Section , an inmate's mental state shall be deemed at
issue when :
(i)

The inmate is classified as level 1 by the Office of Mental Health (OMH), as
indicated on the Hearing record sheet;

(ii) The inmate is designated as an "S" by OMH , as indicated on the hearing record
sheet.
(iii) The inmate is described as engaging in an act of self-harm, as indicated on the
misbehavior report;
(iv) The incident occurred while the inmate was being transported to or from the
Central New York Psychiatric Center (CNYPC), as alleged in the misbehavior
report;
The inmate was an inpatient at the CNYPC within nine months prior to the
incident, as indicated on the Hearing record sheet;
(v) The incident occurred while the inmate was assigned to an OMH satellite unit or
intermediate care program , as indicated on the Hearing record sheet;
(vi) The incident occurred while the inmate was being escorted to or from an OMH
satellite unit or intermediate care program, as alleged in the misbehavior report;
The Hearing was delayed or adjourned, after an extension of time was obtained
in accordance with§ 251-5.1 of this Chapter, because the inmate became an
inpatient at the CNYPC or was assigned to the OMH satellite unit; or

12

DATE

NO 4932, Chapter V, Standards Behavior & Allowances
10/02/2018
PAGE 13 of 21

(vii) It appears to the Hearing Officer, based on the inmate's testimony , demeanor,
the circumstances of the alleged offense , or any other reason, that the inmate
may have been mentally impaired at the time of the incident or may be mentally
impaired at the time of the Hearing.
(2) For the purposes of this Section an inmate's intellectual capacity shall be deemed
at issue when :
(i)

The incident occurred while the inmate was assigned to the Special Needs Unit
(SNU) at Bedford Hills, Clinton , Wende, Woodbourne or Sullivan Correctional
Facilities, as indicated on the Hearing record sheet;

(ii) The inmate has not scored above a sixty-nine (69) on any intelligence testing
instrument administered to the inmate by the Department and has not scored
above a 3.0 grade level in any reading comprehension testing instrument
administered to the inmate by the Department, as indicated on the Hearing
record sheet; or
(iii) It appears to the Hearing Officer, based on the inmate's testimony , demeanor,
the circumstances of the alleged offense , or any other reason, that the inmate
may have been intellectually impaired at the time of the incident or may be
intellectually impaired at the time of the Hearing.
(c) V\lhen an inmate's mental state or intellectual capacity is at issue , pursuant to subdivision
(b) above , the Hearing Officer shall:
(1) Ask the inmate whether he or she understands the disciplinary charge, the
purpose of the Hearing and the role of the participants in the Hearing;
(2) Inquire of other witnesses to the incident, as may be called in accordance with §
254.5 of this Part, concerning any observations that they may have regarding the
inmate's mental condition or intellectual capacity at the time of the incident; and
(3) V\lhere an inmate's mental state is at issue , out of the presence of the inmate and
on a confidential tape , interview an OMH clinician as may be available concerning
the inmate's mental condition at the time of the incident and the time of Hearing; or
(4) V\lhere an inmate's intellectual capacity is at issue, out of the presence of the
inmate and on a confidential tape , interview a Offender Rehabilitation Coordinator
or Teacher as may be available concerning the inmate's intellectual capacity at the
time of the incident and the time of the Hearing.
(d) If it is determined that the inmate is unable to participate in the Hearing process because
the inmate does not understand the disciplinary charge , the purpose of the Hearing and
the role of the participants in the Hearing, the Hearing shall be adjourned until such time
as the inmate is able to participate in the Hearing process and , if necessary, a request for
a time extension shall be made in accordance with § 251-5.1 of this Chapter.
(e) If it is determined that the inmate is able to participate in the Hearing process but is in
need of assistance, the Hearing shall be adjourned and the inmate shall be offered an
Assistant in accordance with§ 251-4.1 of this Chapter.
Pursuant to§ 251-4.2 of this Chapter, the Assistant may be required by the Hearing
Officer to be present at the Hearing .

13

DATE

NO 4932, Chapter V, Standards Behavior & Allowances
10/02/2018
PAGE 14 of 21

(f) If it is determined that the inmate is capable of proceeding with the Hearing and a finding
of guilt is subsequently made with regard to one or more of the charges , the Hearing
Officer shall consider the inmate's mental condition or intellectual capacity at the time of
the incident, if at issue in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) or (2) above, respectively, in
determining the appropriate penalty to be imposed under §254.7 of this Part. In addition, if
in light of the inmate's mental condition or intellectual capacity, the Hearing Officer
believes that a penalty with regard to one or more of the charges would serve no useful
purpose, the Hearing Officer may dismiss the charge or charges altogether. The written
statement of the disposition of the charges, if any, shall, in accordance with§ 254.7(a)(5)
of this Part, reflect how the inmate's mental condition or intellectual capacity was
considered .
(g) A copy of a written statement of the disposition of the charges issued in accordance with
subdivision (f) above shall, if the disposition includes confinement to SHU and the inmate
is housed in a correctional facility designated by OMH as level 1 or 2, be provided to the
OMH unit at the facility for use in connection with any mental health assessments. In a
correctional facility designated by OMH as level 1, the inmate's status shall also be the
subject of the next scheduled meeting of the facility's Special Housing Unit Case
Management Committee in accordance with Part 310 of Title 7.
(h) Adolescent Offenders. When an inmate is under the age of 18 at the time of the incident,
as indicated on the Hearing record sheet, the Hearing Officer shall consider the inmate 's
age as a mitigating factor. The written statement of the disposition of the charges, if any,
shall, in accordance with§ 254.7(a)(5) of this Part, reflect how the inmate 's age affected
the disposition (e.g., reduction of a penalty, alternative to a confinement penalty, dismissal
of one or more charges).

§ 254.7 Dispositions and Mandatory Surcharge
(a) Dispositions:
(1) Where the inmate admits the charges, or where the Hearing Officer affirms the
charges on the basis of the evidence, the Hearing Officer may impose one or
more of the following penalties:
(i)

Counsel and/or reprimand ;

(ii) Loss of one or more specified privileges, for a specified period .
Correspondence and/or visiting privileges may be withheld with a particular
person (or persons) only where the inmate has been involved in improper
conduct in connection with correspondence with such person(s).
(iii) Loss of visiting privileges for a specified period where the affirmed charges
involve improper conduct as a result of the inmate's presence or conduct in
connection with a visiting, family reunion or special events program, or
processing before or after participation in such program ;
(a) A loss of visiting privileges may be imposed under this
subparagraph only where the affirmed charges involve the violation of
any rule under rule series 100 assault and fighting ; 101 sex offenses;
108 escape and abscondence; 113 contraband where such
contraband consists of any weapon , narcotic, controlled substance or
marijuana and/or paraphernalia , alcoholic beverage or intoxicant,
electronic device, or money; 114 smuggling; or 115 searches and

14

NO 4932, Chapter V, Standards Behavior & Allowances
DATE

10/0212018

PAGE 15 of21

frisks, including any attempt or conspiracy to violate any such rule; or a
disposition under rule 1.00 for a criminal conviction relating to such
conduct;
(b) A loss of visiting privileges with a specified visitor or visitors may
be imposed where the misconduct involved only the inmate and the
specified visitor or visitors. Where the misconduct was not limited to
the specified visitor or visitors a loss of visiting privileges with all
visitors may be imposed . Misconduct involving unacceptable physical
conduct during which other visitors were subjected to exposure is
misconduct which is not limited to only the inmate and the specified
visitor or visitors. Misconduct involving an attempt to introduce money,
alcohol, marijuana, narcotic and other dangerous drugs, any item
which is readily capable of being used to cause death or serious injury,
or any item which may be used to aid in escape is misconduct which is
not limited to only the inmate and the specified visitor or visitors;

(c) A loss of visiting privileges may be imposed under this
subparagraph only for the length of time specified in accordance with
the provisions of the penalty chart contained in Directive #4403,
"Inmate Visitor Program ." Where the disposition imposes a loss of
visiting privileges with all visitors for two years or more , a copy of the
disposition shall be forwarded to the superintendent for a discretionary
review under section 254.9 of this pa rt. Where the disposition includes
an indefinite suspension of visiting privileges and the inmate does not
appeal the disposition pursuant to section 254.8 of this part, the visiting
sanction shall nevertheless be reviewed by the Director of Special
Housing and inmate disciplinary program within six months of the
hearing date . An inmate subject to a disciplinary sanction imposing a
suspension of visiting privileges for a term over two years or indefinite
suspension of visiting privileges may request reconsideration of the
suspension of visiting privileges for a term over two years in
accordance with Directive #4403 , "Inmate Visitor Program";
(d) The Hearing Officer may, within his or her discretion, limit an
inmate to noncontact visiting in lieu of suspending all visiting privileges;

(iv) Loss of visiting privileges for a specified period not to exceed six months for a
first offense and one year for any repeat offense where the affirmed charges
involve the violation of one of the following rules, regardless of the location of
the rule violation : 113.24 (prohibiting the use of narcotics, controlled
substances , or marijuana , e.g., positive urinalysis); 113.25 (prohibiting making,
possessing , selling or exchanging any narcotic, narcotic paraphernalia ,
controlled substance or marijuana): or 180.14 (requiring an inmate to comply
with instructions by staff regarding urinalysis testing) ;
(v) Confinement to a cell or room continuously or to a special housing unit
continuously or on certain days during certain hours for a specified period;
(vi) Restitution for loss or intentional damage to property to be made from an
inmate's existing and future funds;
(vii) Forfeiture of money confiscated as contraband ;

15

DATE

NO 4932, Chapter V, Standards Behavior & Allowances
10/0212018
PAGE 16 of 21

(viii) Loss of a specified period of good behavior allowance ("good time"), subject to
restoration as provided in Subchapter B of this directive ;
(ix) The imposition of one work task per day, other than a regular work assignment
for a maximum of seven days, excluding Sundays and public holidays, to be
performed on the inmate's housing unit, or other designated area . Inmates
given such disposition who are participating in a regular work assignment shall
not be required to work more than eight hours per day. The eight-hour
limitation excludes such non-work assignments as educational or vocational
school programming ; or
(x) Where applicable, removal from the elected Inmate Grievance Resolution
Committee (IGRC) and/or loss of the privilege of participating as a voting
member of the IGRC for a specified period of time .
(2) Any penalty imposed pursuant to this Section shall run consecutively to any other
like penalty previously imposed .
(3) Whenever a confinement penalty is being served and a more restrictive
confinement penalty is imposed as a result of another Hearing, the more restrictive
penalty shall begin to be served immediately, and any time owed on the less
restrictive penalty shall be served after completion of the more restrictive penalty
period.
(4) The Hearing Officer may suspend imposition of any penalty for a period of up to
180 days. Any such suspended penalty may only be imposed by a subsequent
Superintendent's Hearing Officer upon substantiating a charge of misbehavior or
in a subsequent Hearing within a specific period.
(5) As soon as possible, but no later than 24 hours after the conclusion of the
Hearing , the inmate shall be given a written statement of the disposition of the
Hearing . This statement shall set forth the evidence relied upon by the Hearing
Officer in reaching his or her decision and also set forth the reasons for any
penalties imposed and, if applicable, pursuant to § 254.6(b) of this Part, reflect
how the inmate's mental condition or intellectual capacity was considered ; and , if
applicable , pursuant to §254.6(h) of this part, how age affected the disposition.
(b) Mandatory disciplinary surcharge. Upon the conclusion of a Superintendent's Hearing
wherein the inmate admits the charges, or where the Hearing Officer affirms one or more
of the charges, a mandatory disciplinary surcharge in the amount of five dollars ($5.00)
shall be assessed automatically against the inmate .
§ 254.8 Appeal Procedures.

Any inmate shall have the right to appeal the disposition of any Superintendent's Hearing
to which he or she was a party, to the Commissioner within 30 days of receipt of the
disposition. The Commissioner or designee shall issue a decision within 60 days of
receipt of the appeal. The Commissioner or designee may:
(a) Affirm the Hearing disposition;
(b) Modify the Hearing disposition by dismissing certain charge(s) and/or reducing the penalty
imposed;

16

DATE

NO 4932, Chapter V, Standards Behavior & Allowances
10/02/2018
PAGE 17 of21

(c) Remand the Hearing back to the Hearing Officer to correct a procedural, technical or other
error. Whenever the hearing is remanded back pursuant to this subdivision, the penalty
imposed at the conclusion of the corrected hearing , if any, may not exceed the penalty
imposed at the original hearing inclusive of subsequent reductions;
(d) Reverse the Hearing disposition and order a new Hearing . Whenever a new Hearing is
ordered pursuant to this subdivision , a new Hearing Officer shall preside over the Hearing,
and the penalty imposed at the new Hearing , if any, may not exceed the penalty imposed
at the original Hearing inclusive of subsequent reductions: or
(e) Reverse the Hearing Disposition .
§ 254.9 Discretionary Review by Superintendent.
At any time during which a penalty imposed pursuant to a Superintendent's Hearing is in
effect, the Superintendent may reduce the penalty.
SUBCHAPTER B

PROCEDURES FOR GRANTING GOOD BEHAVIOR ALLOWANCES

Part 260

General Provisions

Part 261

Time Allowance Committees

Part 262

Granting of Time Allowances

Part 263

Stay of Good Behavior Allowance

Part 260 General Provisions

§ 260.1 Application of Good Behavior Allowances.
(a) The opportunity to earn good behavior allowances offers inmates a tangible reward for
positive efforts made during incarceration.
(b) For those inmates serving indeterminate sentences imposed for crimes committed prior to
September 1, 1967, good behavior allowances shorten the amount of time to be served
prior to parole consideration .
(c) For all inmates serving determinate or indeterminate sentences (other than life sentences)
who are not granted parole or a reparole, but who nevertheless have performed well within
the correctional facilities, good behavior allowances can be used to obtain release under
supervision and to demonstrate prior to expiration of the term of the sentence that they
can follow acceptable behavior patterns in the community as well as in a correctional
facility.

§ 260.2 Nature of Allowances.
Good behavior allowances are in the nature of a privilege to be earned by the inmate and
no inmate has the right to demand or to require that any good behavior allowance be
granted .
§ 260.3 Criteria for Allowances.
(a) All recommendations and decisions must be made through completely impersonal,
impartial and fair and reasonable evaluations.
(b) In evaluating the amount of allowance to be granted, the statutory criteria (i.e., good
behavior, efficient and willing performance of duties assigned , progress and achievement
in an assigned treatment program) shall be viewed in the light of the following factors:
(1) The attitude of the inmate;
(2) The capacity of the inmate ; and

17

DATE

NO 4932, Chapter V, Standards Behavior & Allowances
10/0212018
PAGE 18 of 21

(3) The efforts made by the inmate within the limits of his or her capacity .
§ 260.4 Forfeitures and Disallowances.
An inmate shall not automatically forfeit or automatically be disallowed any good behavior
allowance by reason of the fact that he or she has been confined to a cell or room or in a
special housing unit for a period of time .
(a) A disposition involving loss of a specified period of good behavior allowance made in a
Superintendent's Hearing under Part 254 of this directive shall be deemed to be tentative
until such time as it actually affects consideration for parole or for conditional or other
release, and shall then either be confirmed or be modified by the Commissioner or
designee.
Part 261 Time Allowance Committees
§ 261.1 Establishment of Time Allowance Committees.
(a) There shall be in each correctional facility a committee to be known as the Time Allowance
Committee.
(b) Such Committee shall consist of at least three members designated by the
Superintendent. The Superintendent shall appoint one of the members as Chairman. The
members shall be selected from a list of eight employees preselected by the
Superintendent and filed with the Deputy Commissioner for Correctional Facilities. The list
of names filed by the Superintendent shall be deemed approved by the Deputy
Commissioner for Correctional Facilities unless and until the Deputy Commissioner
removes an individual from the list in writing .
(c) Each such Committee shall have a Chairman designated by the Superintendent from
among the members and the Chairman shall be responsible for the proper operation of the
Committee.
§ 261.2 Role of Time Allowance Committees.
The purpose of the Time Allowance Committee shall be to make recommendations as to
the amount of good behavior allowance to be granted to inmates who are eligible to be
considered for such allowance.

§ 261.3 Procedure of Time Allowance Committees.
(a) For inmates entitled to be considered for good behavior allowances, the file of each such
inmate shall be considered in the fourth month preceding the month of the earliest
possible date he or she would be entitled to consideration for release if that date depends
on the amount of good behavior allowance to be granted.
(b) The Committee shall consider the entire file of the inmate, and then shall decide upon a
recommendation as to the amount of good behavior allowance to be granted, applying the
principles set forth in§ 260.3 and§ 260.4 of this part. At such meetings, conducted in
accordance with subdivision (a) of this Section , any inmate who has had a recommended
loss of good behavior allowance from a Superintendent's Hearing shall appear before the
Committee. The Committee shall consider whether, and set forth its recommendation as
to whether, the inmate's subsequent behavior merits restoration of all or part of the lost
allowance and its reasons therefor.

18

NO 4932, Chapter V, Standards Behavior & Allowances
DA TE

10/0212018

PAGE 19 of 21

(c) The Committee shall not recommend the granting of the total allowance authorized by law
or the withholding of any part of the allowance in accordance with any automatic rule , but
shall appraise the entire institutional experience of the inmate and make its own
determination .
(d) The Committee shall promptly report the results of its deliberations in writing to the
Superintendent. Such report shall set forth its recommendation for the time to be allowed
for the period under consideration and the reasons for the recommendation.
(e) All recommendations of the Committee shall be pursuant to a decision of a majority of the
members, but any member who disagrees shall note his or her recommendations and the
reasons therefor on the report of the Committee. Where a majority of the members are
unable to agree upon a recommendation , the Chairman shall report such fact and each
member shall report his or her recommendation and reasons in the report made by the
Chairman.

(f) Where the Time Allowance Committee has recommended an allowance which will extend
the period of incarceration beyond the earliest or any previously established release date,
the inmate may be scheduled to reappear before another Time Allowance Committee in
accordance with the direction of the Commissioner, Superintendent or Committee
Chairperson .
§ 261.4 Time Allowance Hearing.
(a) Where the Committee has determined that there may be sufficient reason present after a
review of the file not to recommend the granting of the total allowance authorized, other
than time lost as the result of a Superintendent's Hearing, or upon direction of the
Superintendent pursuant to subdivision (b) of§ 263.2, the Committee shall schedule a
Time Allowance Committee Hearing to be held for the purpose of determining if sufficient
reason is present not to recommend the granting of the total allowance authorized and to
determine the amount of time to be recommended for allowance and the reasons for the
recommendation .
(b) At least 48 hours prior to the Time Allowance Hearing and for the purposes stated in
subdivision (a) of this Section, the Chairman shall designate an employee to file and
deliver to the inmate a formal notice of such Hearing . The formal notice shall contain a
written specification of the particulars that caused the Time Allowance Committee to
believe that there may be sufficient reason not to grant the total allowance authorized.
(c) The Chairman of the Time Allowance Committee shall designate an employee to furnish
assistance to the inmate . Such employee shall be of the inmate's choice selected from a
list established by the Superintendent or any other employee upon approval of the
Superintendent.
(d) Such employee shall explain the nature of the Hearing and the particulars specified in the
formal notice. The employee also shall ask the inmate whether there is any factual matter
that can be presented in his or her behalf and shall investigate any reasonable factual
claim that the inmate may make.
A written report of the action taken and the results of the investigation , if any, including
documentary evidence and witness statements shall be delivered to the Chairman of the
Time Allowance Committee prior to the commencement of the special meeting . The Time
Allowance Committee shall reconsider the entire file of the inmate, shall interview the
inmate , shall consider any factual matter brought to its attention by the inmate or the

19

NO 4932, Chapter V, Standards Behavior & Allowances
DATE

10/0212018

PAGE 20 of21

person designated to provide assistance to the inmate, and may in the Committee's
discretion interview any person who may have information relevant to the Hearing.
(e) The Time Allowance Committee shall advise the inmate of any factual circumstances that
appear to support a determination not to recommend the granting of the total time
allowance authorized, and shall afford the inmate the opportunity to comment thereon and
to make any statement he or she may care to submit in respect to his or her time
allowance .

(f) Vvhere the Time Allowance Committee is satisfied , after hearing the inmate , that the
record of the proceeding contains substantial evidence in support of a determination not to
grant the total allowance authorized , they shall set the amount of time they will
recommend to be withheld and shall so advise the Superintendent as provided for in
§ 261 .3(d) of this Part.
(g) In any case where the Time Allowance Committee is not satisfied , after considering all
available evidence , that the record of the proceeding contained substantial evidence to
support the determination not to grant the total allowance authorized , they shall
recommend the granting of a total allowance authorized and shall so advise the
Superintendent as provided for in § 261 .3(d) of this Part.
(h) A written report, including a statement of the reasons for the recommendation , shall be
provided to the inmate following review by the Superintendent and by the Commissioner or
designee.

Part 262 Granting of Time Allowances

§ 262.1 Procedure for Granting Good Behavior Allowances.
(a) After consideration of the file by the Committee , and after fulfilling any other requirements
set forth in this subchapter, the Committee shall make a recommendation to the
Superintendent as to the amount of good behavior allowance to be accorded to the
inmate .
(b) The Superintendent shall promptly review the report of the Committee and shall endorse
any comments he or she may deem appropriate thereon and immediately forward the
report of the Committee and comments, if any , to the Commissioner or designee.
(c) The Commissioner or designee will then transmit to the Superintendent an order either
confirming or modifying the amount of time to be granted , or remand the matter back to
committee for re-evaluation and a Hearing in accordance with§ 261.4
The time allowance specified in the final order of the Commissioner or designee shall be
the good behavior allowance to be granted to the inmate. The grant of the good behavior
allowance shall be contingent on the inmate's continued good behavior, efficient and
willing performance of duties assigned , and progress and achievement in an assigned
treatment program . The inmate shall be given a copy of this determination promptly.

Part 263 Stay of Good Behavior
§ 263.1 Stay of Good Behavior Allowance.
Between the time a decision has been made with respect to good behavior allowance and
the time that an inmate would be eligible for parole consideration or for cond itional or other
release, the award of any good behavior allowance that has been granted shall be stayed
and such allowance shall be suspended as provided by§ 263.2 of this Part.

§ 263.2 Procedure for Stay of Good Behavior Allowance.

20

DATE

NO 4932, Chapter V, Standards Behavior & Allowances
10/02/2018
PAGE 21 of 21

(a) Superintendent's Hearing .
(1) The decision directing that a misbehavior report be heard in a Superintendent's
Hearing against an inmate shall stay the award of any good behavior allowance
that has been granted such inmate , and such allowance shall be suspended and
of no force and effect until a final decision has been made in the Superintendent's
Hearing .
(2) At the conclusion of the Hearing, if the disposition does not involve loss of good
behavior allowance, the allowance previously granted shall be reinstated .
(3) Where the disposition does involve loss of good behavior allowance, and the
inmate has an approved conditional release date earlier than his or her maximum
expiration date, the disposition shall automatically be reviewed by the
Commissioner or designee.
(4) If the Hearing decision is affirmed , the recommended loss of good behavior
allowance shall be applied to the inmate's conditional release date. Any
modification or other decision rendered by the Commissioner or designee shall be
applied as specified in such decision. The inmate shall be given a copy of this
determination promptly.
(b) Disregard for statutory criteria .
(1) If an inmate who has been granted a good behavior allowance subsequently acts
in disregard of the statutory criteria for good behavior allowances (i.e., good
behavior, efficient and willing performance of duties assigned, and progress and
achievement in an assigned treatment program) , the Superintendent may direct
the Time Allowance Committee to conduct a Hearing in accordance with § 261.4
of this Chapter to reconsider the amount of good time to be granted .
(2) The provisions of Part 262 and 263 shall apply after any Hearing conducted
pursuant to this subdivision.

21

Appendix 23: Expert’s Vita

Vita
Niall Bolger

Office Address

Home Address

Department of Psychology
406 Schermerhorn Hall
Columbia University
New York, NY 10027
(212) 854-9034
E-mail : bolger@psych.columbia.edu
Laboratory Website: http://www.columbia.edu/~nb2229/

Education
Postdoctoral Fellow

(1987-89)

University of Michigan

Ph.D.

Psychology

(1987)

Cornell University

M.S.

Psychology

(1984)

Cornell University

Diploma Statistics

(1981)

Trinity College Dublin

B.A.

(1980)

Trinity College Dublin

Psychology

Employment History
Chairperson

Department of Psychology, Columbia University, 20I0-2013

Professor

Department of Psychology, Columbia University, 2005-

Associate Professor

Social Psychology Program, Psychology Dept., New York University, 1997-2005

Assistant Professor

Social-Personality Program, Psychology Dept., New York University, 1991-97

Assistant Professor

Quantitative and Social-Personality Programs, Psychology Dept., University of
Denver, 1989-91

Postdoctoral Fellow

Social Environment and Health Progi:am, Institute for Social Research,
University of Michigan, 1987-89

Research Assistant

Department of Social Psychology and Sociology, Economic and Social
Research Institute, Dublin, 1980-82

Research Interests
Statistical Models for Intensive Longitudinal Data
Social Psychology of Close Relationships
Stress, Coping, and Adjustment
Personality Processes

Teaching Experience
Linear Models (Graduate)
Mixed Models (Graduate)
Laboratory in Personality and Social Psychology (Undergraduate)
Social Psychology (Graduate and Undergraduate)
Health Psychology (Graduate and Undergraduate)
Adult Relationships (Graduate)

Professional Service
Member, Publications Committee, Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 2020Executive Committee, Society of Experimental Social Psychology, 2017-2019
Member, Social Psychology Review Panel, National Science Foundation, 2010-2013
Member, Publications Committee, American Psychological Society, 1994-1998
Member, Social and Group Processes Review Panel, National Institute of Mental Health, 1994-97
Consultant, McArthur Foundation Panel on Health Behavior, 1994
Program Co-Chair, Div. 38 (Health Psychology), American Psychological Association Annual Convention,
1993

Editorial Service
Associate Editor:

Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology: Interpersonal Relations and Group
Processes ( 1997-99)

Editorial Boards:

Psy chological Review (2001 -2007)
Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology: Interpersonal Relations and Group
Processes ( 1993-1999; 2002-)
Personal Relationships (1993-)
Health Psychology (1990-1992)
Social Psychology and Personality Science (2016-)
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Attitudes and Social Cognition (2019-

Professional Affiliations
American Statistical Association
American Psychological Society (Charter Member 1988; Fellow, 2003)
Society of Experimental Social Psychology (Fellow, 2009)
Society of Personality and Social Psychology (Fellow, 2014)
Society of Multivariate Experimental Psychology

2

Books
Bolger, N., & Laurenceau, J-P. (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and
experience sampling research. New York: Guilford.
Bolger, ., Caspi, A., Downey, G., & Moorehouse, M. (Eds.) (1988). Persons in context: Developmental
processes. New York: Cambridge University Press.

In Press
*Zee, K. S., Bolger,

. (in press). Physiological coregulation during social support discussions. Emotion.

*Goldring, M. R., Pinelli, F. , Bolger, N., & Higgins, E. T. (in press). Shared reality can reduce stressor
reactivity. Frontiers in Psychology.

Papers

[*Grad student or postdoc]

*Goldring, M. R., & Bolger, N. (2021). Physical effects of daily stressors are psychologically mediated,
heterogeneous, and bidirectional. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121 , 722-746.
doi : I0.1037/pspp0000396
*Goldring, M. R. , & Bolger, . (2021). Mood and judgment in a dyadic stress context. Emotion.
doi : I0.1037/emo0000938
*VanTieghem, M., Korom, M., Flannery, J., Choy, T., Caldera, C. , Humphreys, K. L., Bolger, ., &
Tottenham, N. (2021). Longitudinal changes in amygdala, hippocampus and cortisol development
following early caregiving adversity. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 48, 100916.
doi : I0.10 I 6/j.dcn2021 .100916
*Bermudez, T., Bolger, N., Bierbauer, W., Bernardo, A., Fleisch-Silvestri, R. , Hermann, M., ... Scholz, U.
(2021 ). Physical activity after cardiac rehabilitation: Explicit and implicit attitudinal components and
ambivalence. Health Psychology, 40(8), 491-501. doi: 10.103 7/hea000 1109
*Carter, T. J., Pandey, G., Bolger, N., Hassin, R.R. , & Ferguson, M. J. (2020). Has the effect of the
American flag on political attitudes declined over time? A case study of the historical context of
American flag priming. Social Cognition, 38(6), 489-520. doi: I 0.152 l/soco.2020.38.6.489
*Shu, J., Bolger, N., & Ochsner, K. N. (2020). Social emotion regulation strategies are differentially helpful
for anxiety and sadness. Emotion. doi: I 0.1037/emo000092 I
Uchino, B. N., Landvatter, J., Zee, K., & Bolger, N. (2020). Social support and antibody responses to
vaccination: A meta-analysis. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 54(8), 567-574.
doi: 10.1093/abm/kaaa029
Langer, S. L., Ghosh, N., Todd, M., Randall, A. K., Romano, J.M., Bricker, J.B., ... Porter, L. S. (2020).
Usability and acceptability of a smartphone app to assess partner communication, closeness, mood,
and relationship satisfaction: Mixed methods study. JM!R formative research, 4(7), e 14161-e 14161 .

3

doi: 10.2196/14161
*Rossignac-Milon, M ., Bolger, N., Zee, K. S., Boothby, E. J., & Higgins, E.T. (2020). Merged minds:
Generalized shared reality in dyadic relationships. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology.
doi: 10.1037/pspi0000266
*Reitz, A. K., Shrout, P. E., Denissen, J. J. A., Dufner, M., & Bolger, N. (2020). Self-esteem change during
the transition from university to work. Journal ofPersonality, 88(4), 689-702.
doi: l 0.11 l 1/jopy.12519
*Zee, K. S., Bolger, N., & Higgins, E.T. (2020). Regulatory effectiveness of social support. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000235
*Zee, K. S., & Bolger, N. (2020). Using coupled oscillators to examine physiological coregulation during
social support interactions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 55(1), 157-158.
doi: 10.1080/00273171.2019.1699392
Sunahara, C. S., Zelkowitz, P., Bolger, N., Sadikaj, G., Samuel, S., Gold, I., ... Bartz, J. A. (2019).
Maternal oxytocin predicts relationship survival during the perinatal transition period: Preliminary
evidence. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 136, 33-38.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2018.04.009
Bolger, N., & Zee, K. S. (2019). Heterogeneity in temporal processes: Implications for theories in health
psychology. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being. doi: I 0.1111/aphw.12159
*Jarvis, S. N., McClure, M. J., & Bolger, N. (2019). Exploring how exchange orientation affects conflict
and intimacy in the daily life of romantic couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
36(11-12), 3575-3587. doi:10.l 177/0265407519826743
*Zee, K. S., & Bolger, N . (2019). Visible and invisible social support: How, why, and when. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 28(3), 314-320. doi: 10.1177/0963721419835214
Bolger, N., Zee, K. S., Rossignac-Milon, M., & Hassin, R.R. (2019). Causal processes in psychology are
heterogeneous. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(4), 601-618.
doi: 10.1037/xge0000558
Langer, S. L., Romano, J . M., Todd, M ., Strauman, T. J., Keefe, F . J., Syrjala, K. L., ... Porter, L. S.
(2018). Links between communication and relationship satisfaction among patients with cancer and
their spouses: Results of a fourteen-day smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment study.
Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1843-1843. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01843
Shrout, P . E., Stadler, G., Lane, S. P., McClure, M. J. , Jackson, G. L., Clavel, F. D., ... Bolger, N. (2018).
Initial elevation bias in subjective reports. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115,
El5-E23. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1712277115
*Zee, K. S., Cavallo, J. V ., Flores, A. J. , Bolger, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2018). Motivation moderates the
effects of social support visibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. doi:
10.1037/pspi0000l 19
*Vuorre, M ., & Bolger, N . (2017). Within-subject mediation analysis for experimental data in cognitive

4

psychology and neuroscience. Behavior Research Methods. doi : 10.3758/s13428-017-0980-9
*Berti, C., Stadler, G., Shrout, P. E., Bolger, N., & Scholz, U. (2017). Mediators of Physical Activity
Adherence: Results from an Action Control Intervention in Couples. Annals ofBehavioral Medicine.
doi: 10.1007/sl2160-0l 7-9923-z
*Berli, C., Bolger, N., Shrout, P. E., Stadler, G., & Scholz, U. (2017). Interpersonal Processes of Couples'
Daily Support for Goal Pursuit: The Example of Physical Activity. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin. doi: 10. ll 77/0146167217739264
*lnauen, J. , Bolger, N. , Shrout, P. E., Stadler, G., Amrein, M., Rackow, P., & Scholz, U. (2017). Using
Smartphone-Based Support Groups to Promote Healthy Eating in Daily Life: A Randomised Trial.
Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 9, 303- 323. doi: 10.1111/aphw.12093
*Dore, B., & Bolger, N. (2017). Population- and Individual-Level Changes in Life Satisfaction Surrounding
Major Life Stressors. Social Psychological and Personality Science. doi:
10.1177/1948550617727589
*Iida, M., Gleason, M., Green-Rapaport, A. S., Bolger, N., & Shrout, P. E. (2017). The influence of daily
coping on anxiety under examination stress: A model of interindividual differences in intraindividual
change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. doi: 10.1177/0146167217700605
Dwyer, L.A., Bolger, N ., Laurenceau, J.-P., Patrick, H., Oh, A. Y., Nebeling, L. C., & Hennessy, E. (2017).
Autonomous Motivation and Fruit/Vegetable Intake in Parent- Adolescent Dyads. American Journal
ofPreventive Medicine, 52, 863-871. doi: httns://doi.ornll0.1016/i.ameore.2017.01.011
*VanTieghem, M . R., Gabard-Durnam, L., Goff, B., Flannery, J., Humphreys, K. L., Telzer, E. H., Caldera,
C., Louie, J.Y., Shapiro, M., Bolger, N., & Tottenham, N. (2017). Positive valence bias and parentchild relationship security moderate the association between early institutional caregiving and
internalizing symptoms. Development and Psychopathology, 29, 519-533. doi:
10. l017/S09545794l 7000153
*lnauen, J., Shrout, P. E., Bolger, N ., Stadler, G. , & Scholz, U. (2016). Mind the gap? An intensive
longitudinal study of between-person and within-person intention-behavior relations. Annals of
Behavioral Medicine 50, 516-522. doi : 10.1007/sl2160-016-9776-x
*Prevost, C., Bolger, ., & Mobbs, D. (2016). Associative self-anchoring interacts with obtainability of
chosen objects. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 2012. doi : I 0.3389/fpsyg.2015.02012
*Olsson, A., McMahon, K. , Papenberg, G., Zaki, J., Bolger, N., & Ochsner, K. N . (2016). Vicarious fear
learning depends on empathic appraisals and trait empathy. Psychological Science, 27, 25-33. doi:
10.1177/0956797615604124
Bartz, J. A., Lydon, J.E., Kolevzon, A., Zaki, J., Hollander, E., Ludwig, N., & Bolger, N. (2015) .
Differential effects of oxytocin on agency and communion for anxiously and avoidantly attached
individuals. Psychological Science, 26, 1177-1186. doi: 10.1177/0956797615580279
*Aguilar, L., Downey, G., Krauss, R., Pardo, J., Lane, S., & Bolger, N. (2015). A dyadic perspective on
speech accommodation and social connection: both partners' rejection sensitivity matters. Journal of
Personality, 83. doi: 10.1 l l 1/jopy.12149

5

*Atlas, L. Y ., Lindquist, M.A., Bolger, N ., & Wager, T. D . (2014). Brain mediators of the effects of
noxious beat on pain. Pain, 155, 1632-1648.
Wilson, P . A ., Stadler, G ., Boone, M . R., & Bolger, N. (2014). Fluctuations in depression and well-being
are associated with sexual risk episodes among HIV-positive men. Health Psychology. 33. doi:
10.1037/a0035405
*McClure, M. J., Xu, J. H., Lane, S. P., Bolger, N., & Shrout, P. E. (2014). Understanding the costs of
support transactions in daily life. Journal ofPersonality, 82, 563-574.
*Stadler, G., Robbins, M . L. , Laurenceau, J.-P., & Bolger, N . (2013). Longitudinal methods in the health
sciences: Four recommendations. The European Health Psychologist, 15, 57-66.
*Olsson, A., Carmona, S., Downey, G., Bolger, N., & Ochsner, K. N. (2013). Learning biases underlying
individual differences in sensitivity to social rejection. Emotion, 13, 616-621. doi:
10.1037/a0033150
*Wan, M ., Bolger, N., & Champagne, F. A. (2012). Human perception of fear in dogs varies according to
experience with dogs. PLoS ONE, 7, e51775. doi: 10.1371 /journal.pone.0051775
*Stadler, G ., Snyder, K. , A., Hom, A. B., Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2012). Close relationships and health
in daily life: A review and empirical data on intimacy and somatic symptoms. Psychosomatic
Medicine, 74, 398-409.
*Iida, M., Shrout, P. E., Laurenceau, J.-P., & Bolger, N . (2012). Using diary methods in psychological
research. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T . Panter, D. Rindskopf & K . J. Sher (Eds.),
APA handbook ofresearch methods in psychology, Vol l : Foundations, planning, measures, and
psychometrics (pp. 277-305). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
*Bartz, J. A., Zaki, J., Bolger, N., & Ochsner, K. N. (2011). Social effects ofoxytocin in humans: Context
matters. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 301-309.
Bolger, N., Stadler, G. & Laurenceau, J.-P. (2011). Power analysis for diary and intensive longitudinal
studies. In M. R. Mehl & T. S. Conner (Eds.), Handbook ofresearch methods for studying daily
life (pp. 285-30 I). New York: Guilford.
Laurenceau, J.-P., & Bolger, N. (2011). Analyzing diary and intensive longitudinal data from dyads. In
M. R. Mehl & T . S. Conner (Eds.), Handbook of research methods for studying daily life (pp.
407-422). New York: Guilford.
*Bartz, J., Zaki, J., Ochsner, K., N., Bolger, N ., Kolevzon, A., Ludwig, N., Lydon, J. (2010). Effects of
oxytocin on recollections of maternal care and closeness. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 107, 21371- 21375.
*Atlas, L. Y., Bolger, N., Lindquist, M.A., Wager, T. D. (2010) Brain mediators of predictive cue effects
on perceived pain. Journal of Neuroscience. 30, 12964-12977
*Bartz, J., Zaki, J., Bolger, N. & Ochsner, K. (2010) Oxytocin selectively improves empathic accuracy.
Psychological Science, 21 , 1426-1428

6

Shrout, P. E., Bolger, N., Iida, M., Burke, C. T., Gleason, M. E. J., & Lane, S. (2010). The effects of daily
support transactions during acute stress: Results from a daily diary study of bar exam preparation.
In K. T. Sullivan & J. Davila (Eds.), Support processes in intimate relationships (pp. 175-199).
New York: Oxford.
Ames, D. R., Kammrath, L. K. Suppes, A., and Bolger, N. (2010). Not so fast: The (not-quite-complete)
dissociation between accuracy and confidence in thin slice impressions. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 36, 264 - 277.
Bolger, N., Stadler, G., Paprocki, C., & DeLongis, A. (2010). Grounding social psychology in behavior in
daily life: The case of conflict and distress in couples. In C. Agnew, D. E. Carlston, W. G.
Graziano & J.E. Kelly (Eds.), Then a miracle occurs: Focusing on behavior in social
psychological theory and research (pp. 368-390). New York: Oxford University Press.
*Zaki, J., Weber, J., Bolger, N., & Ochsner, K. (2009). The neural bases of empathic accuracy.
Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences, 106, 11382-11387.
*Zaki, J., Bolger, N., & Ochsner, K. (2009). Unpacking the informational bases of empathic accuracy.
Emotion, 9, 478-487.
*Gleason, M. E. J. , Iida, M,, Bolger, N., & Shrout, P. E. (2008) Is receiving support a mixed blessing?
Evidence for dual effects of support on psychological outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 94, 824-838.
*Rafaeli, E., Cranford, J. A., Green, A. S., Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2008). The good and bad of
relationships: How social hindrance and social support affect relationship feelings in daily life.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1703-1718.
*Burke, C. T., Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2008). Bereavement as a potential turning point: Modeling
between-person variability in adjustment to conjugal loss. In P. Cohen (Ed.), Applied data
analytic techniques for turning points research . New York: Psychology Press.
*Iida, M ., Seidman, G., Shrout, P. E., Fujita, K. & Bolger, N. (2008) A model of support provision in
intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 460-4 78.
*Zaki, J., Bolger, N, & Ochsner, K. (2008) It takes two: The interpersonal nature of empathic accuracy.
Psychological Science, 19, 399-404.
Bolger, N., & Romero-Canyas, R. (2007). Integrating personality traits and processes: Framework,
method, analysis, results. In Y. Shoda, D. Cervone & G. Downey (Eds.), Persons in context:
Building a science of the individual (pp. 201 -210). New York: Guilford.
*Burke, C. T., Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2007). Individual differences in adjustment to spousal loss: A
nonlinear mixed model analysis. International Journal ofBehavioral Development, 31 , 405-415.
Bolger, N., & Shrout, P. E. (2007). Accounting for statistical dependency in longitudinal data on dyads.
In T. D. Little, J. A. Bovaird & N. A. Card (Eds.), Modeling ecological and contextual effe cts in
longitudinal studies ofhuman development (285-298). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

7

Bolger, N., & Amarel, D. (2007). Effects of support visibility on adjustment to stress: Experimental
evidence. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 92,458-475.
Carnelley, K. B., Wortman, C. B. , Bolger, N., & Burke, C. (2006). The time course of adjustment to
widowhood: Evidence from a national probability sample. Journal ofPersonality and Social
Psychology, 91, 476-492.
*Cranford, J., Shrout, P. E., Rafaeli, E., Yip, T., Iida, M., & Bolger, N. (2006). A procedure for evaluating
sensitivity to within-person change: Can mood measures in diary studies detect change reliably?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 917-929.
Bolger, N., Shrout, P . E., Green, A. S., Rafaeli, E., & Reis, H. T. (2006). Paper or plastic revisited: Let's
keep them both. Psychological Method,;, I I, 123-125.
*Green, A. S., Rafaeli, E., Bolger, N., & Shrout, P. E. (2006). Paper or plastic? Data equivalence in paper
and electronic diaries. Psychological Methods, 11, 87-105.
Shrout, P. E., Hermann, C. M., & Bolger, N. (2006). The costs and benefits of practical and emotional
support on adjustment: a daily diary study of couples experiencing acute stress. Personal
Relationships, 13, 115-134.
*Seidman, G., Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2006). Why is enacted social support associated with increased
distress? Using simulation to test two possible sources of spuriousness. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 32, 52-65.
*London, B., Downey, G., Bolger, N., & Velilla, E. (2006). A framework for studying social identity and
coping with daily stress during the transition to college. In G. Downey, J. S. Eccles & C. M.
Chatman (Eds.), Navigating the.future: Social identity, coping, and life tasks (pp. 45-63). New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Laurenceau, J.-P., & Bolger, N . (2005). Using diary methods to study marital and family processes.
Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 86-97.
Trope, Y., Gervey, B., & Bolger, N. (2003). The role of perceived control in overcoming defensive selfevaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 39, 407--419.
Kenny, D. A., & Korchmaros, J., & Bolger, N. (2003). Lower-level mediation in multilevel models.
Psychological Methods, 8, 115-128
Pomerantz, E. M. , Ruble, D. M., & Bolger, N. (2003). Taking a developmental approach to understanding
social psychological phenomena. In C. Sansone, C. C. Morf & A. T. Panter (Eds., The Sage
handbook of methods in social psychology (pp. 405-425). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
*Gleason, M. E. J., Iida, M., Shrout, P. & Bolger, N. (2003). Support in close relationships: The effects of
giving and receiving on mood and intimacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 10361045.
Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review of
Psychology, 54, 579-616.

8

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Assessing mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New
procedures and recommendations. Psychologi,cal Methods, 7, 422-445.
*Kennedy, J . K., Bolger, N., & Shrout, P. E. (2002) . Witnessing interparental psychological aggression in
childhood: Implications for daily conflict in adult intimate relationships. Journal ofPersonality, 70,
1051-1077.
Kenny, D. A., Bolger, N., & Kashy, D. (2002). Traditional methods for estimating multilevel models. In
D.S. Moskowitz & S. L. Hershberger {Eds.) Modeling intraindividual variability in repeated
measures data: methods and applications (pp.1-24). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Alvarez, J.M., Ruble, D. M. , & Bolger, N . (2001). Trait understanding or evaluative reasoning? An
analysis of children's behavioral predictions. Child Development, 72, 1409-1425.
Bolger, N., Zuckerman, A ., & Kessler, R. C. (2000). Invisible support and adjustment to stress. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 71 , 953 -961 .
Thompson, A., & Bolger, N. (1999). Emotional transmission in couples under stress. Journal ofMaffiage
and the Family, 61, 38-48.
Kenny, D. A. , Kashy, D., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske,
and G. Lindzey {Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 233-265). New York: McGrawHill.
Bolger, N. , Foster, M.,Vinokur, A. D. , & Ng, R. (1996). Close relationships and adjustment to a life crisis:
The case of breast cancer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 283-294.
Bolger, N. & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying personality in the stress process. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 890-902.
Eckenrode, J. & Bolger, N. (1995). Daily and withfo-day event measurement. In S. Cohen, R. C. Kessler,
and L. G. Gordon (Eds.) Measuring stress: A guide for health and social scientists (pp. 80-101).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Bolger, N. & Kelleher, S. (1993). Daily life in relationships. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Social context and
relationships (pp. 100-109). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bolger, N., & Eckenrode, J. {1991). Social relationships, personality, and anxiety during a major stressful
event. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 61 , 440-449.
Bolger, ., & Schilling, E. A. (1991). Personality and the problems of everyday life: The role of
neuroticism in exposure and reactivity to daily stressors. Journal of Personality, 59, 355-386.
Walker, E., Downey, G., & Bolger, N. (1991). The prediction of suicidal risk in childhood. In R . J. Prinz
(Ed .) Advances in behavioral assessment of children and families (Vol. 5, pp. 1-29). London:
Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Bolger, N. (1990). Coping as a personality process: A prospective study. Journal ofPersonality and Social
Psychology, 59, 525-537.

9

Bolger, N., & Kellaghan, T. (1990). Method of measurement and gender differences in scholastic
achievement. Journal ofEducational Measurement, 27, 165-174.
Moen, P., Downey, G., & Bolger, N. (1990). Labor force re-entry among U.S. homemakers: A life course
analysis. Gender and Society, 4, 230-243.
Coyne, J.C., & Bolger, N. (1990). Doing without social support as an explanatory concept. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 148-158.
Bolger, N ., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R. C., & Wethington, E. (1990). The microstructure of daily role-related
stress in married couples. In J. Eckenrode & S. Gore (Eds.), Stress between work and family (pp.
95-115). New York: Plenum.
Bolger, N ., DeLongis, A., & Kessler, R. C., & Schilling, E. A. (1989). Effects of daily stress on negative
mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 808-818.
Bolger, N., Downey, G. , Walker, E., & Steininger, P. (1989). The onset of suicidal ideation in childhood
and adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 18, 175-190.
Bolger, N ., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R. C., & Wethington, E. (1989). The contagion of stress across multiple
roles. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 51, 175-183.
Eckenrode, J., Powers, J., Doris, J. , Munsch, J., & Bolger, N. (1988). Substantiation of child abuse and
neglect reports. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 9-16.
Caspi, A., Bolger, N., & Eckenrode, J. (1987). Linking person and context in the daily stress process.
Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 52, 184-195.
Kain, E. L., & Bolger, N. (1986). Social change and women's work and family experience in Ireland and
the United States. Social Science History, JO, 171 -193.
Savin-Williams, R., Bolger, N., & Spinola (1986). Social interactions of adolescent girls during sports
activity: Age and sex role influences. Journal of Early Adolescence, 6, 67-75.

10