1. Jail operations final reprt - Laserfiche WebLink

The consultants arrived at several findings based upon their observations. First, it appears the most severe vandalism were isolated events precipitated by two very difficult inmates and failure of detention shelf fixtures under extreme attack. The shelves provided a heavy sharp instrument to attack the glass. There is no indication of wide spread vandalism throughout the facility. The immediate response to the vandalism events was appropriate - secure the area, contain the problem, call for assistance. When the dayroom windows were broken, the emergency response took less than five minutes. By the time additional staff arrived, the perpetrator had a~ready stopped vandalizing the windows and returned to his ce~l when told to do so. Another disciplinary action was taken against the inmate and the inmate was filaced under additional restrictions in an attempt to control his behavior. Progressive discipline was unsuccessful, that is, unlike most inmates, the perpetrators where given successively more serious punishments for their actions but it did not dissuade them from further vandalism.2 However, their behaviors were contained in their housing area. Although there was considerable damage done by the perpetrators, they were unable to escape from their assigned area, other facility operations were not disrupted, overall facility security was never jeopardized and there were no Injuries to staff or other inmates. The perpetrator of the incident suffered a minor lip injury requiring two stitches. The consultants found ~ wide spread or atypical inmate unrest in the facility indicating a "riotous" condition or the facility being "out-of-control." As noted earlier, the housing pods appeared quiet and orderly, inmate behavior appeared compliant. There Is no validity to the newspaper headline, which implied a riot was probable. Operational problems do exist and should be further verified and addressed as quickly as possible. The most serious problem is inconsistency between staff that causes problems between staff and between staff and inmates. z Within four days of his confinement, one of the two perpetrators was involved in being disrespectful to jail staff and received a verbal warning. Shorgy thereafter this inmate refused to go into his assigned cell and took food from food trays on the food cart. He received Iockdown time in his assigned cell. Later, he destroyed a food tray by pounding it on the toilet and threatened staff. He received Iockdown in disciplinary segregation for seven days, loss of privileges, sack lunches, End was ordered to make restitution for the broken tray. He subsequently wes involved in the vandalism to the shelves, dEmage to windows, and destroying other trays. He is currently in isolation In disciplinary detention. He continues to be disruptive by attempting to damage the inside of his cell and by plugging the roi]et and/or sink with toilet pEper to flood the cell. Most recently he broke the sprinkler head in his cell End h~d to be forcibly removed by the cell extraction team and carried to the padded cell in booking. He hES received sanctions in disciplinary Iockdown well into 2003. Cass County Jail Project 6